Free Speech And The Muslim World

After reading many news stories and essays this week about the international dust-up over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, I finally feel like I understand what's happening on both sides of this conflict. The arguments on each side fall short of several over-arching cultural themes being played out here. This conflict has coalesced around some very dangerous caricatures that each side has of the other.

First of all, the ideal of a free press is certainly a noble one. I don't agree with the numerous Muslim voices I've heard that the publishing of such cartoons should have been prevented by the Danish government. The cartoons are certainly offensive and I completely understand the outrage among Muslims. They still should not be censored, however. The surest way to legitimize offensive opinions and stereotypes is to engage in the censorship of them. That lends a certain weight to the materials that, in this case at least, have very little value to anyone as far as social commentary goes.

In this same vein, however, I think it's unconscionable the amount of holier-than-thou lecturing I've heard in the past week about how members of the Islamic faith just don't appreciate the value of a free press. That's an insulting stereotype that tries to elevate the authoritarian governmental policies of a few Muslim countries into a dogmatic expression of Islamic faith. There is nothing intrinsic in Islam that conflicts with the notions of freedom held by Western democracies, at least in the interpretation of Islam that most of its one billion plus followers practice. Certainly there are fundamentalists sects of Islam that believe in a more restrictive notion of civil rights, but, again, that's not a mainstream view nor is it unique to Islam.

Along with a distorted view of Islamic belief in civil rights comes similar mistakes in understanding concerning the violence that has erupted in the past week. Again, Islam is no more an intrinsically violent religion than are many other major religions. The Christian United States and Jewish Israel really have no better track record of peace and accord with the world than most Muslim nations do. And that's part of what is spawning the violent reactions to these cartoons.

The cartoons themselves served only to flare up a problem that's been smoldering for years: a general feeling of oppression experienced by many Middle Eastern Muslims. The issues are many: the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, exploitative oil policy by the industrialized nations, allegations of torture by U.S. hands at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and even, to some extent, the residual effects of European colonialism. Furthermore, their own governments have not served the people of the Middle East very well, either. Authoritarian regimes abound, where the powerful and connected live well-fed on the economic largesse of international corporations and foreign government interests, while the vast majority of their people live with few rights, rampant poverty and high unemployment. This has led to an almost nationalized belief in Islam; a belief that replaces nationalist loyalty to any one nation with a shared faith among the downtrodden Muslim people. Thus, the cartoons were not just insulting the religious views of Muslims, but also, in a certain sense, their nation-like identity as a single people.

That's not to say that I condone the violence done in Afghanistan and Lebanon; far from it. But those who claim that violence is somehow and inherent part of the Muslim world are only demonstrating their own bigotry and stereotyping. While thousands did protest violently, the other billion Muslims on the planet did not. Many protested peacefully, which is wholly appropriate. The cartoons were a disgusting, bigoted attack on Islamic beliefs (and Arabs, to a certain degree) and those offended have every right to take to the streets in protest. It's unfortunate that some chose to resort to violence, but that violence has many more causes than just some insulting cartoons. The United States and Europe both have experienced plenty of religiously motivated violence throughout their Christian histories as well.

It's also important to understand the international politicking going on in this nascent cultural feud. The governments of both Syria and Iran have taken a very belligerent stance against the West, basically in an attempt by their governments to woo support from the people. The differences between everyday Muslims offended by an insulting caricature of their faith and the grandstanding by Middle Eastern politicians is an important one, and one that seems to be getting lost at least in the U.S. media. The faith of the Muslim people is not dictated by government officials, even in a theocracy like Iran. Political opportunism is driving both sides of the issue, and neither side has acted honorably to diffuse the situation. Both sides have used the conflict to stir fear and suspicion among their citizens, implying an existential threat from each other. One government's jihad is another's "War on Terror", so to speak.

I take several lessons from this conflict, and they're lessons that the governments of all the nations involved would do well to learn. First, free speech is poor cover for bigotry. Depicting Mohammed as a terrorist is degrading and disrespectful to Muslims, on top of perpetuating a false stereotype. Most Christians would be just as outraged at a depiction of Christ wearing a white hood and burning a cross. Free speech used as a blanket defense of hatred and intolerance cheapens free speech. While the Danish paper certainly shouldn't have been censored, its editors should have recognized the cartoons for what they were and had the respect for their Islamic fellow humans to pass on publication. Or, barring that, to apologize for the insult, rather than using the ideal of a free press as a way to denigrate Muslim culture.

The second lesson I take away is a reaffirmation in my belief that religious fundamentalism is possibly the greatest threat our world faces today. Too many people around the world have already spiritually left the Earth, disdaining it for some mythological other place, and governments around the world have become only too adept at exploiting this religious fervor. Such fervor is the death of reason, and will be the cause of even more serious violence in the future if it is not addressed and remedied. In an increasingly globalized world culture, pluralism is humanity's only hope.

Finally, the most important lesson to come out of this is the realization that a greater understanding of each other's cultures is desperately needed between the United States, the European Union and the greater Islamic world in general. The fact of the demographics is that while Christianity continues to decline in most parts of the world, Islam is growing at a frenetic pace. Islamic parties continue to win victory after electoral victory around the world, and that trend is only going to increase as the Muslim population grows.

If any existential threat exists to the West it's not from Islamic fundamentalists but from a lack of understanding of Islam by the West. The United States, in particular, continues to make mistake after mistake in dealing with the Muslim world, and such mistakes have a potentially devastating cost down the road. The key to ending the violence between our cultures is not some misguided war effort that separates us, but a concentrated learning effort that unites us. Attempting to turn back the tide of Islam's growth is to fundamentally misunderstand the changing times. A world in which Islam is the majority is a very likely possibility and it better serves U.S. interests to work with that change rather than staunchly oppose it.

Pluralism, again, is the key to an integration of cultures; an integration that respects the values of both the Muslim world and the Christian/Secular West. A culture where racist political cartoons and the violent protests inflamed by them are merely lessons in a history book.

An Update On "Cruel And Unusual"

As is generally the case, whenever Wisconsin Public Radio presents a call-in show on a controversial issue, they have a representative of the opposite side of the argument come on later in the week. Today, Republican State Representative Scott Suder was available to defend the bill he penned banning Department of Corrections inmates from receiving any kind of treatment for gender identity disorder. This includes hormone therapy, which is what the current court case settles around, and gender re-assignment surgery, which I didn't cover in my previous post.

As stated in the ACLU's press release, their case in Wisconsin is predicated on federal court rulings determining that doctors, not state officials, should determine the proper medical care for those incarcerated by the state. A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction stopping the law from taking effect until the legal challenges are sorted out.

Representative Suder's attempts to justify his misguided bill were such instructive examples of the Republican mindset on issues of medical science, sexuality and fiscal responsibility, that I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a some of his arguments.

First, Suder claims there is a "raging debate" going on in the medical community as to whether or not gender identity disorder is "real", which is simply not true. I reviewed about a half-dozen medical resources, including WebMD, the Gale Encyclopedias of Psychology and Medicine, and The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and none of these indicated any debate as to the existence of GID. Quite the opposite, in fact. Now, there is some debate as to whether or not hormone treatments are the best remedy, but that sort of debate goes on continuously in many areas of medical science.

The "raging debate" then, is not a medical one, but an ideological one. It's actually quite similar to the "evolution vs. intelligent design" debate; it's nothing more than religious fundamentalists rejecting science because it doesn't agree with what they want to believe. I found plenty of conservative Christian resources purporting to "debunk" the existence of GID, much in the same way they "debunk" evolution. Basically, they don't accept the existence of GID because it doesn't conform to the gender roles laid out in the Biblical books of Genesis and Leviticus. While that may be fine for one's personal beliefs, it is certainly no basis for creating state-wide legislation. Suder's bill is nothing more than another attempt to legislate conservative religious beliefs into law.

