A Consensus about the Census Con

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.

- Autobiography of Mark Twain

A Consensus on the Census Con

Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann recently made a statement to the media that she and her family would not be cooperating with the 2010 U.S. Census in answering most of the census questions. Bachmann fears the possible participation by ACORN in census taking, expressing two concerns:

1. She fears that the information requested by the Census Bureau exceeds the mandate of the constitution, and the questions are therefore improper.

2. Bachmann fears that ACORN will act as part of a conspiracy to provide false information to the Census Bureau so the data will be altered, changing the proper redistricting that would result from the correct census figures, and changing the resulting electoral votes.

Rep. Bachmann as a practicing attorney, a litigating attorney for the United States Treasury department for five years, should know that there have been multiple court challenges over the history of the Census to the various aspects of their legality. Certainly with her legal background she is capable of a more informed opinion.

Unlike the few people working for ACORN out of more than 13,000 who did not accurately fill out voter registrations for the 2008 election, census takers have to pass a proficiency test AND a background test, (which I understand is conducted by the FBI). Not one instance of fraudulent voting was ever connected to ACORN, so no results were changed in any election - including Minnesota's.

There are also multiple processes in place to verify the census data. Those processes involved in verification are far too numerous and extensive to be listed here, but they can be found under 2010 operations and FAQ at the Census website.

It would be extremely difficult, as well as risky, to attempt to alter the census data, an important fact which of course Bachmann also omits.

Given that the data from the Census is so very private - I could find no single case where confidentiality had been breached OR data altered by a census taker - we will never know if Ms. Bachmann actually completes the questions or not. This year, the short form is being used, with fewer questions than the previous census.

Well, strictly speaking that is not quite true about privacy. The data IS made public, but only 72 years after the census is completed, in the case of the 2010 census, in 2082. Ms. Bachmann will no doubt, at approximately 125 years of age - given she was born in 1956 - be long dead, and so will a majority of the rest of us who are adults now (or we will be too old to care).

Rep. Bachmann has a long and colorful career of getting facts wrong. Both factcheck.org, and politifact.org cite instances (including the assertion about money going to ACORN from the Stimulus Bill) as false - one of her 'facts' rates a 'pants on fire', and no statements which are true. Because Bachmann rarely if ever gets her facts straight. Politifact has give her statements about ACORN and the Census not one but TWO "pants on fire" ratings, their most extreme standard for falsification.

She earned a JD from the now defunct Coburn School of Law, part of Oral Roberts University, where the website makes the following statements,
under Whole Person Assessment:

"ORU helps you become spiritually alive, intellectually alert, physically disciplined, socially adept and professionally competent."

Does that sound to you consistent with getting so many facts wrong?

Rep. Bachmann has an LLM degree from the College of William and Mary, whose website states in part, under Academics:

"William and Mary is an academic powerhouse. Our undergraduate and graduate students choose W&M because of its celebrated liberal arts tradition and commitment to hands-on, original research. They know they'll work hard and that their uncommon efforts will be personally, academically and professionally rewarding."


All that "hands-on, original research" surely doesn't sound very consistent with those factual errors either.

I was not particularly familiar with an LLM degree, which stands for Legum Magister (feminine Magistra) but it is described as an advanced academic or research degree in Law. All of which taken together with Ms. Bachmann's startling pattern of errors of fact in her many highly publicized, one might say notorious statements, suggest not that Ms. Bachmann is simply stupid, but the contrary.

It suggests a pattern of disinformation rather than misinformation. Misinformation is simply errors in fact. Disinformation is an intentional strategy or tactic of misleading and deceiving people, usually associated with governmental, political, or military actions.

That Ms. Bachmann regards the attention she receives from these disinformative statements as a "Badge of Honor" further suggests these are intentional deceptions, deliberately inflammatory and unethical. Fear mongering poor, lazy, ignorant slobs politely characterized as the "low information voter", people who do not critically think, who are too lazy or ignorant to question what they hear so long as it appears to conform to an ideology that they follow blindly.

Contributing to the fear and misinformation campaign promoted by Bachmann is the effort of Chairman Michael Steele in a widely disseminated RNC email, quoted here in part:

"It seems the Obama Administration has plans to rig the Census results.

