Sticks and Stones I

“Language is the blood of the soul into which thoughts run and out of which they grow.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes
American Physician, Poet, Writer, Humorist and Professor at Harvard,
1809-1894

"Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but names / words will never hurt me."
English proverb

A subject came up on another blog yesterday, to which I responded; thinking about that subject kept me awake longer than I would have liked last night. Thank you again, Pen, for providing me with a forum in which to write about those things. The subject that I pondered was responding to telemarketers with sexual language intended to make them extremely uncomfortable, so they would hang up, so no one would call back. There was a certain distinct glee in the notion of using language and sexuality to make callers uncomfortable; given certain homophobic attitudes, it is I think fair to assume most of this language would be directed towards women, not men.

I argued for courtesy, brevity, and clarity in expressing offense. Some individuals supported that, either fully or partially; others disagreed with my position, at least one in a moderately offensive manner. I responded with more restraint than my first impulse, but with asperity. That restraint left a lot of unexpressed feelings, so voila, they are expressed here.

As a backdrop, I am researching the subject of sexual abuse and sexual harassment of women in the military, returning women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan specifically, and the traditions and culture of the military. Since I have not served in the military, I had a very productive conversation with Pen, who served in the military for a number of years. He gave me insightful observations from his experience.

Have patience, I will reach my eventual point, long way round; in the end I think the point will be better made.

When I was a very small child, I was very blessed to have as a regular baby sitter, a man who was a dear family friend, and also our family dentist, although he was much more than 'just' a dentist or oral surgeon. When I was much older, I came across his impressive entry in Who's Who, and learned just how remarkable he really was. He was the first person to recognize that I was an unusually smart child. He lived in a beautiful Georgian house; his den / library had high ceilings, with built in bookcases full of books all the way up, an enormous antique desk, and a fire place with a beautiful original oil painting hanging over it. Best of all, this room had both a microscope AND a telescope in it; I was given every encouragement to explore ALL of it to my heart and mind's content. There were never any 'don't touch' restrictions, despite all of the objects throughout the house were extremely valuable. It was a house where adults lived, not children; their children were grown and away at college. I thought it was the closest thing there was to heaven on earth.

I remember being encouraged to take books off the shelf, even books from the very highest where I had to be lifted up, books that we would then go through together. It didn't matter what the subject was: poetry or literature, history, bacteriology or some other science, philosophy, anything and everything. We would read it together, and talk about it. By talk about it, I don't mean in the usual way that adults tend to talk 'down' to children, but more as equals, mentor teaching protege. I remember he said my questions challenged him; I remember that the way my mind worked often made him laugh, laugh out loud, laugh until he had tears in his eyes. I never, ever had the feeling that he was laughing AT me. I sensed he enjoyed watching me think, he approved, that he was a kindred mind and spirit; in many ways, he understood me more than anyone else in my childhood.

This wonderful man had a profound influence on the development of my intellect, and on the formation of my character. He taught me to dare to challenge limitations, especially artificially imposed limitations, including assumptions about restrictions by gender. I remember my early discussions about shyness, and fear. He taught me fear was sometimes a good thing, that it could keep you safe; but it also could be a bad thing, if it took over control by the rational mind. He taught me to evaluate risk for myself, that risks could be calculated and managed; that I should dare whatever I thought worth the effort, but never foolishly. I grew up hearing the message over and over that most people are uncomfortable around smart people; that boys and men especially didn't like smart women because they viewed them as threatening to their egos, even smart men, but never from him. I remember saying that people who didn't enjoy intelligent women were boring; I refused to pretend to be less smart. He was amused by my rebellion.

As my dentist, he was the first to recognize that redheads have different pain reactions, and have a different response to both local and other anesthetics, before it was better researched and documented. He measured my pain perception and tolerance / resistance with a type of dolorimeter that directs a puff of air towards the eye, when it was still a new science. When I needed dental work of any kind, we discussed together how much it might hurt, for how long, and what the options were for controlling pain including the pros and cons of medications. Control of pain decisions were given to me; with the empowerment of those discussions, I usually opted for minimal medications, or none. We discussed the importance of knowing how much and how long something would be painful, of mind over matter for that period. He was always accurate and candid with me, and with the other aspects of our relationship, built up a very deep trust. When he deemed it necessary to remove all four of my impacted wisdom teeth, I didn't hesitate, when he recommended Novocain instead of a general anesthetic because he felt it would be important for me to be able to move my head and hold my head in certain positions. He showed me the x rays and explained everything fully; he would have to work quickly because Novocaine wears off unusually fast for me. For that reason, he would do one side, top and bottom, one day, and the other side a couple of weeks later.

During the surgery, from the beginning, there were painful complications. It resulted in bleeding, requiring cautery. As I was tried to swallow the blood that wasn't sucked up by the tube on the side of my mouth, he asked his assistant get the cautery unit. It should have been in the surgical suite, but was in the other dental treatment room. When she came back, this unprofessional woman said, very loudly, "Oh, my GOD! Look at all that BLOOD." This was not good, but I didn't let her comment get to me. I made a face, as best I could given the circumstances, rolling my eyes.

My dentist was very critical of her conduct. Worse than her original mistake, she continued on about the blood. I was not only a patient, I was in the relationship of a protege, a word derived from the Latin protegere, to protect. My mentor lost his temper, in a way I had never seen from him, ever. He not only raised his voice, if not exactly yelling, he used words that shocked me. He made a vulgar, crass, derogatory reference to blood, specifically menstrual blood and this woman's experience. I have never had the involuntary response to blood that many people feel, both men and women. But there was something about the ugliness of what he said and how he said it and meant it that made me feel very suddenly sick inside, small, a naked kind of vulnerable, and helpless; that was the intent of those words, although not directed at me. It was the absolute opposite of the empowerment, the sense of control, including the mastery over pain, that I had built up.

As a teenager, I did not have the armor against words and attitudes that I have now, including skills dealing with sexually abusive language; nor the mastery over my emotions that I have tried to acquire with maturity. What I felt showed in my face; I certainly wasn't verbalizing anything, in the middle of oral surgery. He looked down at me, and stopped cold; he asked me if I was okay. Then he stepped into the hall where in my hearing, he apologized to his employee. When he came back into the oral surgical suite a few moments later, he gave my hand a squeeze, and talked me back to where I needed to be to finish that surgery. I had been shaken by his words, by the ugliness of the thoughts and the hostility, but my trust was stronger.

As a result of this experience, I gained an insight into the destructive power of thoughts and words, even the destructive power of sexuality. It gave me an empathy to the nature of pain and control that comes to mind on the topic of torture I would never have had without losing my control during a surgical procedure. From this, I think I understand what Judge Sotomayor was trying to say, albeit badly, when she spoke about her experiences as a woman and a minority resulting in a better understanding of others' experiences. I take it to mean not only understanding feelings generally, but things like separating truthful statements from untruthful ones made in court testimony.

This was certainly the formative experience that came to my mind when I commented on using sexually explicit language to make a telemarketer feel uncomfortable in annoyance. To me it seemed a drastic difference of degree, but not a great difference in kind, to the mind set that causes the unpleasant, damaging experiences of women in the military, and the failure of the military in many instances to adequately respond to them.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names / words can never hurt me" was a rhyme we were all taught as children. It is not true. While physical violence is certainly a very different thing than words, words also can have a serious, significantly damaging impact on each of us. That is as true for men as it is for women.

As I wrote these words, believing I was in control of those feelings, I had an enlightening experience. I am taking care of a young dog, a two year old intact male, a beautiful borzoi, for a friend. I was one of the first people to hold him when he was whelped by C-section; I bottle fed him from that first day, comforted him if he got stepped on in the whelping box. We have a deep connection, a strong rapport, this dog and me. As I was sitting at the keyboard, tapping out the first paragraphs, rereading, editing, spellchecking, this dog was sprawled out in another room, oblivious. As I was working on the paragraph with the unpleasant memory, he suddenly came barreling out of that room over to me, laying his head on my arm. I petted him, talked to him, gave him a quick kiss on the 'sweet spot' between and slightly above his eyes...... and expected him to go away. That kind of intermittent touching base between canine pack members is routine, also with their humans. There was nothing unusual, except perhaps the timing.