However, even if there really was a debate about the existence of GID in the medical community, that still doesn't justify (or excuse) Suder's bill. The purpose of our elected government officials is not to settle scientific debates legislatively. Even if a debate existed, Suder is guilty of picking the side he (and/or his supporters) want to be true. Scientific facts are not set or determined by legislative action, which is essentially what Suder would be doing, assuming his "raging debate" actually existed.

The second defense Suder makes is that most taxpayers don't believe in GID and don't want their tax money used to support such frivolous costs. As pointed out in my previous post, the costs to the taxpayer are practically negligible, at least for hormone therapy. Further, taxpayer ignorance is not a good basis for passing legislation, any more than their spiritual beliefs are. The necessity of medical care is never determined by a popular vote; it's determined by qualified medical professionals and should remain that way.

Besides, tax money is always used in ways to which certain taxpayers will object. That's one of the features of taxation that make it useful; it gets unpopular but necessary programs funded. The courts have long held that the medical care of prison inmates is the responsibility of the state and that medical professionals should determine what kind of care is appropriate. To do otherwise is to run afoul of the Eighth Amendment. If Suder and his supporters believe that the denial of medical care should be part of the prison sentence, then he should introduce legislation to that effect.

Third, Suder attempts to use the "slippery slope" argument by claiming that the transgendered will be "lined up" to get into the Wisconsin corrections system so they can get free "cosmetic surgery". Suder's true opinion of the transgendered really shines through in this statement, I think. Clearly those with GID are just financial opportunists waiting for a handout from the state. Never mind that the current four inmates to whom this law applies were already paying for their own hormone therapy before being incarcerated. Suder is obviously just an old-fashioned bigot, with a trendy new "those people" group to single out.

As to the issue with gender reassignment surgery: while it goes beyond the scope of the ACLU's lawsuit, the same standard applies. While such surgery is generally not covered by private insurance, it is also not strictly cosmetic in the sense that Suder is trying to invoke. It's not a boob-job or a facelift, it's a treatment for a medically recognized physical and psychological disorder. Suder's claim here is again anchored in his misguided belief that somehow GID is just a big conspiracy and doesn't really exist. My son had cosmetic surgery to fix a cleft lip and pallet, which was certainly medically necessary. Labeling a surgery "cosmetic" does not make it frivolous, as Suder is obviously implying.

Finally, Suder makes the well-worn claim that the federal judge who placed an injunction on this law is nothing but a "radical judicial activist acting as a super-legislature". Now initially, this led me to believe that Suder was completely ignorant of the judicial review process, which would probably make his qualifications as a state representative pretty questionable. However, an intrepid caller to the show had the same thought and asked Rep. Suder if that was the case; to which he claimed it was not. According to Suder, the very fact that the judge even believed that the law might be Unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, makes the judge a judicial activist. Apparently Suder believes that a good "strict constructionist" would see that the denial of medical care, while ruled a violation of said Amendment at the federal level, has an intrinsic exception for those who have medical conditions which Suder doesn't believe exist. That's quite an interesting basis for judicial review, in my opinion.

Clearly, Suder knows his law is likely Unconstitutional and probably expected the challenge. As one caller this morning put it, it's all part of the "God, guns and gays" agenda of the Wisconsin GOP. The key to that agenda is getting conservative Christian voters to the polls in the fall, and sadly nothing seems to accomplish that quite like the specter of gay rights blossoming somewhere in the state. This motivational tool works even more effectively once the ACLU gets involved, as most conservatives believe the organization to be eroding American morality. Except, of course, when a conservative feels their own civil rights being impinged upon (*cough*Rush Limbaugh*cough*).

In any case, it seems likely that Suder's law will not stand for long. It's nothing more than an example of a political opportunist picking on a tiny, unpopular minority to bolster support in an election year. That Suder appeals to majority opinion to justify his law is only more evidence that it should be subjected to judicial challenge. Majority rule doesn't determine civil rights in America (at least, not yet).

Radiation Warning

Much has been written already across the blogosphere about the egregious 2007 budget plan the Bush White House recently released. No big surprise that national defense and Homeland Security get a boost while over a hundred social programs get reduced or axed altogether. Flipping through the science news, however, I found a little tidbit from the budget that hasn't gotten much press yet and probably should.

From RedOrbit:

President George W. Bush on Monday asked the U.S. Congress for $250 million in research funds to restart a controversial program that would reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

The United States abandoned the technology in the 1970s because it was too expensive and there was fear terrorist groups or rogue nations could get access to the plutonium and make nuclear bombs.

To those who think this sounds familiar, it should; it's the same thing the White House has accused Iran of attempting to do. Bush is proposing that the U.S. resume processing spent nuclear fuel rods as a way of dealing with the nuclear waste problem in the country.

The article continues:

Under the recycling program, the administration said the United States would partner with other countries to establish the infrastructure necessary to supply nuclear fuel to other nations.

The White House said its plan "will help meet the growing demand for electricity in the developing world through an international framework that will promote emissions-free, safe nuclear energy and eliminate the need for foreign countries to build enrichment recycling capabilities."

Now, on the surface, this almost seems like a good idea. But like just about every proposal the Bush White House dreams up, the real information lies in what they're not telling us.

The first thing the White House seems to be ignoring is the egregious environmental effect that reprocessing nuclear waste has.

From the Nuclear Information and Resource Service:

The Bush / Cheney administration and its congressional allies are intent on reversing over 30 years of extraordinarily rare common sense in nuclear policy. In the 1970s it was decided that irradiated fuel and the plutonium it contains, should be treated as waste–not as a resource. This was in part due to the catastrophic failure after only one year of operations at West Valley, New York–the only commercial reprocessing site to operate in the U.S. West Valley’s reprocessing mess is still not cleaned up – and the projected cost is over $5 billion.

Every reprocessing site (France, UK, Russia, and soon Japan have the largest sites) is an environmental catastrophe, with massive releases of radioactivity to air, land and water; high worker radiation exposures; and residues that are harder to handle than the terrible waste it begins with. Reprocessing creates stockpiles of nuclear
weapons-usable plutonium, and is unviable without large taxpayer subsidies. President Carter banned reprocessing as a nuclear non-proliferation measure; while Reagan lifted the ban, no commercial interest has pursued this expensive
boondoggle, since it is not a profitable enterprise. Our current president apparently intends for taxpayers to pay for the relapse to reprocessing.

It's worth noting also that the depleted uranium in contained in spent nuclear fuel rods is not just a little bit toxic. It delivers a dose of radiation lethal to humans in minutes. It's a very dangerous material, which is why discussions of its disposal are so contentious.

Essentially the process breaks down like so:

Uranium fuel rods can only sustain a fuel-level of fission for about 18 months before they are no longer usable. However, they are still incredibly radioactive (actually moreso than when they were "fresh") and contain certain other elements like plutonium, cesium and strontium. The current reprocessing method takes the spent fuel rods, which are pellets about half the size of a LifeSavers roll, and dissolve them in nitric acid, creating a highly radioactive toxic "stew" that is then reprocessed to remove the uranium-238 and plutonium from the mixture. The u-238 and plutonium are then processed into a fuel called MOX or "mixed oxide". According to NIRS, this MOX fuel is much harder to control in a reactor, though today's nuclear reactors can make use of it. It's also much harder to reprocess after it is spent as well, thus negating much of a recycling benefit on nuclear waste.