President Obama's old friends from ACORN, the leftist, urban "community" organization with a long history of promoting vote fraud, has been chosen by the Administration as a "partner" with the Census Bureau to determine population counts in cities around the country.

With this group's track record of coming up with countless fraudulent voter registrations in heavily Democrat areas to sway elections to ultra-liberals, you can be sure they'll be manipulating population numbers as well.
And after receiving millions in political payback from the Democrats' recently passed "Stimulus" Bill, ACORN's community organizers are eager to once again take action to aid their old friend in the White House. "

Except that ACORN did not receive millions in the recently passed Stimulus Bill. And partnering with the Census Bureau, along with many other organizations, does not involve collecting census data.

What is partnering with the Census Bureau for the 2010 Census?

That is an easy question to answer; all you have to do is to go to the official online website at http://www.census.gov/, where it clearly explains in the following quote taken from their section on partnering 2010:

"What is a Partner?2010 Census Partners are government, non-profit, corporate or community organizations that have formally pledged their commitment to share the 2010 Census message and mobilize their constituents in support of the Census Bureau's goal of achieving a complete count.
How can my organization become a 2010 Census Partner?To become an official regional/local level 2010 Census partner, please telephone the Census Bureau's, Regional Census Center [PDF] that serves your area. To become an official national level partner, please email clmso.2010.census.partners.list@census.gov "

ACORN is not asking people to answer the 2010 Census questions. People who are hired and trained by the Census Bureau go door to door asking those questions. The Census Bureau takes a variety of measures to ensure confidentiality, and according to the website, there is a considerable penalty for violation:

"It is against the law to publish or disclose any data that identifies an individual or company – no names, no addresses, no Social Security numbers. Violating the law is a federal crime with serious penalties, including a prison sentence of up to five years and a $250,000 fine."

The other little fact that both Steele and Bachmann omit is that the only documented attempts to abuse the privacy of the Census data - at least, that I was able to locate - were by the FBI, which between 1939 - 1941 used data to identify individuals for the 1941 internment of Japanese-Americans; and an attempt in 1980 by the FBI to confiscate data that was blocked by the courts.

The rounding up of Japanese aliens and Japanese-Americans under an executive order from President Franklin Roosevelt was upheld by a 1944 Supreme Court decision, and later it was overturned by a District Court in the 1980s when it turned out the government had lied about the justification for the internments through "willful historical inaccuracies and intentional falsehoods". While it is true that census data did contribute to the round-up and internment, it was hardly the only resource for it. The areas where such round-ups occurred varied dramatically from one part of the country to another. Had the Census data not been available, I doubt that either the round-up or subsequent internment would have been avoided; some other method would have been used instead.

It is worth noting that the motivation for the round-ups and interments was FEAR. While Rep. Bachmann has expressed a paranoid concern about the possible creation of Stalin-style 're-education camps' as part of a public service program, there is no plausible indication that answering the Census questions will lead to Ms. Bachmann or anyone else being 'interned' in such a place.

If the FBI cannot take control of the data, is it REALLY plausible to be worried about ACORN? Of course not; it's not scary, it's just stupid.

Steele goes on in his widely disseminated official RNC email rant to say:

"If the Democrats and their friends at ACORN have their way, the Census will only "estimate" state populations and therefore be subject to political calculations. And surely their estimate will be far higher than the actual number of people, and voters, present. "

This paragraph presumably refers to the Supreme Court decision, Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (20002), which upheld the legality of a statistical technique, hot deck imputation. Using hot deck imputation, Utah lost a representative to Congress; and North Carolina would have lost a Congressional representative had the technique not been used.

This has nothing to do with the influence of the current residents of the White House or the Obama administration - which didn't exist when the court made its ruling. And it clearly has nothing to do with ACORN either.

Steele next goes on in his RNC email to state:

"We must not let the Democrats and their radical leftist allies falsify the U.S. Census and manipulate elections in their favor. Our democracy, and the principle of "One Person, One Vote" are in jeopardy.

Please help the Republican Party's effort to spread the word about the Obama Democrats' misuse of power and plans to end free and fair elections. Support our effort to get the word out about this threat and ensure an accurate, non-partisan Census by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the Republican National Committee today.