But he didn't go away; he picked up a squeaky dog toy, a really annoying squeaky toy, and lay down behind my chair, in a defensive position. I am very attuned to dog body language, and to the significance of relative positions, between dogs, dogs and people, dogs and... things. It is an essential skill in retraining dogs, especially dogs where there are aggression problems. This dog doesn't have aggression issues, but he exhibits behavioral cues. Other dogs were not allowed to approach; although more subordinate in the pack order, he briefly assumed the dominant role of pack enforcer. I was home alone, but I doubt that he would willingly have allowed any person to approach me. My best educated guess, was that he sensed more than I had understood, hoe those memories were distressing. I cannot explain how he could pick up on that from another room, but I trust my instincts in reading dog behavior; they have stood me in good stead. It was not the first time I have observed dogs sense things in ways that are not easily explained, especially service dogs. This boy has excellent service dog potential; he is unusually perceptive.

I got up for more coffee, did other things, and the entire time, he was my shadow, a 'Velcro' dog; not his usual behavior. When I came back to the computer, to add this final paragraph, he resumed his protective position until I was near the end. Then he got up, nuzzled my hand, and returned to his original spot in the other room to lie down again. His job was done. Mercifully, he did not take the annoying squeaky toy with him. So now, I am apparently no longer emotionally vulnerable; I have resumed my role as human pack alpha.

Addendum

In writing Sticks and Stones, there were several things I wanted to accomplish. I leave it to the readers to decide how close I came. I wanted to write from a female perspective in a mostly male genre; I wanted men to see through the eyes of women. I wanted to write about the power of language.

The only way I could think of to use words skillfully enough was to use a real experience, an experience of my own. I followed the admonition to writers: write what you know. So, thank you Pen, for the compliment that I am brave, but I don't think I deserve it.

In writing about being female, and the destructive power of language and men, I wanted to write about the positive aspects. This is why I chose to write about my mentor. It was not my intention to 'bash' men, but to acknowledge those men throughout my life who through language, and through their qualities of character and intellect, each in their different ways created an environment where I could challenge and develop my abilities, my skills; where I could identify and pursue my interests. That includes as the most recent example, writing here.

I have never tolerated bullies. When I was a junior in high school, a male senior was bullying a younger student. I politely asked him to stop, twice. Unwisely, he did not. After the second request, I lost my temper in defense of that younger student, much as my mentor had lost his temper. I did not raise my voice, I did not use vulgar language. That was not my style; I was always 'ladylike', but I was vicious, I was fierce. I used language to wound, with precision, with calculation, as if it were a very sharp knife. Because the bully had not stopped when asked, I felt free to be punitive. The intention was to hurt him, to reduce him to tears, if not in front of me, as soon as he was alone. My high school boyfriend, who witnessed this, afterwards said to me very simply, that I went off on the bully "like an exploding grenade." He very gently made me realize that given my far greater ability to use words so effectively, I became a bully, however well intentioned I began.

I can laugh now, recognizing how strong and secure this guy was at the time, to be comfortable with someone with my.... 'force of personality'. I don't think I changed that bully by being nasty, however much I enjoyed my verbal advantage. But this young man accomplished that with me by being wise, and gentle. He taught me a lesson, which I regret to say I have had to relearn from time to time, that like physical violence which tends to beget more violence, the hostile use of words elicits more of the same emotion.

Over on SitD, another blog, when the topic of abusing telemarketers came up, my first impulse was to respond aggressively. There are a few individuals who lurk there who have over a span of years in other venues seen me 'verbally draw blood', and who are may be waiting to see me do it again. It was not difficult to resist that first impulse, but it reminded me of my mentor, and of that old high school boy friend. It reminded me that while we may do it differently, women make the same choices to be as nurturing and protective, or as destructive, as men.

I have learned more from dogs than I have ever taught them. Every interaction must begin with first understanding, and then controlling oneself before trying to understand and train or a control a dog. The exquisite hound who guarded my chair when I wrote Sticks and Stones is a sabled red dog, the red in his coat is very similar to my own coloring, like an outward symbol of our inner connection. He is an extraordinarily sweet creature, but he was bred for function as well as beauty; he has a strong prey drive, in his very core he exists for the joy of the chase, and the thrill of the kill. In his own way, he has reminded me how even the most lethal ferocity can exist side by side with tremendous gentleness and grace inside the same skin. Dogs are born understanding what we need to learn consciously. What we do verbally in our relationships, dogs do nonverbally.

The New Yoo Hoopla

“Suffering is by no means a privilege, a sign of nobility, a reminder of God. Suffering is a fierce, bestial thing, commonplace, uncalled for, natural as air. It is intangible; no one can grasp it or fight against it; it dwells in time / is the same thing as time; if it comes in fits and starts, that is only so as to leave the sufferer more defenseless during the moments that follow, those long moments when one relives the last bout of torture and waits for the next.”
Cesare Pavese
Italian Poet, Critic, Novelist and Translator
1908-1950


“There is only one thing that arouses animals more than pleasure, and that is pain. Under torture you are as if under the dominion of those grasses that produce visions. Everything you have heard told, everything you have read returns to your mind, as if you were being transported, not toward heaven, but toward hell. Under torture you say not only what the inquisitor wants, but also what you imagine might please him, because a bond (this, truly, diabolical) is established between you and him.”
Umberto Eco
Italian Novelist, Semiotician, Medievalist, Philosopher, Critic
1932


On Friday, buried under other news at the end of the week, including the death of Walter Cronkite, was a significant decision regarding the personal accountability of a member of the Bush administration for torture. According to a story by staff writer Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p02s13-usju.html a decision was rendered by U. S. District Court Judge Jeffery White that allows former Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Yoo to be held personally responsible in a civil lawsuit for the memos he produced that were part of authorizing the harsh interrogation techniques that many consider to be torture, used on alleged enemy combatant Jose Padilla. Judge White, who I understand to have been a Bush appointee, issued a 42 page decision in which he is quoted "Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct".

The full decision can be read or downloaded at the Scribd :www.scribd.com/.../Padilla-v-Yoo-Order-Granting-in-part-and-Denying-in-Part-Defendents-Motion-to-Dismiss along with a further comment on the ruling, to which I will defer as I am not a lawyer, much less a professor of Constitutional Law at www.lawprofessorblogs.com . In the comment on that blog, it is noted that Judge White finds the legal cover of the memos was an unconstitutional exercise of power, and also denies Yoo's claim of qualified immunity. This is a significant ruling in view of the recent Supreme Court decision that threw out a similar case against former AG Ashcroft, and FBI director Mueller who continues to head the FBI under the Obama administration. These cases have been defended on behalf of Yoo, Ashcroft and Mueller, by the Department of Justice.

It has been the position of President Obama that individuals who were operating in good faith on behalf of the government should not be held accountable, investigated or prosecuted for their actions or their legal opinions. Given the decision in this suit, and the new interest expressed by Attorney General Holder in addressing the issues involving possible illegal actions, including torture and other illegalities, we can only hope that in future the Department of Justice will find itself on the prosecuting rather than the defending side of these individuals. As I have slogged through the 38 page document that is the part of the report by the five Inspector Generals that is not classified, allow me to share for those who don't have the time or inclination that it was significant who refused to be interviewed by the Inspector Generals who were performing the investigation at the direction of Congress: John Yoo; former A.G. John Ashcroft; former head of the CIA George Tenet; and aide to former Vice President Cheney, David Addington. I'm surprised that they have the option to simply refuse to be interviewed, and wonder if subsequently they will be compelled to answer questions by some form of subpoena.

In view of the extremely poor quality of the legal work provided by Yoo, including the criticism for which Yoo was singled out by the five Inspectors General relating to the PSP, the President's Surveillance Program, among other criticism, I can only say I am surprised that Yoo continues to hold a position as a law professor at Berekely. Being a bad government lawyer, even if you are a high profile bad lawyer,would not seem to be a very adequate recommendation for teaching. Former A.G. Gonzales, after a period of time apparently having difficulty finding work, also turned up as a professor, at Texas Tech for the fall schedule, but in political science, not law. I would have thought, given how things worked out, that he wouldn't be considered very good at either, but then perhaps he has been hired to teach what not to do.