An additional problem, and the part that really impacts national security, is the creation of fissile material. About 98% of all the uranium occurring in nature is U-238, which is not useful as a fissile material. The tiny remainder, U-235, is an isotope which is required for the fission process. Most of the older nuclear reactors in use today make use of this naturally occurring uranium mixture. However, nuclear bombs require a much higher percentage of u-235. Since the two kinds of uranium are chemically identical but have different masses, they can be separated in a centrifuge and the amount of u-235 can then be increased in the fissile uranium mass. Behold, then, the wonder of uranium enrichment. Nuclear bombs require in the neighborhood of 80-90% enrichment of u-235 to be a viable weapon, which is the reasoning behind concern when nations like Iran begin building enrichment centrifuges. Complicating the matter, however, is that today's "light water" reactors also use enriched uranium, though at a 3-5% enrichment not useful for nuclear bombs. Thus, the enrichment process has both a practical and not-so-practical use, making regulation difficult.

Another by-product of nuclear waste, plutonium, can also be used to make nuclear bombs. It takes about 10 kg of pure plutonium-239 to make a nuclear bomb. Most countries, like the U.S. and France, use special reactors particularly to create the necessary plutonium for bomb construction. Plutonium is no longer found in the Earth's crust in any significant amount (though it is found dispersed into the atmosphere thanks to past weapons tests). Any reprocessing program to create MOX fuel also creates a stockpile of fissile plutonium that could be very dangerous in the wrong hands.

A few things about nuclear power really haven't changed much in the past 30 years. The waste from nuclear power plants is still a major problem and a very real threat to our environment. The materials used in a nuclear reactor and the waste produced are also useful in creating the most horrific weaponry known to man. Nuclear proliferation seems to get little attention in Washington, both, I think, because the problem is so huge and so serious and because many technical and international complications are involved. The fact remains, however, that the U.S. and other nuclear-armed nations have massive stockpiles of these weapons and they're not likely to disappear any time soon. Bush's sudden interest in the reprocessing of nuclear waste is yet another boon to private energy interest, though in the past the process was eschewed for its costs.

Personally, I think it's a lousy fiscal trade-off in a time of ballooning deficits and shrinking social programs. Our technology and frankly our domestic security need serious improvements before reprocessing spent nuclear fuel becomes a viable program.

A Double Standard

The Wisconsin State Legislature recently passed the Funeral Dignity Protection Act, designed to protect the grieving families of fallen soldiers in Wisconsin, though the law is worded broadly enough to cover any funeral service for anyone. Essentially it requires protestors at a funeral to remain at least 500 ft. away from the service for one hour before until one hour after such service is completed. It was a bi-partisan effort that passed both houses of the legislature with unanimous support and was signed into law by Governor Doyle yesterday.

I think they've made a big mistake, and I'll tell you why:

First, lets be a little more clear on why this law was passed, and others like it are facing passage in other states. Despite what several more conservative sources have claimed, this has nothing to do with anti-war protestors. That rumor has circulated mainly as more fodder for the "liberals don't support the troops" myth that conservatives love to spew about. In actuality, this bill was crafted in response to the activities of Reverend Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church.

This happy-go-lucky collection of degenerate human trash has been visiting the funerals of fallen soldiers, both in Wisconsin and elsewhere, to mock the soldiers' deaths with claims that God is punishing the United States for tolerating homosexuality. Of course, Phelps and his crew pretty much define "tolerance" as anything short of mass genocide, so even the very tepid treatment homosexuals receive in the United States offends the church's members. They have a well-rehearsed collection of hate-filled spew, both slogans and songs, that they use to dishonor the fallen soldier and his/her family.

Unfortunately, the kind of ugly ideology that pigs like Phelps spread can sometimes lead normally rational, compassionate folks to get down in the mire too, which is what I believe has happened in this case. For as much as I despise the Westboro Baptist Church and the message it spreads, I am forced to defend their right to spread it. Creating a law that bans their activities is to hand them martyrdom for their sick cause. Now, instead of being an inconsequential fringe group, they may well become an aggrieved party in a civil rights lawsuit over the First Amendment. I can't even begin to tell you how much it would gall me to see the ACLU forced into a position of defending Fred Phelps, but that's just how important the First Amendment is. Even Phelps has the right to free speech, even if it's ignorant and grossly offensive and violating that right helps legitimize his organization. Both political parties that supported this bill have likely aided Phelps in his cause, all in the name of political grandstanding in an election year.

However, as much as the First Amendment issue is a looming problem, it's the double standard of treatment here that really bothers me. See, the Westboro Baptist Church has been organizing protests for years; only the most recent of which have been at the funerals of fallen soldiers. In fact, Fred Phelps, in an interview with NPR, estimated that he had organized some 25,000 protests over the past fifteen years. Many have been at the funerals of AIDS victims or at the offices of organizations that support homosexual rights and issues. My question to the Wisconsin State Legislature is this: if the message of the Westboro Baptist Church is so offensive that their protests at soldier funerals must be curbed, then why wasn't it offensive enough to warrant legislation protecting the funerals of AIDS victims?

Just to re-emphasize, the Westboro Baptist Church has been spreading its message of hate for gays for fifteen years. Not one state in the Union saw fit to restrict Phelps' activities when it was only affecting gays and their families, and that's a disgusting double standard. The family of a dead gay individual grieves just as bitterly for their loss as the family of a fallen soldier. A dead friend or family member is a tragedy regardless of how or why they died. For the Wisconsin Legislature to suddenly step in and say that such protests are too disrespectful to be allowed is political grandstanding of the worst sort. It's popular, especially in an election year, to vocally support the military and its members. Such public displays of nationalism play very well with the rank-and-file voters in any state. Not so much, however, standing up for the rights and dignity of homosexuals. The Westboro Baptist Church has been allowed to plague the gay community for 15 years and only now, when it affects fallen soldiers, does the Legislature decide enough is enough. I can't even imagine how the family who lost a gay member and had to be subjected to a Phelps protest must feel to see that their loved one's dignity didn't mean as much because their loved one didn't put on a U.S. military uniform.

Now, I don't mean this criticism as disrespect to our fallen soldiers. Every soldier lost in Iraq is a travesty, as they died in a war that never needed to happen. I certainly hope that every soldier has the dignity of a proper funeral honoring their sacrifice. I think it's a tragedy as well that so many soldiers' families have had to tolerate Fred Phelps at their loved ones' funerals but not one family has seen George W. Bush there. However, I also believe that ALL Americans deserve respect and dignity in a time of grief, not just those in a popular constituency. And I certainly don't believe that passing a knee-jerk law that likely violates the First Amendment is a viable solution to the problem.

While I agree with the intentions, if not the actions, of the Democrats supporting this bill, I find the blatant hypocrisy of the Republicans who did the same rather disgusting. The Republican party, by and large, supports the same intolerance of gays that the Westboro Baptist Church supports, except that the Republicans just aren't as openly vocal about it. The Defense of Marriage Act, the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment, the denial of medical and retirement benefits to same-sex partners; the list of transgressions against the gay community is long and has been perpetuated by both parties, in all fairness. But it's the Republican party that draws its support from religious fundamentalists like Fred Phelps and it's rather disingenuous for them to suddenly feign moral outrage at Phelps' message. The message that gays are an abomination doomed to Hell is certainly not unique to the Westboro Baptist Church.

I understand completely why this law was passed and, to a certain degree, I commend part of the thinking behind it. But it leaves me outraged at the clear double standard of treatment accorded separately to the gay community and members of the military. Neither group is any more or less a part of our country than the other, and both deserve respect and dignity. We will always have hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church among us. It's another one of those prices of freedom that we hear so much about. The tacit approval of bigotry against gays supported by many Americans and many of their elected representatives is what allows groups like Westboro to flourish. Restricting the Westboro Baptist Church's right to speech against homosexuality is not the answer. Changing the way Americans think about homosexuality is.

"The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is Fear Itself."

It's such a familiar and well-worn turn of phrase that most of us don't stop to consider any longer what it means. But we should. We're living in the days of the Fear Presidency, when all other concerns about American life are being consumed by an irrational fear of problems abroad. The Bush administration's entire policy package revolves around an unceasing fear, spread around among various areas of public policy.