Your gift will also help support the recruitment and election of principled candidates who will defeat the Democrats in 2010 and pave the way to send Barack Obama packing in 2012."

Here we get to the heart of the "CON", the swindle, the attempt to manipulate, deceive, in order to raise money through fear and intentional misinformation. Every bit as much as a two-bit hustler, just better dressed, and with a bigger mailing list. I would hope that all of us, regardless of ideology or belief, object to lying, to conniving, to deception and falsification, and most of all, to manipulation. Do not give these people your trust, your confidence, your support and most of all do not give them any of your money or your votes.

Do not fear too quickly or too easily.

Do not be manipulated - by anyone.

DO question what you are told - by everyone regardless of politics and idealogy. Be critical of the logic, verify the information from objective sources. There are many fact checking resources available through the internet. Use them wisely - and often.

A Party of Clay

A quote from DogGone - from Theoretikos, by Oscar Wilde:
"THIS mighty empire hath but feet of clay: Of all its ancient chivalry and might Our little island is forsaken quite"


South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admitted to an affair yesterday. This is the same Governor who had condemned, time and again, actions by those who didn't value the family, those who didn't value the sanctity of marriage. He was an unrelenting, virulent voice against Bill Clinton, calling repeatedly for his impeachment or resignation.

He was caught, he didn't admit to it willingly, by reporters as he walked off his plane from Buenos Aires.

He had four visits to Buenos Aires paid for by the tax payers. He betrayed many, including his wife, who funded his campaigns in part, she was his campaign manager, she had four children with him.

He lied to his staff, he lied to his friends about his conduct, including his closest friends. He disappeared for nearly a week when he had responsibilities in his state.

There is nothing to be proud of about having an affair, yet, there is nothing that requires his political career to be over because of an affair, yet there is everything which ought to end his political career if he is to be consistent with the unforgiving, unyielding, and completely without understanding attitude HE had, and his party has, about everyone elses indiscretions.

This Grand Old Party, most especially the 'social conservatives' within it, condemn those who have abortions as sluts, say God kills Americans as retribution for the conduct of gays, and have no forgiveness for anyone who is in any other party, yet they of course frequently fail to be 'perfect' as well. In fact, if anything, they live less well harnessed by the unreal 'girdle' of pefection than many others. The reality is that their leaders, time and again, are found to have been cheating on their wives (Gingrich, Ensign, Livingston, Sanford, etc..), or to secretly be homosexual (which is no sin, nor is there anything wrong with it) - such as Mark Craig, Tom Haggerty or Mark Foley. It also has had it's chief spokesman (Rush Limbaugh) become a drug addict, a likely criminal (by getting his maid to 'shop' for his drugs), and had him travel to the Caribbean, where prostitution is legal, to go on a 'sex vacation.'

This party demands purity, which is of course unattainable, and so they wind up putting up charades as leaders. No one can live to ideals of never being tempted, and while they undoubtedly would say "of course we know people are tempted, people are human", they won't and don't actually apply that idea of grace to anyone who is a political opponent. Feet of clay are fatal to them if you aren't in the GOP, and mostly even if you are (of course not always as Gingrich and George Bush clearly show).

In short, they demand their leaders live up to a standard which is nearly impossible, and worse. demand that same lie from everone else. They beat their chests at their 'purity', they scream their righteousness from the rooftops, and condemn anyone who disagrees as not worthy of concern because they are dirty, mongrels, scum, and worse. They demand a lie from their leaders and force that same lie upon society.

First Comes Love, Then Comes Marriage, then...

Sometimes.

We are all familiar with the childhood chant used to embarrass kids who might like each other, in that stage of life where we considered the opposite gender to have cooties.

When I first heard the words that form a version of the ring exchange section of the Church of England wedding service, I was taken by the expressive romantic poetry of them. Variously those words are (in part):

"With my body I honour you,
all that I am I give to you,
and all that I have I share with you,"

another version uses the even more erotic wording:

"with my body, I thee worship".

In the proclamation phase of the wedding service, the Church of England takes the position that the clergy does not marry the husband and wife; they marry each other. The role of the clergy is to direct the process and then to announce and proclaim that it has been concluded properly.