ToE, if I might impose on your kindness to answer a very general question here that is in your area of expertise, am I correct in my impression that having defended some or all of these individuals mentioned above, the attorneys at the Department of Justice cannot now handle any future/ subsequent prosecution, because the rules governing legal confidentiality would create a conflict of interest? I realize that those of us who have not studied law often form mistaken notions of how the legal process works, so I am asking to avoid making a similar error. Does this suggest that if there were to be any prosecution going forward, of persons who had been defended by DoJ, it would now require a special prosecutor independent of DoJ to pursue that prosecution? I'm trying to discern if there might be any special method / planning / thought to this madness by the Obama administration.... or if it is instead a great deal more random and messy and accidental in the way it is unfolding.

Justice Is Supposed To Be Blind, But Never Ingorant

"Justice is the convergence of Law, Truth and Good," well, or so I've believed for a while now. This is hardly a complete definition - but I would like to think it serves as reasonable summary of the thought that these virtues have flowered in a progression toward a common goal over time.


For longer than recorded history undoubtedly there have been laws. The earliest might have been something like, "Don't leave meat out in the cave, don't draw pictures defiling 'god,' etc.. In the time of recorded history, we have seen societies a few societies reflect some very advanced thinking of fair treatment of all citizens, such as ancient Athens exemplify nearly pure democracy, granting everyone reasonably equal standing before the law, but more commonly ancient societies were brutal, with harsh punishments for the merest of crimes. We have also seen societies like Imperial Rome, or even the Papacy, which twisted the law to allow for abuse, usurpation of rights, and the enslavement of entire nations. Even ancient religious/biblical laws, such as those in Leviticus, called for the stoning of those who wear clothing of two fabrics, or sew fields with two crops.

Over time, it seems to me, laws have usually become more fair, more respectful of complex rights. They recognized rights to dissent such as rights of free speech, and also recognized the presumption of innocence, due process protections and the need for fair legal representation. These obviously were outgrowths of realizations that older laws were unjust when they failed to protect the innocent. So, mankind has improved things to achieve fair treatment under the law and to and provide the defendant and equal chance as the state has for the truth to come out. In essence, the truth, the betterment of mankind's treatment by government, have been the root of what we desired in law. We have sought to punish only the wicked, restrain the wrong, and prevent harm to the innocent.

We have also sought to temper the law, to have it treat even the guilty with a measure of compassion. Where past punishments provided for death, or the severing of a limb, or keel-hauling or quartering, we have decided some crimes are far lower in harm than the punishments which we meeted out, and we drew back from that practice. We sought to marry compassion to truth, and to make law from it. I am mindful of this as I watch "Victim's Rights advocates decry Sonya Sotomayor as wrong for daring to actually have some regard for the fairness of the law, the proportion of the punishment to the crime, when deciding that punishment.

So, if compassion is a reflection of what we feel is fair, and good is doing the least necessary harm meaning ensuring we do not improperly harm the innocent as we protect society from the guilty, it seems we have thus sought over time to marry both fairness and goodness to the law - this convergence of two paths, one of truth, the other of the ability of the people to set forth codes of conduct -it is this convergence, it seems to me, which is what justice is.

Last Friday my neighbor down the street apparently took his own life. He was dying of cancer - he was 59. We don't know for certain what happened exactly. I am speculating a bit, but the police said there was no threat to the public - which usually means either suicide or domestic dispute. His wife was in her late 50's, and there doesn't seem to be any history of difficulty between them - so, it is at least conceivable that he preferred death to the ravages of palliative chemotherapy.

As a child, I watched my grandfather and grandmother both waste away from cancer. They died four days apart, my grandmother in the end could only acknowledge her wants and needs by tapping her foot - once for yes, twice for no. She was an extraordinarily warm, kind, compassionate and cheerful person, watching her degrade into quadriplegia and then mute agony was heartbreakingly difficult as 9 year old. For my grandfather, who was himself dying of Hodgkin's disease, I imagine it was 10 times worse.

I also recently watched my father-in-law waste away and die to kidney cancer - he fought like hell, lost 110 of his 220 pounds. He was determined to live, but succumbed in the end. His wife (my mother in law), cared for him up until the last few weeks in her house, cleaning up after him, bathing him, fetching him from wandering aimlessly down the street. When my children went to see him three months after having last seen him (and a few weeks before his death) they walked right by him as he sat in his wheel-chair. They didn't even recognize him. It was excruciating for my wife and my mother-in-law. In the end, the woman who had been married to him for 50 years felt that, "It was harder to have him here than to have him gone." She was relieved I"d guess, though she undoubtedly felt guilty for feeling it.

I say all this because, when someone has family and friends they want to live for, as the father of two of my children's closest friends had (Wayne died three years ago, when his kids were 11 and 7) - I think they should do everything they can, fight with every breath, to be there as long as they can - it is more than just about them at that point. However, when they have fought long enough, when the pain is too much, when the future is too bleak, I believe it is their right, and their right alone to decide when that time has come. Ready access to firearms makes death an easy companion, usually for all the worst reasons in the most horrid and sudden of ways. Yet, who are we to decide for those whom we have little idea the agony they suffer, that they are wrong to act to avoid the last few painful, empty, harrowing weeks?

In the United States, for example, only one state, Oregon, has assisted suicide laws - so the actions of my neighbor, and certainly of anyone who helped, will be deemed illegal. Even in England, a somewhat more liberal country regarding some of the social structures we argue about here - there is no allowance for these kinds of circumstances..and, as this story helps illustrate, it leads to people leaving the country to end their pain. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/world/europe/15britain.html?_r=1&emc=eta1)

"The controversy over the ethical and legal issues surrounding assisted suicide for the terminally ill was thrown into stark relief on Tuesday with the announcement that one of Britain’s most distinguished orchestra conductors, Sir Edward Downes, had flown to Switzerland last week with his wife and joined her in drinking a lethal cocktail of barbiturates provided by an assisted-suicide clinic."

This was a distinguished member of the nobility who sought to end his life in Switzerland rather than disobey British law. He was 84, his children were sad, but supportive of his choice to die with the worman he had spent 50 years with as a life partner. His son was quoted saying:

“Within a couple of minutes they were asleep, and died within 10 minutes,” Caractacus Downes, the couple’s 41-year-old son, said in the interview after his return to Britain. “They wanted to be next to each other when they died.” He added, “It is a very civilized way to end your life, and I don’t understand why the legal position in this country doesn’t allow it.”

If the law says such actions are wrong, why? Is there truly a need to require someone to keep living in agony? Is there truly a need to require the families of those who are terminal to watch them fall into oblivion of Alzheimer's final days, of cancer's final weeks of morphine induced stupors, of chemotherapy's cadaverous preludes?

To me, the law to me seems to be written for the ignorant. Perhaps it was originally motivated by religiosity rather than compassion, but it certainly seems unaware of the heartbreaking impacts of requiring someone to be present, when the agony to them and their loved ones required for presence is worse than loneliness of no longer having them around.

If someone is taking 50 units of morphine per half hour (as my father in law was), if they have no control over bodily function as my grandmother lacked, what religion would say ending this pain is wrong? Is it compassionate to force them to live on? Perhaps the time has come for us to stop forcing people like my neighbor (assuming this is the case) to break the law to find justice and peace. Is it fair or right or truthful or good to require their presence in a life which is more painful to us to witness and to them to live, than to allow it to peacefully end?

It is lawful, I suppose, but is it Just?

Come Let Us Reason Together

"Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob."
Isaiah 41:21

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error."
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Thomas Jefferson

Bringing out the big guns in leading with these quotations; they invoke the authority of no less than the ultimate 'founding Father' and a United States founding father. It give me comfort as I venture into what at times has come to feel like the 'no mans land' of disputation. While I addressed this recently in a comment, given the potential volatility of the topic of fascism, and the passions that run deep regarding the historic figure of President Reagan, it seems a good time to stop and elaborate on that particular comment.

I wrote about the pleasure of argument, instead of hateful argument. One of the best examples was a comment from KRod under an older posting of mine, "First Comes Love, Then Comes Marriage", where he 'went all Tina Turner' on me with a rewrite of the Lyrics "What's Love Got to Do with It". It was clever and it was charming, and I was caught off guard enough by it that I had to get up, go get another cup of coffee, and regroup my thoughts to respond, all of which I thoroughly enjoyed. Very little in argumentation can put me off balance the way that did; I laughed out loud at my monitor in delight, and applauded it.

This was in sharp contrast to other exchanges from both sides of topics that traded insults to people AND to arguments, instead of being specifically critical of failings or weakness in the substance of the facts or reasoning being advanced.