The first round of hearings are happening even now in Washington over the NSA spying scandal. The President has send Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to be his advocate, though fortunately for Gonzalez the Republicans on the judiciary committee refused to make him testify under oath. That has undoubtedly saved him from perjuring himself, as his testimony has been mainly lies and artful dodges thus far (see firedoglake for live blogging and comments). All attempts by the Republicans and the "So-Called Liberal Media" to frame this issue as a legal debate are nothing but a smokescreen designed to add an air of phony intellectualism to the news coverage and political spin. The facts of the case are blindingly simple, and every time Bush or Gonzalez takes to the bully pulpit in defense of the NSA spying program, they only make the case against themselves that much stronger.

However, it's the character of their main defense for the program that really concerns me today. The statutory and constitutional law issues are clear: the President is in clear violation of both. The only route left for a defense, and they're making great use of it, is pushing the issue into the court of public opinion. Sadly, that's where the Bush administration is able to gain some traction to defend its actions.

The Bush administration traffics its policies in fear, plain and simple. They have created a massive existential threat to the United States out of one band of terrorists who scored a lucky hit. 9/11 was not, and will never be, a defining moment in my life or in my view of the nation. At least, not in the way that George W. Bush would like it to be. The rule of law and our expectation as Americans to be safe from its abuse by our government is one of the pillars of American society. Bush and the Republicans supporting him would like to tear that pillar down and replace it with the unitary executive theory, turning the "Land of the Free" into an armed bunker under an unchecked "Commander in Chief".

Members of Al-Qaida are likely plotting right now to attack the United States again. And they may succeed. Republicans always talk so dewy-eyed about the price of freedom and liberty, while they cower in abject fear of the notion that they may be the ones called upon to pay that price. I don't see the dead of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or Flight 93 as victims primarily, though they certainly are in the sense that they had no expectation of being attacked that day. However, I see them as martyrs to the soul of American liberty who laid down their lives, unwittingly, as testimony to the importance of a free country. In a police state, in a state ruled by fear and bereft of personal liberty, an attack like 9/11 would have been all but impossible. But the price of that protection is victory for Al-Qaida and an end to the civil liberties that define America.

I am not advocating for reckless bravado, such as Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt or "Bring it on" jingoism; far from it. Violent religious fundamentalists are a very real threat to modern nations and vigilance is required. However, that vigilance must be tempered in a respect for our freedoms or else we've given away that which was worth protecting in the first place. The United States, like all nations, has enemies and some of our enemies are likely determined to bring harm to the nation. But just as has been true in the past, so is it true today that the greatest harm done to America is always self-inflicted. Such wounds are always deepest when we allow fear and ignorance to cloud our better judgment.

George W. Bush is using his dwindling public support to change our nation into something unrecognizable, and he is able to engineer that change by feeding the fears of many Americans. Fear has allowed Bush to break the law and violate the Constitution with an illegal domestic spying program, which his supporters defend because they are afraid of another terrorist attack. Bush launched a pre-meditated, unprovoked and ultimately illegal invasion of Iraq, which his supporter defend because they are (or were) afraid of Saddam Hussein and the terrorists they believed (falsely) that he supported. Freedom for the Iraqi people as justification came well after the fact. Bush and his administration are ramping up an almost hysterical fear of Iran, based on the potential for a nuclear program at least 10 years from fruition, which his supporters defend because they are afraid of a nuclear-armed Iran. Humanity is long past the danger point of nuclear proliferation; one more small player doesn't seriously up the ante.

The point being in all this is that the Bush administration has done a masterful job peddling fear to the American people; so much so that even those who once considered themselves "conservatives" have been only too willing to throw away all in which they pretended to believe, for a weak promise of protection. Thousands of Americans have died on Bush's watch, so his ability to protect anyone is questionable at best. Conservatives cave in to the notion that the President has some sort of extra-legal authority in a "time of war", ensconced in a radical re-interpretation of the role of the President as "Commander in Chief" of the entire nation. When faced with a potentially un-ending war, like the "War on Terror", opposition to this new interpretation of Article II becomes crucial. The United States has never been, and never should be, a nation abdicating the responsibility "of the people" to govern in exchange for a dictatorial strong man's promises of safety. The attempts by the Republicans and the Bush administration to do so is nothing but a white flag of surrender to the very terrorists from whom they claim to be protecting us. That's the real "cut and run"; cutting away our laws in order to run away with our freedoms. No thank you!

The surest way to stop the cowardice of Bush and his Republican allies from further degrading the culture of our nation, besides a few elections, is to throw off the stifling blanket of fear with which they've draped our nation. For my own small part, I've added the "Litany Against Fear" to my by-line for the month of February. Now, some may say that I include it because I'm a science fiction nerd and because the "Dune" series is my favorite bit of fiction, and they'd be right, of course. But I also think it's a brilliant mental exercise for steeling the fear-ridden conservative mind for the challenges of living in a free country. That it was part of a novel written as an allegory about the struggle for oil amid western colonialism just adds to the relevance.

For those supporting Bush's fear initiatives, please repeat after me:

I will not fear.

Be concerned, be vigilant and be unwavering, but don't be afraid.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear trumps all reason and rationality. It makes one believe crazy things like Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaida or that the President has extra-special powers outside the Constitution granted him whenever the military deploys.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

Nothing that Al-Qaida can do to America will ever come close to what the Bush administration would like Americans to fear that Al-Qaida can do. Conservatives defending Bush's illegal policies are helping to weaken America and accomplish Al-Qaida's goals for them.

I will face my fear.

That means standing up for your country and its laws, not the men who break them. The nation and the Presidency are far bigger than George W. Bush.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

The world looks very different when one's not afraid of it.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Those who don't learn from history (Nixon, interment camps)...

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

This is essentially what FDR was saying in the quote I borrowed above.

Only I will remain.

One can be a conservative and a Republican and still not allow one's leaders to run roughshod over the Constitution. It has nothing to do with partisanship. Conservative or liberal, Bush is taking the nation somewhere no American should want to go. The hearings in the Senate today may come to some fruition, but probably will not. The Republicans have placed loyalty to the party above all else, and are unlikely to turn against the President. Unless, of course, the voters do so first and demonstrate as much at the ballot box later this year.

Fear is the only weapon the Bush administration has left. Once that fear is gone, nothing else remains.

Cruel And Unusual

I've been a bit remiss of late, what with the all the excitement going on in Washington, at keeping an eye on the Republican wingnuts here in Wisconsin. It seemed to me that they had pretty much discovered every way to roll back the Age of Enlightenment with their religious social policies in 2005, and I talked about many of them here. Unfortunately, it seems I missed at least one, which was discussed on WPR this morning.

The Wisconsin legislature had passed a new law that denies gender re-assignment hormone therapy to Department of Corrections prisoners. Basically, there are 4 inmates in the state of Wisconsin that had been receiving hormone treatment for their gender identity disorder prior to the laws passage who will now be forced to forego treatment. Naturally, the Wisconsin branch of the ACLU is not amused by this clear violation of the Eighth Amendment and has sued the Department of Corrections, resulting in a temporary suspension of the law by the 4th circuit court of appeals (widely believed to be the most conservative in the country).

The ACLU maintains that the denial of necessary medical care is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, a view which has been supported in the past by the Supreme Court. Yet, the Republicans in Madison, aided and abetted sadly by Governor Jim Doyle, decided that such treatment was just not something for which the taxpayers of Wisconsin should have to bear the burden. Not a pretty picture, on any level.

The courts have long considered the denial of proper medical care as "cruel and unusual punishment", such as defined under the Eighth Amendment. Gender identity disorder is a legitimate and medically recognized disorder and, as such, gives no compelling reason for a denial of care. Further, there is a whole host of negative side effects that can result from a sudden termination of hormone therapy. Cardiovascular problems, depression, anxiety, sudden gain or loss in weight...just to name a few. These are medical problems that the state would then be required to treat, which really makes no sense when they can be avoided by a relatively cheap treatment.