I find this an interesting observation to keep in mind when contemplating the current social discussions on both same-sex marriage, and the privatization of marriage. Some who hold to either a fundamentalist or conservative perspective, admit only one version of marriage to be correct, to be permitted, in a civilized society, to the vehement exclusion of all other possibilities. God is often marshaled in support of their thinking; they feel qualified to speak on His behalf in telling those who think differently how this institution should exist as an absolute.

Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli psychologist currently a professor at Princeton, recognized for his work in behavioral finance and hedonic economics. He is the 2002 Nobel Prize laureate for economics. I admire Kahneman's work for not only its brilliance, but its honesty. Kahneman developed the concept of visceral certainty to describe how he could feel himself so adamantly correct in his thinking, when objective evidence and the opinions of others indicated he was wrong. Kahneman excels at identifying the gap between theory and ideal, and practice and objective reality.

In his spirit of examination, I decided to make my own attempt to rationally examine the subject of marriage. Taking a long range look in the sense of distance, at how marriages exist around the planet, and taking a long range look in the sense of time, at how marriages have existed in history, there seems to be a considerably larger range of relationships than the one embraced by conservatives and religious fundamentalists. While the existence of these differences is not in itself a guarantee that they are all equally correct, it does argue that we have as a species been very flexible in this context, and that there is no one single way for marriage to be defined to the exclusion of all possibilities.

While marriage can be entered into as a sacrament, we do accept as married those who do not solemnize their commitment through any religion. Even in the early Christian era, up until the mid-16th century with the edicts of the Council of Trent, clergy and religion were not a requirement. Prior to that, in Europe all that was required was the agreement, the verbum, for individuals to enter into the relationship. If the wording of the agreement was in the present tense, the individuals were married from that time forward; if in the future tense, they were engaged or betrothed only. Sometimes the agreement was recorded by the church, but it was not required to be either recorded by clergy or civil authority. In some versions of Judaism, the act of marrying another person means merging into one soul from two, a view of the necessity for marriage to achieve spiritual completeness that is shared with some other religions where there is very strong pressure to enter into marriage.

Over many centuries, in European culture and other cultures, marriage was neither a civil nor a religious agreement; it was purely a personal commitment and a kind of contract, which in large part regulated control of property. A form of this idea is currently advanced under the concept of privatization of marriage. In privatization, the roles of both the church and government would be minimalized, and the emphasis would shift to individual commitments and contracts. The recognition by some states of common law marriage, where the relationship is established by a couple living together as if they were married, would be an example of a marriage that was neither formalized by religious ceremony or by formal government license.

While marriage can be entered into for the purposes of having children, we do not require couples to reproduce, nor do we any longer penalize those who reproduce (or are born) without benefit of marriage the way we did at one time. Nor do we widely restrict the role of parent to heterosexual couples; in our society, parenting sometimes falls to grandparents, guardians, single individuals, and even same sex individuals and couples; they sometimes do a superior job over the heterosexual individuals in a monogamous relationship. Recognition is progressing that gender orientation or relationship status with another adult does not always equate to parenting ability or emotional or economic stability.

The argument is sometimes offered that marriage is recognized by society because it benefits it directly, providing stability and greater prosperity. The divorce rate and the resultant destabilizing effects of what amounts to serial monogamy would suggest that is not necessarily the case.

The element of time in connection with marriage is a particularly interesting one. While we, as a nation, nearly always enter into marriage with the intent of "til death us do part", we follow a variety of time tables in practice. It surprised me to discover that there are marriage rituals that do NOT define relationship in forever terms. For example, in some locations the Shi'ah form of Islam recognizes term marriages, as have other societies. Spouses agree to be temporarily husband and wife, an arrangement that is renewable; not so very different from those marriages where spouses elect to renew vows ceremonially, only more so.

An overview of marriage customs shows some interesting variations: so-called ghost or posthumous marriages, where a living person marries a dead person; levirate marriages, where a widow marries her husbands brother to perpetuate his bloodline, and the reverse, sororate marriage where the widower marries his late wife's sister, for the same purpose. There are so-called "walking marriages" where the spouses do not live together, but maintain separate residences. While this seems contrary to our notion of a typical nuclear family, in practice often one or both spouses may spend regular periods separated without any loss of commitment; it occurs regularly in military deployments, and often occurs in civilian life where one or both spouses routinely travel, such as over the road truck drivers, salesman, and our political representatives, with either one permanent and one temporary residence, or perhaps two permanent residences being maintained by fully committed married individuals.