I do not wish in any measure to diminish the passions of this or any other topic. But I do wish again to insist on the civility, and the enjoyment of cordial disagreement. Both Pen and I have experienced first hand what it is like to be the minority dissenting opinion on other sites; all the more reason to expressly welcome and encourage that dissent here. I have elaborated elsewhere on all that it adds, so I won't repeat myself.

What I didn't say that still needs saying is that it is not a weakness to acknowledge a point well made, an argument well reasoned, or a fact well researched by 'the other side'. Disagreement and /or criticism is stronger for being both specific to an argument, and polite rather than personally insulting. Calling an argument stupid is not a good response; better is to point out how and where it is faulty, preferably supported by objective fact.

This is a good place to point out that the more objective, the less subjective, the less distinctly biased information is, the stronger it is and the better it supports a conclusion or an argument. The more information is first hand, and the less it is filtered through second and third hand ideology, the better it supports a position or a contention. To the degree that a supporting item is NOT, the greater the basis, even the necessity, for it to be challenged. While that kind of challenge may cause a person to feel put on the spot, that is still very VERY different than a personal attack on the challenged.

There has been ample disagreement on topics here, and some surprising agreement as well, unexpected points of agreement. The more we are able to find agreement in fact, and in how we disagree, and the less that we allow ideology to be divisive, the more we have a common ground for the meeting of minds. Without that common ground, without that meeting of minds, we have an argument of shouting echoes rather than a direct engagement of individuals.

Time to tuck the soap box back under the laundry tub, and go back to my own happy, dull digging into research on a variety of topics for future writing. My closing thought is that when I log on to Penigma, I envision a seasonally appropriate gathering. In July, sitting around on comfortable outdoor furniture with a platter of barbecue and the appropriate beverages like beer or iced tea or lemonade, augmenting rowdy, raucous, LOUD conversation, discussions with passion and intensity. To the degree that there are fewer voices, there is less intensity and passion and .... less fun in the gathering. My parting thought is a toast to the more the merrier, and to wit and cleverness, even humor, to go with the passionate points of view.

"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave."
William Drummond

Danse Macabre

"No real estate is permanently valuable but the grave."
- Mark Twain

Life is imitating art, in its own unique way. Michael Jackson was born and grew up in Gary, Indiana, a suburb of Chicago. This past week amid a quantity of media coverage, thousands of his fans attended his memorial service. His most famous music, from 1982, still the best selling album of all time was Thriller, about horror movies, monsters, and frightening things happening in graveyards away from the light of day. It is an ironic coincidence that sets the tone for a macabre news event.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-forensic-scientist_10jul10,0,7703736.story http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1659384,burr-oak-cemetery-bodies-chicago-070909.article

The imitation of Jackson's art of horror came this week in another suburb of Chicago, at the Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois. While no corpses left their graves through supernatural means, a number of dead bodies did depart - more than 100 of them.

The bodies were dug up, tossed in an overgrown, unused part of the cemetery, dismembered and left in a pile of bones. Caskets and headstones were smashed, and the surrounding concrete vaults destroyed.

Then the cemetery manager resold the vacated grave sites, off the books, altering the previous records. The cemetery manager, Carolyn Towns and three of her employees, grave diggers Keith Nicks, Terrence Nicks and Maurice Dailey were charged with Class X felonies.

The FBI will be using DNA to help identify the mixed up pile of bones, so that so far as possible, the deceased will be identified and eventually reburied, provided relatives can be located to provide blood or saliva samples. Relatives of those whose bodies were treated with such cruel disrespect are understandably distraught. This is not only an horrific act of greed, a terrible tragedy of disrespect for the dead, but also acts of utter disregard for the feelings of those whose loved ones were entrusted to their care and safety. It is an act of wicked cruelty to the family and friends of those who had been buried at Burr Oak Cemetery.

It is inconceivable that these four people who were employed by this cemetery could have so little regard for so many people, living or dead. It is sometimes said that we can tell a great deal about how we care for the living by how we care for the dead. The real events in Burr Oak Cemetery are a greater horror story than Jackson's fictional Thriller could ever aspire to be.

Fascism, Neither Pure Nor Simple - part I

(Fascism is)"the most misused, and

over-used word of our times"

"An Intelligent Person's Guide to Fascism"
Professor Roger Griffin,
Prominent author and lecturer on Nazi history
Oxford Brookes University, UK

In researching this topic, I tried to cover a variety of serious authorities in order not to let myself be suckered into too narrow or biased an understanding. It was important to me to use my existing knowledge as a beginning, but to make a serious effort to be certain I had a balanced, complete overview for a fair and evenhanded piece of writing. I lead this piece with a quotation from Professor Griffin, because so much of what I encountered came back to his work in the field, and the quote so succinctly summarizes what I found. The big three in the field consistently regarded by historians and political scientists as the defining experts are Griffin, along with Robert Paxton and Stanley Payne.

If I could distill what I researched, building on my previous understanding, into a single observation it would be this: that the word Fascism is used interchangeably with Authoritarianism, sometimes correctly, but most of the time incorrectly. Authoritarianism would be a more correct word than Fascism as it is used more than 90% of the time, a figure that is my own rough estimation from researching so far. That 90% usage reflects either an incomplete, or significantly erroneous understanding of one or more aspects of Fascism. The error in usage distributes fairly evenly across the spectrum of political ideology, from left to right; it is NOT the purview of one side alone. And it is THAT aspect, the distribution of the wrong usage, that seems to be at the heart of why the word is so misused. Nearly EVERYBODY uses it improperly, to some degree, and MOST use it improperly to a large degree.

The correct, well researched, well accepted definitions are not particularly hard to find or understand. What seems to be consistently underlying the misuse is applying it not as identifying an actual historic or contemporary fascist political movement, but using it derogatorily as an epithet or pejorative term against another political group or position than one's own to discredit it.

This broadly derogatory use of the term is not new, by any stretch. The consistency with which the term has been kept in use pejoratively is unparalleled by any other word I can think of, with the possible exception of "Nazi". The following quotation from George Orwell, author of "1984" and "Animal Farm" hit on this back in 1944, when he wrote "What is Fascism".

Orwell said:
"The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’."

Obviously, it doesn't require familiarity with every single reference in the quote to understand that the term was being used all over the place, by every political point of view against nearly every kind of possible target, until any coherent meaning other than 'bad' is completely gone from common usage. That dates back to World War II, and the association with Fascism and atrocities. Prior to the close association with atrocities, there were some who were critical of Fascism as a movement, for different specific aspects of it, but there was not the quality of such broad condemnation in the name. Pre-atrocity criticism was specific. There was a definite sort of 'tipping point' in the usage.

While the Orwell quote can be taken as an attempt to be funny or sarcastic, it was less an exaggeration than you might think. Right now, I can do a web search or a search at my local library and turn up an overwhelming pile of data detailing references to fascism, nearly all of it incorrect. The right calls the left fascist, the left calls the right fascist. And some - although fewer - people in the middle are equal opportunity misusers of the word, calling those on the further edges of BOTH sides fascist for not being in the middle. Incorrectly. All, or very nearly all of them.

Obviously, I cannot end a piece on fascism here; that would be useless. Simply claiming it is used poorly but often, VERY often, is not enough. I asked for constructive criticism from the owners of both of the blogs that I write for, and it was consistently that I write 'long'. Well...but LONG. (You can stop laughing any minute now - I know it's true.) So to do justice to the topic, I'm going to try a new way to shorten up but still cover the content. I'm going to write in 'parts'; this is only part I.

I haven't determined exactly how many parts there will be; but only a few. My goals in writing, given my research to this point, is to present what fascism is correctly and accurately. Part II will be a brief (yes, brief!) history of the movement, its early roots and the 'inter-war' era developments; 'Italian' fascism and the related European movements (like the Spanish 'Falange') circa WWII; and post-WWII developments.

Next will be a brief description of what the central, core tenets of fascism are; what you need to have present in a political or social movement to BE fascist. Why not just present that information? Because without connecting it to the actual, historic fascist movements that CREATED the term, it remains ill defined. In making the effort to write this, to do it well and fairly, objectively, it is my intention to lessen, if only by those few who read this, the use of the term incorrectly. When I am done, whoever reads these words WILL know the difference between correct and incorrect use of 'fascism', small or capital F, and I hope will choose to use it correctly afterwards, and ONLY correctly, and may even choose to correct others using it wrongly.