Hormone therapy for gender identity disorder is estimated to cost between $900 and $1600 per year; no small amount for the individual but a paltry sum compared to the Department of Corrections budget. Each of the four inmates affected by this law were able to manage treatment prior to incarceration; it's rather hard to believe that the state of Wisconsin would be overly burdened by the cost. Plus, as noted above, the costs of treating the side effects wrought from discontinuing the hormone treatments could potentially range much higher. So the justification by the Republicans for this law as a way of saving taxpayer dollars just doesn't hold water.

Of course, this really gets to the meat of the issue: the real reasons this law was introduced and passed. It's yet another attempt by the Republican party of Wisconsin to introduce and enact legislation which unfairly burdens individuals with lifestyles that don't fit into the predominantly conservative Christian social morays of GOP members and supporters. After all, hormone treatments for women to combat severe menopausal symptoms or osteoporosis are not restricted by this law. Only those which help treat gender identity disorder are restricted. It's a blatant attempt to denigrate a small and misunderstood minority, whose existence, for whatever reasons, seems to irritate the phony family values crowd.

This issue did spawned an unusual amount of conservative backlash on the radio call-in this morning, as well. Normally those calling in to a WPR show tend to be on the reasonable and educated side. They tend to be more liberal, though there are often conservatives as well, but on the whole they are an intellectual lot that make for an interesting discussion. Not so, apparently, when gender identity disorder and gender re-assignment issues are being discussed. Sadly, there still seems to be a few small minorities that many folks feel free to denigrate at will, with no sense of humanity whatsoever. The justifications for this law came fast and furious:

"These people are criminals so why should they be comfortable and provided for medically?

This sort of view is a conservative staple that combines the conservative hatred of the notion that someone, somewhere may be receiving some benefit that said conservative is not with the macho baffoonery of being "tough on crime". Neither stance makes any sense, which is why the rest of America is fortunate to have a judicial system that makes sure such notions usually don't become law. As I've said in other posts, basic needs such as food, housing, clothing and medical care are the right of every American, regardless of circumstances. No country as materially wealthy and carelessly consumerist as the United States should ever tolerate the idea that a single American goes without the basics. A person who is incarcerated for a crime is being stripped of their rights and freedoms for a time as punishment for their offenses. Denying them medical care in order to save a few bucks is morally reprehensible and a violation of our American ideals.
Further, there is nothing "tough" about denying decent care to prisoners. They've been deprived of their liberty as punishment for their crimes and thus the government is responsible to provide them with the basic necessities that they can no longer seek on their own. Our prison system is horrific enough without adding the cruelty of discomfort or death due to denied medical care. No public good of any kind is served by such actions.

"Wisconsin tax payers already pay too much in taxes, so why should they have to pay for this sort of thing as well?

This complaint is slightly more complex than it seems at first, primarily because complaints about tax responsibilities are often legitimate. Wisconsin taxpayers pay quite a bit compared to the rest of the country, and that money is not always used to its best effect. However, as demonstrated above, the cost to provide four transgendered individuals with hormone treatments for a year is less than the cost of most used cars. Frugality is one thing, cruelty through penny-pinching is quite another.
Furthermore, the issue isn't really the medical care, it's the people who are benefiting from the care. For many conservatives, gender identity issues are just a new spin on homosexuality and such conservatives refuse to recognize either as anything but deviant lifestyle choices. Bigoted, yes, but a matter of personal choice until the legislature gets involved. Even if conservative taxpayers in Wisconsin despise the transgendered with every bone in their bodies, they still don't have the right to deprive those individuals of basic medical care. That's one of purposes of taxes anyway; to make sure that unpopular but necessary services are provided for financially.

"There are plenty of poor people in Wisconsin who can't afford health care, so why should these people in jail get it on the taxpayer dime?"

This just about borders on a legitimate complaint, but unfortunately goes on to blame the wrong party. As established above, the transgendered folk in Wisconsin jails have a right to sound medical care under the Constitution. The problem of others in the state not having such health care coverage is a question that conservatives should be asking their Republican legislators. The problem isn't that the four transgendered inmates are getting a benefit they don't deserve. The problem is that the poor of Wisconsin aren't getting the benefits they do deserve. Conservative ideology in this case focuses on bringing down others to the same level of suffering instead of raising them up to a shared level of prosperity. The same argument seems to occur often in labor issues; many conservatives seem to think union members should lose their good benefits rather than everyone else gain those same benefits. It's a bleak worldview of shared suffering that, unfortunately, dovetails nicely into a certain prominent faith's belief in a reality of suffering.

It's disheartening to imagine the kind of cynical political calculus the Republicans used to come up with an egregious law like this one. It's clearly a grade-school bully mentality, designed to score cheap political points at the expense of a misunderstood and mistreated minority. Where the dividing line once was race, now it's sexuality and gender issues. Regardless, it's still rank bigotry and the Republicans who sponsored this bill, along with our trying-too-hard-to-be-Centrist governor who signed it into law, should hang their heads in shame. They are pandering to a majority view that has no social value or moral framework other than contempt and loathing for those who are different. The Bill of Rights was written for the protection of just such Americans as these four affected by this misguided law. The denial of medical treatment is cruel and unusual punishment and has no place in Wisconsin or anywhere else.

Liberal in a Small Town

My first attempt at serious blogging

Well, as of late I have heard comments like:
“If you’re so liberal, why do you live in such a small town?”
“How can you be liberal living in such a ‘white’ city?”

And inferences reminiscent of:
‘Put your money where your mouth is’
‘You can’t be “all that liberal” if you live in such a “white bread” town’

Well, I really take offense to this. I consider myself to be very liberal.
Yes, I am a straight, married, white woman with three children, but that doesn’t automatically qualify me into any of the following categories:
Conservative, Christian, Republican, Elitist, Sexist, Racist, Homophobic, Small-minded, Red Neck, Separatist, Prejudice, Nut-case Psychos.

So, what’s it like to be a liberal in a small mid-western town?
Some myths prove to be true, but others… dispelled!
Viroqua, Wisconsin
Vernon County
Population of 28,702 (as of 2004)

Yes, I admit the area is very ‘White’ per-se and I really delight every time I see someone of darker shade, in town… but that doesn’t make it all bad.
The last census breakdown looked like this:
27,723 ~ “Whities”
62 ~ Black or African Americans
142 ~ American Indian
160 ~ Asian
18 ~ Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander
186 ~ Hispanic or Latino
236 ~ Two or more races
175 ~ Other races

96.5% of people are white, but that’s not too bad when you have to consider the scary, insane amount of Norwegians you’ll find around here (picture me cringing). Westby (the next town North) is entirely inhabited by these Lutheran, Lefske, Lutefisk loving Norsemen; who claim to be a minority of their own. I don’t know about all that, but I do know they seriously skew any and all polls and unfortunately determine the all-over lack of any discernible flavor found in area restaurants.

This was a bit of culture shock for me, initially. I had visited my mom and siblings up here for the last twelve years and was accustom to the scenery, but didn’t really get the full feeling of “The Great White North” until moving here.

In the past six years I had lived in much more metropolitan areas and I dream of living in Madison, WI… it is the epicenter of acceptance and open-mindedness (in my mind’s eye).
In Indianapolis - the only Caucasian neighbor we had, was a middle aged gay man with many, many young (as in ½ his age, not illegal) boyfriends.
In the Chicago suburbs – we lived in a very diverse neighborhood, surrounded by large Hispanic, Asian and Indian populations; A Muslim, Indian woman watched my children, while I worked in an office filled almost entirely of Black and / or African American and Jewish co-workers.