Legally and officially, we do not treat all relationships or individuals fairly or equally. The concept of (anti) miscegenation laws is commonly understood to refer to laws which prohibit formalizing the mixing of different races, originating in part from a lack of understanding of the concept that whatever skin color we may present, we are the same species. What fewer people seem to know is that the first miscegenation laws in this country addressed not marriages of different races, but marriages between different classes. Indentured servants were prohibited from marrying their contract owners, because such marriages prematurely ended their labor service (at least, in theory). The current remaining restrictions prohibiting marriage tend to be age; consanguinity - too close a biological relationship, such as between siblings or in some but not all states, first cousins); plural marriage, either polygyny or polyandry, or group marriage (multiple of both husbands and wives); and gender, with a decreasing majority of states prohibiting same-sex marriages. The possibilities offered by genetic science to anticipate problems in offspring seem to be superseding at least some of the restrictions on how closely related parties can be in marriage; it is unlikely that closely incestuous relationships will ever be permitted. Given the variations in plural marriages around the world, and as advocated by a variety of religions, it would not surprise me to see the marriage limitation to two people eventually change, but not for a very long time.

There is the so-called marriage 'penalty', where the tax rate for married couples is higher than the tax rate for single individuals. We are having to examine how to make accommodation for the discrepancies where some states allow same-sex marriages but others do not - or in the case of California, did for a while, but do not now. Our federal government does not currently recognize the status of same sex marraiges. Even the District of Columbia, which has the unusual situation of not being a state, and not being the usual kind of municipality, is wrestling with how to deal with residents from the 50 different states having 50 different definitions of marriage. As much as some conservatives and liberals alike would like to accord the authority for marriage to state government, so long as we have federal issues, and conflicting state laws, this is problematic.

Given the difference in attitudes towards same sex marriage in younger adults compared to older adults, it seems a reasonable expectation that same sex marriage will eventually be fully accepted, and legally recognized. Even some religions are changing their position, arguing in response to the phrase "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", that God made Steve as well. The only remaining question to a wider acceptance of same sex marriages appears to be when - and where - not if.

I would argue that the intention and commitment of the two parties involved logically should define their relationship of marriage, in the form of a contractual agreement between them. The limitations of age that govern entering into other contracts would provide adequate protection for children not to be exploited by adults. It would allow for the participants to be of opposite or same gender, and it could be required as a contractual condition, that children that are part of that relationship, whether biologically or adoptively occurring, would be provided for by those spouses, both for support and for inheritance. The participants could choose if they wished to follow the dictates of their conscience through the teachings of whatever religion they profess, or none at all, if that is their choice.

It would permit the government to opt out of what is a divisive controversy at best, and to institute fairer and more equitable standardized treatment of individuals, regardless of their marital status. The intrusion of the government in different ways into the bedrooms of our society has never been a comfortable one for either the government, or the people into whose bedroom they intrude. It would offer a more sane, humane, and objective approach to an age old, much varied institution. Those who have a visceral certainty that they are right and everyone else is wrong - and that everyone else must be compelled to their way of doing things - are unlikely to ever consider any other options. But those who are thoughtful, and who have the integrity to recognize that they might be wrong no matter how right they feel, could do far worse than consider this possibility.

The Face of God?

(Author's note - I make no pretension of knowing God's mind - but rather am reflecting here my own feelings about what I think I am called to do.)



Author Glen Cook writes a series of books called the "Black Company." The books are about a mercenary band of hardened, ruthless, professional killers. At the conclusion, Glen has the ethically tormented primary character consider the nature of the collective human conscience:

"I am not religious. I cannot conceive of gods who would give a damn about humanity's frothy carryings-on. I mean, logically, beings of that order just wouldn't. But maybe there is a force for greater good, created by our unconscious minds conjoined, that becomes an independent power greater than the sum of its parts. Maybe, being a mindthing, it is not time-bound. Maybe, it can see everywhere and everywhen and move pawns so that what seems to be today's victory becomes the cornerstone of tomorrow's defeat."