An Oath or Affirmation, a Vow, a Promise

"Elected office holds more perks than Elvis' nightstand. "
- Dennis Miller

How are these things similar or the same; how do they differ? Once again, I need to credit K-Rod, in this case for comments here under other postings, that lead me to a new one. Because words have meaning; and because words are the medium of our thoughts. The meaning of words in many cases determines our expectations, and what we require of each other. The discussion that resulted from "The Oath of Office" led me to explore further the kinds of language which obliges people to do - or not do - certain actions or behaviors that create expectations by others, sometimes many others. Usually these actions require some exertion or sacrifice for those others, at an expense to oneself, in exchange for specific benefits, compensation, power, authority or other rewards.

In varying degrees, these words deal with relationships between people, with oaths and affirmations being reserved for the most important, the most serious and binding of those relationships. The others are of similar kind, but vary in decreasing degrees of obligation and implied penalty for failure. The tradition of these special commitments is traced throughout our history, and across the globe; they exist in every culture; they are a necessity to civilized human relationships, and to societies, especially governments at all levels.

One of my favorite sources is the online Etymology dictionary, that traces the history of a word as it evolved towards its current form and definition; I find the progress insightful in achieving the fullest understanding of the meaning. But that did not best suit my purpose here in examining each word.
Of all the sources I explored, this was the best encapsulation of all of the aspects of each word.

oath
sacred or solemn voluntary promise usually involving the penalty of divine retribution for intentional falsity and often used in legal procedures. It is not certain that the oath was always considered a religious act; such ancient peoples as the Germanic tribes, Greeks, Romans, and Scythians swore by their swords or other weapons. These peoples, however, were actually invoking a symbol of the power of a war god as a guarantee of their trustworthiness.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

For purposes here, an Affirmation is defined as a variation that is legally accepted in place of an oath, usually in respect of the provisions or restrictions of someone's religion, especially in a legal context. There were many specific kinds of oaths, such as oaths of office, the Hippocratic Oath sworn by the medical profession, the enlistment oath of the military, the medieval oath of fealty, the oath to tell the truth when giving a deposition or testimony, the Oath of Citizenship that naturalizes new citizens, to name only a few. The Oath of Allegiance is another term for our national Pledge of Allegiance.

Oaths (and affirmations) are reserved for those matters that have the greatest importance and seriousness. It is the seriousness involved that is the reason for oaths to incorporate religion, to invoke a deity as part of the value of guarantee and sincerity, as the ultimate symbol of importance and significance, by extending the contract made between people to include God as a party, a guarantor, a witness. It establishes the ultimate accountability between people for performance of a commitment. Part of the definition of what constitutes an oath compared to lesser pledges IS religion; where religion is not included in oaths, it is an accomodation, an accepted variation to the mainstream concept intended to have the same effect as including a religious component.

vow
sacred voluntary promise to dedicate oneself or members of one's family or community to a special obligation that goes beyond usual social or religious requirements.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

For consistency, I was going to return to the Encyclopedia Online for the next word, but another source provided better detail, so I offer it here instead. While the listing of so many different variations on 'promise' may at first glance seem a little tedious, the variety of so many specific kinds of promises in an indication of how important promises are; so I hope readers will bear with me.

Main Entry: prom·ise
Function: noun
: a declaration or manifestation esp. in a contract of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way that gives the party to whom it is made a right to expect its fulfillment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

aleatory promise
: a promise (as to compensate an insured individual for future loss) whose fulfillment is dependent on a fortuitous or uncertain event

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

collateral promise
: a promise usually to pay the debt of another that is ancillary to an original promise, is not made for the benefit of the party making it, and must be in writing to be enforceable

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

false promise
: a promise that is made with no intention of carrying it out and esp. that is made with intent to deceive or defraud

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gratuitous promise
: a promise that is made without consideration and is usually unenforceable called also naked promise —compare NUDUM PACTUM
NOTE: A gratuitous promise may be enforceable under promissory estoppel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

illusory promise
: a purported promise that does not actually bind the party making it to a particular performance illusory promise depending solely on the will of the supposed promisor>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

implied promise
: a promise that is considered to exist despite the lack of an agreement or express terms to that effect and the breach of which may be recognized as a cause of action implied promise that he would not be terminated at will> —see also PROMISE IMPLIED IN FACT and, PROMISE IMPLIED IN LAW in this entry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

naked promise
: GRATUITOUS PROMISE in this entry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

original promise
: a promise (as in a suretyship) usually to pay the debt of another that is made primarily for the benefit of the party making it and need not be in writing to be enforceable —compare COLLATERAL PROMISE in this entry, MAIN PURPOSE RULE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

promise implied in fact
: an implied promise that exists by inference from specific facts, circumstances, or acts of the parties

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

promise implied in law
: an implied promise that exists on the basis of a legally enforceable duty and not on the basis of words or conduct which are promissory in form or support an inference of a promise promise implied in law that one will be compensated for services rendered and accepted>
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

In a comment on "Oath of Office", K-Rod wrote: "Where does it say an Alaskan Governor cannot resign?" implying that those speaking negatively about her decision were improperly critical of her decision; and (on it's relative significance)"Palin meeting the requirements of the oath, not so much. Palin did not succeed in what I think is the commitment of the oath." The combined effect of those statements, and similar statements, was that it is no big deal if Palin chose to quit before she had completed her first, her ONLY term of statewide office, despite having sworn to do the job to the best of her abilities, and to uphold the state constitution which specifies the duration of the governor's term of office; that we should not hold her to perform according to her oath of office, because to do so is somehow partisan rather than objective.

In defense of K-Rod's position, as a practical matter, it may very well be that Alaska is not well served having a person in the Governor's position of authority who doesn't wish to be there. But that was not the argument presented in defense of her decision, nor is it the subject of "The Oath of Office".

I would argue that we are holding the taking of oaths too lightly; NOT ONLY Governor Palin in the act of resigning, but EVERY elected official and every citizen who does not match action to the words of their public oaths, including both legal and illegal conduct. I believe that in holding those oaths less binding, less important than intended we do harm; harm to ourselves, harm to our institutions. We lessen accountability and responsibility; we ignore or at least diminsh the importance of personal integrity in giving our word of honor to anything. In the case of Palin, the reasons given for her resignation put all of the focus on what SHE wanted; there was no mention of the commitment taken in swearing the oath of office, or to continuing despite whatever difficulties presented in doing the job. If we let this kind of event - AND any others like it - go unchallenged and without critical thought, then effectively we are redefining public office in terms of selfish individual whims, ambitions, and interests accorded more importance than the needs of the public served by the office. If we do not hold elected officials to their oaths, we reduce those oaths to an illusory promise (see above).

The Oath of Office

“Never take a solemn oath. People think you mean it.”
- George Norman Douglas
Finnish Composer, 1865-1957

“If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”
- Bible, Numbers 30:2

oath
• noun (pl. oaths) 1 a solemn promise, especially one that calls on a deity as a witness.
- Oxford English Dictionary

from the Constitution of the State of Alaska (emphasis added):

"All public officers, before entering upon the duties of their offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as . . . to the best of my ability."

The legislature may prescribe further oaths or affirmations."

I have read the oath of office for the state of Alaska very carefully. Nowhere in those 42 words (presuming one inserts the word Governor in the appropriate space) does it say "unless I decide not to run for a second term which would make me a lame duck governor", or "unless I decide I don't want to do the job anymore", or "except if I receive a 'higher calling' midway into my term of office".

Sarah Palin is a 'lame duck' by choice, not because - as in the case of President G.W. Bush for example - she had served the allowable terms as provided for in the applicable constitution, and therefore had no choice. I respect her decision not to pursue a second term of office, but then to use the resulting status as an excuse to renege on her oath of office is less excusable.

Palin did not swear to fulfill the duties of the office of Governor "unless I decide not to run for a second term" or "unless I become a 'lame duck' governor". She did not swear to fulfill the duties of the office of Governor "unless I decide I don't like the job after awhile". She did not swear the oath of office conditional to other job options, personal preferences and ambitions, or how the media would treat her or her family.

Palin has been very forthcoming about the importance of her religion in her life and in her politics. The Bible is very clear about the seriousness of swearing oaths; there is no ambiguity that an oath requires the swearer to perform what is sworn, as an important part of Christianity. The Palin oath of office was sworn on the traditional Bible, as a symbol of the sincerity and commitment of the oath taker.