I completely enjoyed all the benefits of urban diversity. I love learning about other cultures, spending time with people of other races, religions and opinions, being able to shop in cultural neighborhoods (Note: the choice of restaurants was outstanding) and so on.
But, with all those wonderful highlights, there comes the drawbacks of having to work full-time, not being able to stay home with my children, the high cost of living, the traffic and the crime.

So, we decide to move to ‘Rural Wisconsin.’ I am now able to stay home with our kids, we were able to have a third baby and I can work on my own business, instead of working for someone else. The lack of traffic is heavenly and the crime rate is also very low here. The 2004 Vernon County estimates looked like this:
0 ~ Murders
4 ~ Rapes
1 ~ Robbery
9 ~ Aggravated Assaults
45 ~ Burglaries
248 ~ Larceny / theft
17 ~ Motor Vehicle thefts

Politically speaking: Vernon County voted Democratic in the last two presidential elections. According to unofficial vote totals for 2004, Bush received 6,773 votes and Kerry received 7,924 votes.
In the November 2000 race, Vernon County narrowly supported Al Gore. Countywide, 5,684 people voted for Bush and 6,577 voted for Gore. Nader received 676 votes.

There are a lot of local activists and people that should be admired. Here are a couple, that I have been able to personally talk to and have community dealings with (something that never happened in the cities):

Anthony Reuter, as a High School Junior at the time, lead students in a demonstration protesting the cancellation of “Diversity Day” in 2004 (an all time low for small towns), due to the 400 person petition to remove a local lesbian couple’s speaking engagement. The planned Diversity Day would have included sessions featuring the Hmong, Jews, African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Amish and Native Americans in addition to the gay speaker. The keynote speaker was to be UW-La Crosse professor Dr. Gregory Wegner, who was to address Nazi Germany’s use of racial stereotypes to manipulate public education.
In his rally speech, Anthony “outed” himself to hundreds and was quoted in national newspapers saying, "When someone leaves this almost entirely white, Christian town, they will encounter people who are different. Why not have that encounter happen in a safe environment? In school." The decision of the School Board was later overturned and Diversity Day continued, thanks to Anthony, a large group of students, teachers and local community members.

In the past few years, Karen Dahl, who runs the county Democratic Women’s Club, organized supporters and helped Jin Gao, a local resident, gain her Green Card and avoid deportation to China. She also started The Flame of Hope Foundation.

There are also a lot of social and cultural policies / "schools of thought", that I deem important to my “liberalness.” A lot of these are fulfilled in this small town with a lot of surprises.

Organic Valley, the largest independent organic farmers' co-op in the nation, has lured people interested in alternative agriculture to this area. Some claim that our county has the most organic farmers per capita in the nation, and it's easy to believe, as I had the opportunity to work in O. V.’s Marketing Department during my last pregnancy. During local tornado disasters, this past summer, they donated days of food, drinks and man-power to rebuild the small town of Viola, Wisconsin. On a national scale, they are a large supporter of Farm Aid and helped with the Hurricane Katrina Relief effort. Along with Youth Initiative High School students and parents, they set-up the “New Waveland Café” and served thousands before FEMA arrived!

Youth Initiative High School is another example of free-thinking in the “Driftless Region.” The school was founded by a group of students (and their parents) in 1996 who wanted to take responsibility for their education (my younger brother, Ethan, was one of them). Students are full voting members of the school community, serving alongside parents and faculty on the Board of Directors and on many other committees. YIHS students also take responsibility for raising a significant part of the school's annual budget through a variety of independently organized fundraising activities. They are also responsible for cleaning and maintaining the school's facilities.

Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School, one of the only rural Waldorf schools in the country (and the first Wisconsin school to offer an organic hot lunch), just celebrated its 25th anniversary last year. Prior to my two youngest siblings, Eric and Elizabeth, attending the school, I didn't know much about the Waldorf curriculum, but I've grown to value the school's commitment to art and creativity.

There are so many other examples of open-mindedness (too many to list), including: RadioDriftless a volunteer-based, listener sponsored, non-commercial, free-speech educational FM radio station. Community Conservation, a community-based conservation programs with a strong emphasis on voluntary local participation and respect for rural people as being the best stewards of their own lands.

Viroqua and Vernon County also have an annual ‘Green Home Show’, a monthly Video Salon showing political films with discussion and debate following, the Kickapoo Valley Reserve and the thriving down town boasts such attractions as a seasonal farmer’s market, a dance studio, the restored Temple Theatre and artsy shops galore!

So, is the small town life of a liberal perfect? No! There are so many issues and problems that arise everywhere in this country of ours. The controversy over the gay speaker could happen anywhere… city dwellers wear blinders, just like the Amish horses. In fact, for all its diversity, the city's segmented society makes it easy to stay in your own circle and to dismiss those with whom you disagree. I heard a woman who grew up here, now in her late 40s, remarking that when "hippies" first started moving here in the 1970s, they were met with hostility and sometimes with baseball bats! Today's migrants, who often bring money and jobs into the community, are welcomed. Lives here become so intertwined that we're forced into deeper relationships and hopefully that means more acceptance for all! So, I will continue to get a “giddy, school girl grin” every time I see a new African American, Asian, Hispanic, Indian or family of mixed origins moving here. I might just start becoming more of an activist, as I see that there is room for anyone to make a BIG difference in this (or any) small town.

Thanks for reading ~ Alesha

The State Of The Union SnoreFest

I really try to diligently watch this mess every year, mainly to see just what new outrages to prepare for in the following year. This year's State of the Union speech, however, was notably dull even by the normal painful standards of a Bush speech. According to Bush, the State of our Union is about the same as every campaign speech he gave in 2004.

On the war in Iraq, Bush had nothing but empty platitudes about "being victorious" and "staying the course" and "ending well". I honestly wasn't sure if he was referring to our soldiers dying in Iraq or the Seahawks' chances on Sunday. Bush seems to have an almost sociopathic lack of connection to this war he has started. He offers nothing but comic book style jingoism and a basic warning that anyone disagreeing with him is a traitor. Typical Republican garbage, only slightly more offensive coming from the President. Basically, the war in Iraq will end about the same time as Republican control in Washington and no sooner, sadly. Bush has no clear plan, no exit strategy and an apparent lack of understanding about any aspect of democracy not involving actual voting.

On education, he calls for more science and math education, which is good, while expanding his egregious "No Child Left Educated" program to ruin high schools as well, which is bad. If only Kissinger winning the Nobel Peace Prize hadn't killed it, I'd find irony in the President who supports "Intelligent Design" calling for science education. Perhaps he meant astrology and phrenology?

On energy, it was again rather ironic listening to a failed Texas oil man talk about weaning us from foreign oil. I'll bet Prince Bandar will be reluctant to hold hands any more if Bush doesn't commit to oil. I think Exxon's record profits are a pretty big guarantee that the business interests who own the Republican party have no interest in alternative energy. Sorry, Bush, but leave environmental concerns to the Democrats and Greens; your phony concern is nauseating.

On health care, he really...didn't propose much of anything. He sort of talked around the issue but is certainly not going to risk those valuable Republican donations from HMOs, insurance companies or drug companies. Medicare Part D is an unmitigated disaster that, again, will not get cleaned up until the Democrats regain control. Bush touched briefly on social security and my only thought is to hope he'll make it a central issue again. Trying to sell social security reform to older folks by guaranteeing their money at the expense of their kids and grandkids was a real winner of a strategy. Let's see him try that again.