Without intending to, Mr. Cook touches upon the nature of something I also believe, specifically, that God or Christ, or Allah or Y'weh intend and intended for us to learn to 'find our way' collectively, to love our neighbor truly, to not set ourselves above the rest of us, not just as a precondition to salvation, but in fact AS the salvation. That heaven is not a place, or a time, or a thing, but rather a time and a place and a thing bound up in the idea of choosing to be kind, and decent, and forgiving over hatred, division, exclusion, and unconcern.

I admit it is a leap from Mr. Cook to the above - and the association is only loose, but often each of us sees a shred of a truth, or relates to that truth, in a different, but meaningful way. My good friend DogGone had this to add

"..Your post reminded me of John Donne's "Meditations" ( XVII - I looked it up to be sure I had it right):"No man is an Island, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine.."spelling is a tad antique.... but there is a similar idea in there. The Asian custom of greeting with palms together, fingers upraised, has a premise that I have always appreciated - that when greeting another, you acknowledge their soul defined as a small piece of god inside each person that is also connected to all other souls, in essence simultaneously greeting the other and greeting god and greeting another part of your self. Joseph Campbell expresses it far more eloquently than I do."

The Christians often call this concept the Holy Spirit, and refer to it as God working through us in acts of Sanctification - and I have no issue with that. In fact, as an Episcopal, I am a member of a church known as the "Church of the Embodiment", in which we are strongly called to "see the face of God in the world around us." So, perhaps I have a bit more propensity than most to think of the temporal world as the place where God is manifest in our daily lives, but one essential point follows..

Whether we believe in God or not, and what we see God as (or see Gods as if you are so inclined), the concept of 'the old man in the sky" type of God is antiquated at best. Theologians of today do not (in the main) promote such an obeisant view. The idea of hierarchical fealty and gratitude is to me, NOT the message we are called to live or convey. In fact, such an approach, I believe promotes the idea of superiority of one group over another. Rather, instead, it seems we were and are called to recognize our equality and equivalence with one another AND our shared fate. We are bound within, as a human race, the fate we bring not just upon ourselves, but upon others.

So, I suggest that perhaps God, rather than working us like some giant puppet-master, instead meant to wind us up, teach us, and set us free. His design is (I hope) to create a world where the way is manifesting a love of man resulting in a more perfect world. That manifesting that love means recognizing and accepting each other, including loving our imperfections and our differences. I therefore believe those who preach violence (like the murderer of Dr. Tiller), or division, or contempt, or disregard for the plight of others - who preach ever shrinking circles of care - are "straying far from the path" Christians are called to walk (or as DogGone clearly says - other religions call for as well). I believe, and feel there is abundant evidence of, in fact that it is more about the journey, i.e. walking the Samaritan's path & finding the face of God in the world around us- than it is about the destination, and that this is precisely what God (or Allah/Y'weh/Vishnu/Brahma/Shiva) intends.

They're only words

(by DogGone - contributing author)


In 1865, author Lewis Carroll wrote the following words in chapter 6 of "Alice in Wonderland":"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.""The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things.""The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"




Statue of Humpty Dumpty, Mesa, Arizona, by Minneapolis artist Kimber Fiebirger, c. 2003

I could not help but notice the visual similarity, as well as other similarities, between radio host, Rush Limbaugh, and the nursery rhyme char acter Humpty Dumpty:













Rush Limbaugh (not Humptey Dumptey)

The similarity is not merely a visual coincidence; besides the more well known reference to a riddle which subsequently became the better known nursery rhym about an improbable 'egg', first published in the 19th century but dating orally to much earlier, Humpty Dumpty was also a reference to a cannon which supposedly blew up into fragments while firing from a castle in Scotland, the fragments falling to the base of those walls. The humorous photo similarity is self-evident. The visual comparison to the loved nursery character is offered as gentle humor. The other comparison, to an exploding cannon, is more serious.