And yet, those who support her enthusiastically protest vehemently any criticism of Palin's decision to abdicate the responsibilities of her office. No one is allowed to challenge Palin's motives or the wisdom of her choice, or that this represents a lack of commitment and a breach of promise to the people of Alaska who elected her to serve as Governor.

And yet, how can one not?

Opportunity Lost

When Barack Obama was elected, it was primarily done because people thought this country was heading in a very poor direction, that the middle-class, the environment, on health care, etc.., we had done little to nothing in the past 25-30 years to move in a positive direction.

He promised much, he promised "Change We Can Believe In", and we believed him. He sounded as if he understood the pain, the money crunch, the bankrupted families by health care calamities.

He has, in the course of 150 days or so, reneged on dozens of promises, that happens with politicians, but he has reneged on KEY promises which HE has the power to change without fighting with Congress, such as legitimately closing down things like secret prisons, FISA violations. He has reneged on promises not to tax health care benefits from employers.


When a President is elected he has a 'grace period' where his mandate (or her mandate) is essentially the de facto reality of what can be enacted. He has the support of the public, and he must act swiftly before that good will is gone. He can spend the good will on foolishness, like "Gays in the Military" which was not a foolish endeavor, but was foolish to have as the first thing on Clinton's agenda, or he can focus it on things like Bush did - (Star Wars, tax changes for the rich) forcing unpopular changes (with the other party) down the throats of the timid.

Obama had an enormous opportunity to change things. He claims he has been stymied by reluctant members of his own party, but even with more 'centrist' Senators he could have acted, he had a large majority in the House, and 58-59 Senators in his party in his court in general, and enormous good will from the public demanding change. He actually COULD have CHANGED things. He failed - he failed to act, he failed to oversee - the changes for Wall Street he's recommending are toothless and pathetic. He wasted his opportunity.

The ironic thing is, both the left and right now are criticizing Obama, but for entirely different reasons. The right will say, "Look, even the left doesn't like him" in their typically simplistic way. The difference is that Obama is acting like a Republican, cozying up to big business, to Wall Street, enacting meaningless reform, in short, he's doing what THEY wanted, meaning doing little to change the 'rich get richer' paradigm. They should love Obama, for, just as Rush Limbaugh hoped for, Obama is failing, and the country along with him.

Opportunity Cost

In business, an Opportunity Cost is the cost or loss associated with doing something OTHER than what you actually do. As Wiki defines it it is, "is the value of the next best alternative forgone as the result of making a decision. ..."

Recently the right has phumpered and yammered about Obama's deficit. There is more than a little merit in the complaint, as Obama is spending profligately to bail out banking and investment house executives, but making little actual change to the way business is conducted either on Wall Street or in Washington.

However, when we talk about deficits it is deceitful, even dishonest to fail to consider the opportunity cost we are paying, every day, for having a country where the middle-class are woefully under-employed. From 2001 to 2006, the estimates provided by the GAO (as I recall) are that 74% of new jobs created paid substantially LESS than the jobs shipped overseas.

The consequence on tax revenue, on housing sales on plummeting home values and with them on investments defined from them such as CDS's (Credit Default Swaps) and derivatives using real estate as a backing source, is nearly inestimable, but it is certainly safe to say it runs into the multiple trillions of dollars. Further, the spending by Obama (or for that matter in the waning days of the Bush Administration) meant to 'deal' with this crisis of under-employment, can be directly related to the business practices of those who promised higher paying jobs if we only deconstructed our manufacturing, computer hardware and computer programming base.

This is opportunity cost, and it will continue to elevate as we suffer the effects of grossly inept business and labor policy. So, while I hold much frustration and disappointment with the Obama administration for selling out to Wall Street in a manner little different from the Bushies, I don't particularly have much angst to vent about current deficits. The middle class of this country can no longer bail Wall Street out of it's problems because Wall Street saw fit to destroy the basic foundation of the middle class, and that is an opportunity cost we may never recover from.

Black and White

For many years, my parents would take winter vacations lasting a couple of weeks, often in either Florida or southernmost Texas, but occasionally to the westernmost states. I was fortunate to be included in these vacations, even as a toddler. I count it as among the most enriching aspects of my childhood that, blessed with being a good traveler, that I had the opportunity to see many parts of the country while traveling by car. It provided me not only the opportunity to see the different aspects of the landscape, but to meet and interact with the residents of more than 40 of our 50 states, with occasional forays over the borders into Canada and Mexico. As I was a good student, my parents didn't mind packing up my books and taking me out of school for these adventures. (The down side of all that vacation traveling is that I have seen enough golf courses in this country to last me a life time.)

July 2nd marked the 45th anniversary of the landmark legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One of my earliest memories is of traveling in the southern United States, driving through small towns on our way to Florida. I loved the south, the food, the exceedingly friendly welcome of southern hospitality, the architecture, and of course the warmth in contrast to Minnesota in winter.

So when we stopped in a very old fashioned small town for more gasoline and the obligatory ablutions, I didn't think twice about using the drinking fountains; more specifically ONE of the TWO drinking fountains available, while my parents did their adult things. I was pre-school age, and mad as hell that I had to wait to go to school because I wanted to be able to read. Impatient with the age requirements, I had begun to teach myself how to read at the age of 2, but I was convinced that going to school would expedite my progress. So, I actually KNEW what the signs over the drinking fountains said: Whites Only, Coloreds Only. The 'whites only' fountain wasn't working, so I used the 'coloreds only' drinking fountain instead, standing on a crate to be tall enough to help myself. I didn't care; I was thirsty, and I was chronically impatient with relying on adult assistance.

What I did not expect was the alarmed response of my parents. I was a dare devilish sort of child, usually inured to their alarm. In this case, not only did my mother let out a shriek, she ran over, grabbed me by the arm pulling me off the crate, and dragged me back to the car, scolding me vehemently the entire distance. Even as a child, I was critical of many aspects of adult behavior, so I rather belligerently stood my ground, arms crossed, heels dug in, a defiant expression on my face. My response to my mother lecturing me on not using the 'coloreds only' drinking fountain was an obstinate "that's just dumb". My parents knew all too well that when I thought some custom or convention was 'dumb', I could be singularly, mulishly, spectacularly stubborn. I was utterly unrepentant for having quenched my thirst at the 'coloreds only' fountain, and I was warming up to express myself further on the topic.

What I had not expected was for my mother to gag me with her hand over my mouth, shoving me bodily into the backseat of the family car. What made the impression that will last me as long as I live was that - for a change - she was not so much angry at me, as afraid. Afraid of other adults. When we were on vacation, my parents tended to be very glib, very flippant, so this was a stark contrast to their usual demeanor. My father was clearly alarmed as well; this was a novel experience for me. I never saw my parents afraid of other grown ups before that day. Further conversation was distinctly paused until we were well away from the gas station.

At that point my parents began explaining to me that, as warm and hospitable as southerners were (both black and white), there were some people who 1. felt strongly about maintaining segregation; and 2. resented outsiders, especially northerners / Yankees whom they regarded as forcing changes to their chosen way of life. And 3. they explained about residual ill will dating back a hundred years to the Civil War.

And then they had to explain to their very young daughter about lynching, about the violence done to some people who had tried to change the status quo, and possibly the most disturbing of all their revelations, that law enforcement was sometimes party to that violence rather than preventing it. Given the Minnesota license plates on our car, my parents wanted me to be very, very careful not to give the impression that we were traveling in the south to promote rights for Negroes, or to overthrow segregation. Their fear succeeded, finally, in persuading me to shut the hell up, whatever I thought, when around southerners, and to be respectful, whatever my private thoughts were, about the coloreds only / white only differences from back home. Even at that tender age, it was clear to me that 'separate but equal' was always very long on separation, but very, very short on equal.

I loved the regional cultures of the southern states then, and I still love them now. I have friends in the south to this day, some of them descendants of VERY old, very white southern families. It was a shock to me that these lovely, friendly, charming people could have such an extremely opposite side, a violent side. That experience was very formative to my notions of being a citizen of the United States. I defined being an American as not having to be afraid of authority, either government entities or law enforcement. I defined being American as never having to fear 'being disappeared', by anyone, ever. I defined being American as never having to be afraid of someone from any region of the United States, because of regional history or differences. I thought of those things as defining dictatorships, in other less-fortunate countries.