On the economy, Bush clearly lives on another planet. Wages are flat, the stock market is flat, we still haven't gained back as many jobs as were lost in the last recession, etc. Basically, the economy is great as long as you're a major corporate stockholder or commodities investor. Otherwise, probably not really much getting done for you financially. Of course, Bush wants his tax cuts made permanent. That way, he can claim to cut taxes while actually borrowing from our children and grand children. Here's a quick note to Republicans: if you don't cut expenditures, then you haven't really cut taxes. You've only deferred them. He also trotted out the old standby of tax cuts giving Americans more money to spend and thus boosting the economy. Funny, but I was pretty sure that the government was awfully busy spending that tax money already. In fact, they were spending it on high risk, low return items like infrastructure and social programs. It's also worth noting for Bush that cutting a deficit in half that didn't exist when you took office just makes you a slightly less incompetent fiduciary manager.

On the wiretapping, Bush stuck to his guns that, regardless of what the Constitution says, he believes he's acting within his power as President. Must be a different Constitution than the one the U.S. normally uses. Also, judging by the applause, Republicans actually like having a President that breaks the law with impunity. Well, I guess if Osama Bin Ladin's goal was to destroy the American way of life, Bush has decided the best way to stop him is to destroy it first.

And that's really all I can remember of the SOTU. It was boring, full of meaningless rhetoric and political jargon and really articulated the only message that Bush actually seems to believe: "Stay the course".

*********

As for the Democratic response, I was too mezmerized by Tim Kaine's wayward eyebrow to really internalize what he had to say. Given that he's an Anti-choice, Anti-Gay rights former Christian missionary, I have a feeling that he and I are probably on opposite ends of the Democratic tent from each other. The only point I will make about the Democratic response is that it struck a concilliatory tone, while looking to the future. Kaine took a few very polite shots at Bush's policy but basically said very little. No surprise, as there is really no need for any Democrat to be articulating policy specifics yet. The Republicans have control of all three branches of government; let them sink or swim with their own policy. Those who voted for them are getting the government they deserve. The rest of us will just have to live with their mistakes.

Someone's Pants Are On Fire (Just Like His Boss's)

My Senator, Russ Feingold, continues to make a brilliant case demonstrating why he should be the next President, while Attorney General Alberto "Abu" Gonzalez continues to make a brilliant case demonstrating that no Bush administration official can ever be taken at their word.

From the Washington Post, via Holden at First Draft:

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

Apparently Gonzalez is experiencing memory loss comparable to, but not in excess of, that caused by organ failure, namely his brain. This revelation brings a few terms to mind for me; terms like "perjury" and "contempt of Congress". I guess when one supports torture and the abuse of executive power, merely lying to Congress doesn't stir one's conscience. Once again, the "party of moral values" at work.

The Congressional hearings on Bush's illegal domestic spying program begin next week and this revelation, along with the Glenn Greenwald's revelation that the Bush administration opposed expanding FISA in 2002, should make for some very interesting questions, at least from the Democrats. Obviously the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will just bloviate about the imminent danger of destruction from the ravening Muslim Hordes, while feigning polite interest in the Constitution and Rule of Law. They wouldn't be caught dead opposing their Fearless Leader or their party, especially in an election year. Well, unless Bush's poll numbers continue to fall. Of course, they don't pay attention to polls, except when they do.

The right wing spin machine has been working overtime of late to paint the President's actions in terms of the "War on Terror" and to confuse the issue in the minds of the public. It will do them no good. Fortunately in the United States, whether or not someone has broken the law is not decided by popular vote.

It doesn't matter if Bush claims the NSA was only spying on Al-Qaida suspects and every person in America but myself believes him: he still broke the law. It doesn't matter if Bush feels getting a FISA warrant is too time-consuming: he still broke the law. It doesn't matter if Bush and Gonzalez consider the Fourth Amendment threshold of "probable cause" too unworkable: he still broke the law. It doesn't matter if the President presents a "signing statement" saying that he reserves the right to ignore the law in the interests of protecting the country: it's no less the law and he's still breaking it. The President has no authority to break the law. Ever. It's an open and shut case and grounds for impeachment.

Of course, we on the Left realize that all of the excuses for violating FISA and the Fourth Amendment that Bush and Gonzalez have used are all just window dressing. They're framing the debate away from what the real issue should be. We KNOW Bush broke the law and will continue to break the law: he's admitted as much. The real question is why does he insist on breaking the law? In light of the circumstances, the ease of getting FISA warrants and the administration's stance in 2002, the answer is simple. Bush and his handlers knew they wouldn't be able to get a warrant or get Congress to give them the authority for the scope of domestic spying that they're doing.

The primary duty ascribed to the President of the United States and, by extension, his appointees, is to uphold the Constitution. It's right there in the Oath of Office for the President. No matter what Bush or Gonzalez may think of FISA or the Fourth Amendment, ignoring either just simply is not an option in their line of work. If Bush feels the Fourth Amendment is too restrictive, then he should get a Congressman to sponsor an Amendment to change it. That's his only option under the law. This is the job he agreed to take and if he feels he can't do it as required, then it's high time for George W. Bush to resign the Presidency. If he cannot safeguard our laws and uphold our Constitution, then he cannot be President. Period.

No matter how much lying, spinning and obfuscating Bush and Gonzalez do, one fact remains: Bush knowingly and intentionally broke the law. He continues to break the law, unabashedly, and he has indicated his intention to break other laws if he feels the need. Gonzalez should be only too happy to defend Bush's intentions to violate the McCain anti-torture amendment; "Abu's" been down that road before.

Lose The Battle, Never The War

Well, at long last, the multiple confirmation circus kicked off by Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement is finished.

From Americans United:

The Senate voted this morning 58-42 to confirm Alito. Alito's ascendancy to the nation's Supreme Court could not be impeded despite the array of public interest groups that had urged the Senate to defeat the nomination.

[Executive director Rev. Barry W.] Lynn, however, commended the 42 senators who voted against Alito's confirmation.

"History will prove that these principled lawmakers were the ones who stood to defend the rights of the people," Lynn said.

I have just a few random, final thoughts on the Alito nomination that I think are relevant in hindsight. Obviously the vote today is a big non-event, at least from the Left's perspective. We know that Republicans always vote in bloc, so there is really no chance of any outcome but confirmation. So be it.

My first thought on this matter is that, for the first time in too long, I'm proud to be a Democrat. I'm also proud of my support for John Kerry in 2004. Sure, the filibuster didn't work; no one really expected that it would. There was always hope but it was just a dim glimmer in the growing dark. However, it's worth noting that Senator Kerry was able to get 25 votes for the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee; no mean feat. Take, for example, the judicial dark lord of far-right conservatism, Antonin Scalia. Scalia received 98 votes from a Senate controlled by Democrats. Or even look at Clarence Thomas, the most obviously unqualified Justice on the Supreme Court. Even he managed to clear a Democrat-controlled Senate, though by a very slim margin. The Democrats could have very easily filibustered Thomas and instead chose to play the "be reasonable" card and roll over. The point is that what Kerry and his fellow Democrats did is take a hard stand on principal, a stand they likely expected to be a losing one. Such principled stands are the key to re-invigorating support for the Democratic party.

My second thought, as my title indicates, is that this was just one more battle in the ongoing war for American society. It's very difficult under our system of government to score many political victories from a minority status. However, in politics, moreso than in many other arenas of conflict, how you fight the battle is sometimes just as important as whether you win or lose. The Alito confirmation was a battle for the Republicans; a battle for a party with monolithic control of Washington. Sure, the Republicans are going to get their way; they have the numbers to insure that sad reality. But the protracted public battles over each and every Republican initiative is demonstrating to the American people that the Republican party doesn't represent most of them. The polls show that message finally beginning to sink in to Average Joe American. The judicial philosophies of Alito, Scalia, Thomas and likely Roberts are beneficial to businesses and executive-branch governmental authorities, not to everyday Americans.