It was well expressed by conservative radio host John Batchelor in his piece "My Party of Cowards" on the Daily Beast on June 1, 2009 (www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and -stories/author/john-batchelor ). Limbaugh is indeed a loose cannon, more damaging to conservatives and the GOP than to the Obama administration and Senate Democrats in his recent accusations of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a racist. Limbaugh would rather whip up a frenzy of fear and dissent over untrue statements about Sotomayor, than to encourage an objective look at the strengths and weaknesses of her actual background and performance as a judge. The reality is too dull, too dry, too bi-partisan to serve Limbaugh's divisive and inflammatory intentions.

Sotomayor made a comment during a speech in 2001, apparently referring to herself. She said ""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." "Latina" and "Hispanic" are both terms that refer not to race, but to a very broad, inclusive group of people who share either the Spanish language, and / or a national origin from Latin America which encompasses multiple races. A more correct word for Limbaugh's specious accusation of Sotomayor is not a racist, but a bigot, which Random house dictionary defines as a noun, meaning "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Racism, in contrast, is defined by one of my favorite references,=2 0the American Heritage Dictionary, as "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others" or secondarily as " Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

Sotomayor was advancing the premise that it as the rich experience of her background, rather than her gender or her familial geographic origins or her race that was the basis for arriving at a better, wiser conclusion. She elaborated further on this when she said "We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud."

What also is not quoted in that regard is her statement that "No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. " These are clearly not the words of a racist, who believes in the racial superiority of any one group over another; nor are they the words of someone who is utterly intolerant of a differing creed, belief or opinion. An argument could be made that Sotomayor has an overly favorable opinion of her own background in comparison to a hypothetical white male who has not had the same struggles in his life, or one could argue it is an appropriate estimation on her part.

Given the statistics accumulated by the FBI regarding hate crimes in the most recent years for which statistics are available, there are only two categories where there has been an increase: 1. people targeted for what is believed to be their sexual orientation; and 2. people targeted for being, or being suspected to be immigrants from Hispanic / Latino countries. This includes immigrants and the descendants of immigrants, like Sotomayor, from Puerto Rico. I think this gives Sotomayor a reasonable basis on which to presume she has faced a different kind of challenge than would not be faced by the hypothetical white male in her quote. Recently someone who insisted Sotomayor was a racist, despite anything else she ever said or did beyond the 'latina woman /white male' statement, told me that "words have meaning".

Yes. They do. Sometimes more than one meaning, as so well expressed in an excerpt from the Led Zepplin song "Stairway to Heaven":"Theres a sign on the wallBut she wants to be surecause you know sometimes words have two meanings." That lyric expresses something that is common to both the left and the right, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans --- "code words" for what each side is supposed to REALLY mean.

When those on the right end of the political spectrum use the term "community organizer", the opposite end of the spectrum it is supposedly a euphemism for black; when those on the left end of the political spectrum use the word "empathy", it is a claimed euphemism for "activist". The one pattern that emerges is that words, from both sides, are not accepted as meaning what they say, but instead are defined negatively. It is always the opposite side which defines the meaning of the dreaded "code words".

The end result of misusing words to make inaccurate accusations, to obscure meaning instead of clear communication. It is beautifully summarized by returning to Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland", Chapter 10."I couldn't afford to learn it," said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. "I only took the regular course." "What was that?" inquired Alice. "Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with," the Mock Turtle replied; "and then the different branches of Arithmetic—Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision." "I never heard of 'Uglification,'" Alice ventured to say.

We certainly have plenty of Reeling and Writhing, Ambition, Distraction, Derision, and most of all, Uglification. Dictionaries define it as to make ugly; no two meanings about it.

fondly dedicated to K-Rod and SitD

The nature of Good and Evil

A few posts back I tried to coherently describe what I see as the nature of the division that cripples this country. I did not succeed. Instead of trying to 'tidy that up', I'm going to embark on writing what I feel are a couple of basic foundation principals upon which arguments should be based or built. The first is simply a question - what is good, and the inverse of course, what is evil?

Mortimer J. Adler (American philosopher c. 1920-1999ish) in his book "6 Great Ideas"described good as being of two elements, the first being something which we find appealing, or pleasing, such as a well baked cake, and the other as being something akin to compassion. I'm paraphrasing, and his writing is certainly MUCH more deep than that, but I don't desire to engage in parsing out Adler - he's profound enough to withstand my feeble barbs.