I never feared that anyone would harm me, a child. I was well aware that I was a cute little girl with freckles and a mop of curly red hair that seemed to attract more adult attention than most other kids. My parents had gone to great lengths to ensure that I had (when pressed to use them) very pretty, very formal good manners, and the ability to use conversation beyond my years to charm adults. From that day with the drinking fountain adventure onwards, I internalized the idea that my behavior might endanger my parents whenever we traveled very far from home, and I acted accordingly (to my parents relief). I doubt that my parents would have included me as often as they did when traveling had I not; my younger sibling, in comparison, rarely traveled on these trips. That awareness definitely made me a more acute observer when traveling.

So, this anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the later companion legislation prompts a range of reflections on our history and current events. The race riots that took place in the context of what was effectively a kind of government coercion to change traditions resonates when viewing the hatred in the middle east generally, and the riots in Iran particularly. The political coalition, across party lines, of liberal Democrats Lyndon Johnson from Texas, and Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota, with conservative Republican Everett Dirksen of Illinois, to create regional bi-partisan support for a variety of civil rights legislation. It strikes me in the current political climate, that the next leader of a re-invented Republican Party would do well to examine the career of Everett Dirksen for the needed new ideas and new leadership. And it strikes me that Obama and Biden would do well to revisit the political careers of Johnson and Humphrey to pass some of their legislation, particularly in the area of DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The GOP would do well to examine that era, which lost the southern 'Dixi-crats' for the Democratic party, but which in the current era is leading to the GOP becoming marginalized as a limited, regional influence. Bachmann's Anti-Census rants, including her references to the Japanese American internment camps during WW II remind me of the landmark cases involving allegations of racism, especially Korematsu v. U. S. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 originated the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which makes the recent US Supreme Court decision in the reverse racism case all the more piquant. And lastly, but far from least, the pattern of the U. S. Supreme Court in effectively reversing itself (albeit, indirectly) in subsequent decisions over the full history of civil rights precedents, dating back from Dredd Scott to date, is especially well worth noting, in view of the possibilities for alterations, even reversal of landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade.

The information is all available, more now than ever courtesy of the Internet.

In glorious Black and White.

Call Me Irresponsible

Yesterday, Governor Palin (aka Governor Liar) abruptly resigned.

Many speculate it is because she wants to focus on campaigning for President. In her rambling resignation speech, she stated she wanted to focus on "helping kids outside of the Governor's office."

Perhaps - on both accounts, but Palin's penchant for dishonesty (I read all of em', Todd was trying to register to be an Independent, You can see Russia from Alaska, We had to concern ourselves with Russia as Governor), leaves me thinking the latter comment from someone who showed little regard for education both as a student and as Governor is pretty unlikely. I'm also dubious of the former, that she's resigning to focus on the Presidential race - however, let's take her at her word and talk about that for a moment.

First, she's got more name recognition than any other probable candidate, so she hardly needs to take time to shake hands in Montpellier or Concord. Second, dozens of Governors have run for President while still discharging their duties as Governor. Ms. Palin was an absentee Governor last fall while campaigning for the McCain-Palin ticket, drawing complaints from those within her state, but she seemed to be able to at least function.

Now, though, it's too much time? Well, if true, it's a damning embarrassment for her. She is simply walking away from the position to which 'the people elected her to', which she claims is such a profound honor. Apparently it is so profound she'll happily leave it in mid-term, abrogating her responsibility to her state and it's citizens, during a time of national economic crisis.

I suspect that is more the truth, that Ms. Palin, ever the political schemer and opportunist, doesn't like the hard work of dealing with a state which is facing economic trouble for the first time in decades, where her actions are roundly criticized and she is becoming increasing unpopular and noted for her strong connection to business. I suspect that her desire to 'grab the brass ring' of speaking engagements, working for corporate America as a propagandist, etc.. seems a LOT more appealing than helping Alaska, in the job she was SUPPOSED to do, deal with falling tax revenues and higher public need.

In the end, one thing only is true, she's walking away from a job when the job needs her most (if she's actually competent). She's abandoning her constituents and her state because of her ambitious desire for stardom. That is not the province of Presidential candidates, but is the conduct of narcissistic starlets - those on the right have said she is reminiscent of Indira Ghandi or Margaret Thatcher - I'd say it's Brittney Spears or Paris Hilton.

The Casual Liar

CBS News reports that during the waning days of the 2008 Presidential race, Sarah Palin apparently attempted to deceive her own campaign staffers, as well as the campaign manager of the McCain-Palin ticket about Todd Palin's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) (read the link here (Story)).

In short, she wanted the story squashed, so she first tried to press for a comment covering it. When the campaign manager refused - she attempted to cover Todd's participation by lying about his intent, stating it was to register as an independent - not be part of the AIP. As Schmidt, the campaign manager points out, Todd was apparently 'mistakenly' a member of AIP for 7 years, and Sarah, while Governor, "mistakenly" recorded a message for the 2008 AIP convention. AIP's sole plank is secession - so apparently Governor Palin "mistakenly" recorded a greeting message for this party which Todd was "mistakenly" a member of for 7 years.

Schmidt rightly pointed out that Todd was clearly a member, that Palin should ignore it rather than exaggerate the issue, and that lying about Todd's participation would only hurt the campaign.

So apparently sweet little Sarah is in fact a political conniver, a schemer, and willing to lie about little things to the American public. In short, she's Bush in a skirt.

What Is Not Said

"I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever.
I don't care what the facts are."
- George H. W. Bush, Vice President
1988 presidential campaign
(in reference to the shooting down of Iran Air flight 655
by the USS Vincennes )

Recently, Senator John McCain and Senatory Lindsey Graham and numerous others have made statements criticizing President Obama's position regarding the unrest in Iran. There has been a glut of video replayed of McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann" from the mid-April 2007 presidential campaign as accompaniment.

In contrast, I have been delighted by the deliberate, subdued tone of the statements coming from the White House. This President has shown a restraint in commenting on the events in Iran that was sorely lacking in the previous administration.

Likewise President Obama has received a great deal of criticism for his Cairo speech, including acknowledging the role of the United States in the 1953 overthrow of Iran's government, the first time an American president had admitted those actions. Those who criticize Obama take the position, consistent with the concept of American Exceptionalism, that to admit an error or wrong doing, on the part of the U.S., is to demean or diminish the dignity of our country, and to bring shame to us as a country, to us all.

I believe that the United States has done many things in the course of our history, both recent and older, which are greatly to our credit, things of which we should be justifiably proud. An objective reading of history however, shows me that we have done other things of which we should, in honesty, be much less proud, sometimes even ashamed. I do not see the acknowledgement of those things to be the essence of the shame, but the doing of them in the first place. Denial of the wrongs only compounds their evils.

Not only do we have on our national conscience the overthrow of a legitimate, democratic government of Iran in 1953, that was reversed by the 1979 revolution. There is the 1988 death of 290 civilians flying on a legitimate commercial air route while still in Iranian air space, when the USS Vincennes used surface-to-air missiles, SM-2MRs to shoot down the Airbus A-300, mistaking it for an F-14 Tomcat. The crew of the Vincennes were awarded Combat Action Ribbons for their actions, the captain of the ship William C. Rogers III was awarded the Legion of Merit, and the air-warfare coordinator, Lt. Col. Scott Lustig, received a Commendation Medal for heroic achievement, for maintaining his poise and confidence under fire. George H. W. Bush praised the crew for acting appropriately.

The United States paid $61.8 million, as a court awarded judgement for the deaths, after finding that the U.S. was at fault, but neither apologized nor admitted responsibility. There were accusations of a cover up, particularly after the United States tried to explain away the action of the Vincennes crew as a psychological condition, "scenario fulfillment". While I have not - so far - found any serious credit for the psychology of scenario fulfillment, it is described as a condition where individuals, such as members of the armed forces are unable to differentiate between the delusion of a training exercise scenario and the real experience, despite the clear indicators of reality. In the case of Iran Air 655, 18 members of the bridge crew suffered from an identical failure to identify reality from delusion.

I will leave comment on the military aspects of this event to Penigma, as he has a background in the armed forces that I lack. It does not require military experience to question why ribbons and commendations were awarded for delusional actions resulting in the deaths of 290 passengers (including 66 children). Above and beyond what were at best a bad response to the shooting down of flight 655, were the U.S. contributions to Saddam Hussein in waging war on Iran during the Iran Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988. Some estimates of casualties are in the range of 2 million, and the weapons used by Saddam Hussein include some of his earliest experiments in massive use of poison gas as a WMD. The Iran Iraq War is in large part the reason that 70% of the population of Iran is currently under the age of 30. Currently, even as the Iran government is sending agents provacateur into Iraq against us, we are sending individuals into Iran to undermine the current regime.