Yet, I don't agree with the first premise, and want to expand upon the second. "Good" may in a vernacular mean something like a pleasing taste, but in the philosphical sense, we aren't discussing a pleasant feeling we might get observing a masterpiece of art or theatre, we are instead (I think) talking about what is the basic nature of decency and proper conduct.

I believe there are two essential answers - both of which were penned by people other than me of course.

The first is this - good is doing the least harm possible given an open option of choice. I think, however, it must go a step further. Good is standing up for the principal behind what is in the end least harmful. Meaning, while I might save 1000 lives by taking one, the principal of ethical 'rightness' compels me to refuse to comply with the demand to take one life under duress or even of my own volition unless it is my life I am willingly giving as my choice. In essence, I must stand up for the RIGHT to life as much as life, they are in equal footing, and do not cancel each other. I can reasonably argue that by starting down the path of sacrificing rights, I eventually lead to sacrificing life, the 'slippery slope' of situational ethical decision-making becomes available, even unavoidable.

The second - and equally important is simply this - stated by a 15 year-old author by the way -

The difference between good and evil is the ends to which each will go to accomplish their goal, what 'means' will they use. While in many ways an echo, and restatement of the above, it has the quality of being concise and of conveying the idea of a good-evil continuum (correctly) rather than absolutism.

Armies, more importantly the soldiers within them, do not view themselves on the 'good' side and the 'evil' side, they ONLY view themselves on the 'good' side. However, it is in their restraint that they are defined and judged. Those who do ONLY the least harm, who adhere to the principals of law, of respecting life and human decency we rightly judge as good, and those which stray from that path we rightly judge as evil. The slogan/saying that "All is fair in love and war" was opined by someone 'pathological' to paraphrase Einstein. International law, philosophical history, and ethical and logical reasoning have shown that statement to be utterly flawed. It is a self-rationalizing fool's errand.

Coherence

I am not a gifted writer - (News Flash!) - I lack the ability to be consice most days, and nearly every day I lack the ability to cogently express what I can see clearly in my mind's eye, but cannot put words to adquately.

Yet, I would rather see well and listen, than speak well. For it is in the listening, we learn, in the seeing, we observe, and from both, we act. Words are merely the mechanism we use to let the world know why we act, what we were thinking, but our actions will still always speak more loudly. So I beg your forgiveness for my lack of precision, and my lack of clarity, and will seek absolution by attempting to be better in my actions than I achieve in my words.

The problem with screaming

The problem with screaming is that when everyone is screaming, you can't hear yourself.

Rush Limbaugh yesterday "observed" that Muslims had won far fewer Nobel Prizes than Jews. This was of course the same Limbaugh who decried the Nobel board for being decidedly anti-American and leftist when it gave Paul Krugman the Nobel Prize in economics. No matter, clearly (to Rush and only for now) they are a wizened group since he can "find evidence" of Muslim cultural inferiority in the ratio of awards. Apparently this leftist group was good enough for Rush when he wanted to use it - and apparently drawing cultural and religious stereotypes from data which certainly has to be looked at far more deeply than simple numbers, is totally OK not only with Rush, but with his fawning, unquestioning and "ready to lap up anti-Muslim slurs" listeners.


I'd direct Rush back a few centuries to look at the comparative development of the Ottoman Empire vs. Western Europe in say 1200-1500 A.D. - and then ask him to consider what he thought the effect of the Black Death had on both cultural development lines around religion and technology - as well as the relative stifling effect of a lack of raw resources with which to build industry might have had on the middle east. No matter, clearly Muslims are inferior based on Nobel Prize numbers. I suppose by the same measure, since the Chinese and Russians haven't earned as many prizes, nor have the Indians, they are inferior too. Clearly it's only us Christians and Jews who are on the top of the intellectual pile.

Two days ago a Conservative Republican (Hispanic) said that Hispanics were "like normal people, think like everyone else. They aren't like blacks." I don't think I need to expound upon the profound offensiveness of that comment.

With this sort of screed coming from the right, is it really any wonder why we don't take fatuous claims of racism about Sonja Sotomayor seriously?

Is it also any wonder why we (non-Republicans) STILL see the party as hateful and using racism as a tool?

The problem with screaming racism is that you often show only yourself to be racist.

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.