One of the interviews criticizing President Obama included the commentator P. J. O'Rourke, who in response to a comment that the Iranians were unlikely to seek our involvement in their internal differences because of our past actions interfering with them, blew off the idea. "That was a long time ago. No one is going to remember all that stuff from the past." (I paraphrase his comments approximately) Rather, he asserted that we, as moral leaders of the world, should be setting an example by standing up for the rebelling factions. Even if the Iranian factions hadn't asked for our help - or our comments. This would be comparable to the citizens of the United States forgetting Pearl Harbor Day, AND 9/11, AND the Oklahoma City Bombing. This would be comparable to the USA telling the survivors of the Japanese American internment camps they should appreciate how morally superior we are as a country.

Similar statements were made by other conservatives/ right wing/ Republican hawks advocating a more aggressive policy, including John McCain. Senator Graham of South Carolina expressed not only the desire for more provocative statements from the President; he asserted that clearly the Iranians must be asking for our help because some of their signs were IN ENGLISH!

Apparently Senator Graham is unaware that not only is English the language of other countries besides the United States, but it is far more widely understood worldwide as the language of both business and diplomacy than Farsi.

It has been my experience when traveling abroad generally, and especially in the middle east, that the citizens of other countries have very good memories, very long memories, and consistently a better grasp of both history and geography than the average American. There seems to be a willingness to meet Americans half-way, in a spirit of good will, at least for individuals. Failing to acknowledge having ever done anything wrong anywhere at any time, is taken to be a foolish arrogance on our part that is incomprehensible to them. It is incomprehensible to me.

Thank GOD that Obama has the courage and strength to understand and admit our failures, in order to transcend them. Thank GOD that we have a leader who is finally sufficiently confident in himself to proceed carefully and with restraint; who will not let himself be stampeded or pressured into stupidity. A man who clearly understands the value of what is said, and also the sometimes even greater importance of what is NOT said, in being our face to the world.

14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

"
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

It was passed in 1868, along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth as a reaction to the Civil War. It was intended to ensure citizenship and equal protection under the law for all residents, and further to determine how to treat those who might act in open rebellion against the nation. Prior to the Civil War, no text in the Constitution dealt with this matter adequately.

For this purpose, it is Section 1 which I am concerned with - however, it is an interesting aside that there is a specific prohibition against questioning the faith and credit worthiness of the United States (Section 4) - it is interesting because so many out there in the land of extremism do so daily.

In Section 1, I mean specifically, "shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This passage was used to define a "Right to Privacy" by Supreme Court Justices Samual Warren and Louis Brandies in his landmark decision in 1890.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

The principal point of the decision was that a person has the right to be secure in their actions and person without the intrusion of government without good purpose and due process. They relied HEAVILY on the 14th Amendment, in short finding that the government has no right to intrude or know what you are doing, without good reason.

It was from this decision that the Supreme Court, in 1972, decided that the government could not intrude upon the rights of women to seek medical treatment for pregnancy, including terminating a pregnancy by having an abortion so long as the fetus did not meet the standard of being considered a living person, by legal or medical standards. Meaning, if you aren't harming someone else, then medically approved treatments are your choice to undertake. They found that such prohibitions constituted an unreasonable intrusion upon the rights of women to be secure in their persons against unconstitutional intrusion by the government without due process. In short, the Government was violating the "Right to Privacy" of women, without justification.

Since the time of Roe V. Wade, the Neo-Conservatives have rabidly disputed such a right, despite the enormous respect given to Brandeis as one of the brightest Constitutional scholars in the country's history AND despite the irony/hypocrisy of their incessant claims that the Government should NOT otherwise intrude. They claim that Roe V. Wade is 'activism', legislating from the bench, when the 14th could hardly be more clear that as long as someone is not breaking the law - and medical treatment isn't breaking the law - that the government cannot otherwise intrude upon the privacy of the citizen. They fundamentally abhor the "Right to Privacy" despite its rather clear justification by Brandeis. They abhore it because they know that it is exactly the justification for Roe.

So, how utterly ironic that Michelle Bachmann, a Lawyer, LLM, and staunch Neo-Conservative who doubtless disputes the "Right to Privacy", would use and claim such a right to defend her nonsensical civil disobedience against the Census. She is a Court Officer, she doubtless is both educated and bright enough to know the Census is supported Constitutionally, and by both original Constitution of the Bill of Rights and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, as well as Section 1, the Government has adequate right to request information. She hypocritically decries Roe - substantiated and underpinned by the 14th and Brandies, and then wraps herself in Brandeis (as do her fawning, unthinking anti-Government sychophants) when it suits her. She advocates for violating the law for no good or meaningful purpose, to appear as a Champion of the little people, but supports States intruding upon a woman's right to seek termination of pregnancy by passing laws to prevent such procedures - in essence dictating that women must carry to term.

So, she takes a 'moral stand' screaming "Don't Tread on Me!" on a fluff, trivial issue like Census questions, but she's all to happy to otherwise tread on our rights, to deny the "Right to Privacy", and to set the government to spying on the people (in fact investigating them for 'anti American sentiments') whenever it suits her purpose. Those of you who see her as defending you from the Government need to get a clue. She's a clever manipulator, taking stands for liberty when it doesn't matter, and complicit in usurping those rights, denying they even exist, when it does.

The Role of Sex in History

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Saul Bellow

The Role of Sex in History

This title derives from a line of dialog in one of my favorite movies, "The Lion in Winter", said by the character of Eleanor of Aquitaine to Philip of France; the 1968 version, where Eleanor is played by Katherine Hepburn, with the screenplay written by the author of the original play.

I could not resist another post, however soon after my last, given how recent events tie together multiple posts here on Penigma:

A Consensus on the Census Con
A Party of Clay
First Comes Love, Then Comes Marriage
They're Only Words

Rush Limbaugh (see They're Only Words) has now opined that the root cause for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's marital infidelity (see A Party of Clay) was President Obama and the Stimulus Bill.

An approximate transcription of his statement:

“Do you know how many frustrated Americans there are out there at what’s happening? This Sanford business, I’ve got to tell you one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind with Mark Sanford. What he did defies logic. This is more than being 180 degrees out of phase because of lust or love…This is almost like I don’t give a damn. The country’s going to hell in a handbasket. I just want out of here. He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to SC. He didn’t want any part of it. He lost the battle. He said what the hell. The federal government is taking over. I want to enjoy life.”

Limbaugh also characterized Sanford as potentially "our JFK", although I don't think it was because Kennedy was also an alleged philanderer. At least, I hope that wasn't the basis for the comparison...

Now the niggling fact which confounds this assertion is that Gov. Sanford has confessed that he had known his mistress for a number of years, something like seven or eight, and that the affair has been ongoing for approximately a year.

Mrs. Sanford found out about the infidelity approximately five months ago. She threw Sanford out of the house some two weeks ago. (First Comes Love, Then Comes Marriage)

Reporter Gina Smith, from the Columbia's "State", the newspaper that broke the story, indicated that the paper had incriminating emails in their possession for a similar period of time, five or six months, received from an anonymous source. Smith confronted the Governor at the airport in Atlanta on his return from Argentina, and informed him of the emails.

At that time, the Governor first attempted to lie about the affair, until he learned the emails were in the possession of the newspaper, and were about to be made public. That afternoon, in his rambling press event, he admitted to the affair, including his whereabouts, which was news to his wife as well.

The Stimulus Bill passed in February of this year.

The Governor lost in court a few weeks ago in his attempt to resist accepting stimulus money for the state of South Carolina, and the state assembly recently concluded their most recent legislative session.

Does Mr. Limbaugh really believe that his audience is incapable of putting news events in a proper chronological order? ARE they THAT incapable?

Because as much as Humpty, er, Limbaugh would like to blame anything and everything on Obama, and the Democrats/Liberals/ "Lefties", this is just tooooo great a reach, even for the most rabid of followers. Isn't it?

Unless you consistently and vigorously like to ignore and avoid those facts which don't support your position (see The Consensus on the Census Con) There is such a thing as spin, and then.... there is just plain dizzy.