My final thought is that it's time to move on from this battle. The Republican party is fraying at the seams, Bush remains a steadfastly unpopular President that can't find a single winning policy issue and the 2006 mid-terms are fast approaching. It's a simple truth: the party that believes government is the problem and not the solution should NOT be in charge of running the government. That's just common sense organizational management. Compare the peace and prosperity of the Clinton administration with the wars and recessions of the Bush administration; the difference is the management style. In any case, the Republicans have nothing left to run on in 2006 and President Bush is only a 14 seat swing in the House away from answering some very tough questions about his abuses of power.

America will likely have some contentious times ahead, as the new ultra-conservative Supreme Court sets about re-making American life into a funhouse mirror reflection of the pre-New Deal era. Again, so be it. The focus for liberal Democrats has to be control of Congress first and the Presidency second. The ability of one party, while in control of all three branches of the federal government, to damage the country is too great. Control of Congress will go many miles towards mitigating the potential damage of the far-right Court. It's past time to get the responsible party, the party that believes in the beneficial role of government, back in control of Washington anyway.

One last note: thank you, Senator Kerry and those who joined with you in an attempt to have an actual debate about a Supreme Court nominee. You stepped up when it counted and I, along with many other liberals in Left Blogistan, definitely took note.

Keeping The Powder Dry (As Usual)

The true locking of horns takes place today in the Senate over the Alito nomination and the rumors are flying fast and furious. CNN's Ed Henry has already reported that the so-called "Gang of 14" Senators are conspiring to block the Kerry filibuster. While I expect that kind of pointless grandstanding from the Republicans, it's infuriating to watch the party I belong to cave in that way. It's sad that something as important to American life as a Supreme Court nominee doesn't even warrant an extension of debate.

Of course, the Republicans, especially President Bush, want this nomination debate over now. First, because Bush is desperately looking for something, anything to list as an accomplishment in tomorrow night's State of the Union address. Second, the Republicans, in spite of what they and certain of their supporting groups may claim, know exactly what they're getting in Alito and know that most Americans won't like it if they realize it too. He's nothing more or less than a rightwing ideologue whose judicial philosophy begets a remaking of American society. The few issues relating to civil rights and executive power that have come to light during the hearings are only the tip of the Alito iceberg.

The frustrating thing is that these 7 Democratic Senators don't seem to realize that this kind of "go along to get along" political tactic only feeds into the negative Republican narrative about what's wrong with the Democratic Party. It also reinforces the "winner takes all" theory of democracy that's so prevalent on the Right these days. The Supreme Court is not a high stakes dead pool, with the electoral victor setting the course for American culture by leaning the Court. The President isn't elected to shift American life in a certain ideological direction. He or she (well, let's be honest: "He") is elected to be the safe-guard of our nation's identity. Great Presidents past were not great merely for their leadership abilities and charisma, but their ability to chart a safe path for American life through very turbulent waters. Thus far, Bush has seen his role as President not as the caretaker of America life, but as its helmsman.

At the very least, concerning Alito again, the debate should continue. The American people need to know exactly what they're getting in Samuel Alito and if the Republicans don't think Americans will find that palatable, then perhaps Bush needs to re-think Alito's nomination. I can't think of many things more demonstrating a dying of democracy than a forced end to debate on such a controversial issue. The country will not collapse if the Alito debate continues into February, or even March. The only reason to end debate now is because every minute of disclosure tarnishes Alito's cherry shine with a little more lemon yellow.

Philosophy Friday: To Whom Does E.T. Pray?

NASA made a ground-breaking discovery this week; one that started me thinking about the changes wrought upon humanity by scientific discovery.

The details, via RedOrbit:

Using an armada of telescopes, an international team of astronomers has found the smallest planet ever detected around a normal star outside our solar system.

The extrasolar planet is five times as massive as Earth and orbits a red dwarf, a relatively cool star, every 10 years. The distance between the planet, designated OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, and its host is about three times greater than that between the Earth and the Sun.

The planet's large orbit and its dim parent star make its likely surface temperature a frigid minus 364 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 220 degrees Celsius). This temperature is similar to that of Pluto, but the newly found planet is about one-tenth closer to its star than Pluto is to the Sun.

Behold the wonders of gravitational microlensing! Astronomers now have the ability, in certain rare cases, to spot small, Earth-type planets around other stars. Part of the sheer "Star Trek" coolness of this is the increased possibility that humans may at last make contact with other beings in the universe besides ourselves.

I firmly believe the onus of first contact will be on we Earthlings. Certainly any extra-terrestrial society technologically advanced enough to reach or contact Earth will almost certainly be able to intercept our satellite transmissions. A few days of monitoring CNN should convince any exploring intelligence to leave humans well alone. We're dangerous and unpredictable! We're also very abusive to our environment and other species, though mainly just different members of our own kind. Pretty silly, when you think about it...

Anyway, I have to wonder about the religious faiths of those we may find on another planet, as well as the changes to our own faiths here. Most western religions are based around the ideal of human exceptionalism; that mankind has a special place and plays a special role in the grand scheme of Creation. But that leading role becomes very questionable when another strong actor enters the stage. Certainly the residents of a newly discovered planet would have their own beliefs on universal origin, and could very likely see themselves as the exceptional beings. We humans don't really have a great track record when confronted with new and different religious beliefs and our initial encounters with a new intelligent species would likely be tense, to say the least.

The more important question, however, is how would the morals and faiths of humanity change when confronted with a totally new paradigm of existence. At last, we will no longer be the cradle of life in the universe but only a small part of a larger community (many of us already believe this anyway). The very nature of humanity's relationship to the universe, in a spiritual sense, will change for most of the world.

The so-called "Earth faiths", such as Wicca, Druidism or various aboriginal beliefs, will actually not change much, I think. They tend to already be centered around an intimate sense of belonging to part of nature as a whole. Such faiths will likely just assimilate a new world and a new people as a newly understood part of that greater whole. In fact, Wicca and Druidism, faiths centered around wisdom and understanding of the universe as a means of spiritual fulfillment, would likely flourish in such a new reality. A new planet teeming with life would offer an untapped well of discovery.

Many eastern religions would probably fare decently as well. Taoism, which I am more familiar with, would easily adapt to a new reality of humanity not being alone any longer. Mystical faiths, such as Taoism, would be somewhat inoculated from change by their very introspective nature. Again, it would be an opportunity for personal growth, this meeting of cultures once separated by the vastness of space.

It's in looking at the western religions, particularly Christianity and Islam, that contact with a new alien race could really affect profound change. I will focus on Christianity, as I'm more familiar with it, though Islam also would face many of the same challenges.

The first big challenge Christianity would face in light of extra-terrestrial contact, would be a foundational question about the nature of humankind. Could humanity maintain the paradoxical place as both the pinnacle and depth of Creation that it currently holds in the Christian faith? Doubtful, in my opinion. A non-human intelligence able to build a society at least as advanced as ours would call into serious question human exceptionalism in Creation. If God created the universe, then he also created the folks from our newly contacted world. Perhaps they too believe they've been given the revelation of a One True God, one that conflicts with the Christian interpretation of God. Where does the determining factor lie in such a conflict?

A second challenge would be the roll of sacred scripture in this new time. Assuming the people of this other planet have their own faiths, it seems reasonable to believe they have their own texts as well. If those texts contain a revealed understanding of the universe in contradiction to that of Christianity, then which would be "the truth" dogmatically? Both would be religious constructs based around the reality of the worlds on which they were written, while dealing with the nature of a shared universe. In other words, how would each society settle which had the correct revelation of the universe's Creator? A melding could occur, as has often occurred as Christianity evolved through the centuries, but such a melding is rarely quick or easy. I predict a radical new understanding of scripture, one that settles around the notion of one Word, tailored by God for different worlds. A peaceful melding of mutual understanding that accepts vast differences between both faiths but accentuates the commonality. A utopian vision, probably, but still possible.

A final interesting dogmatic dilemma, from the Christian perspective, would be the roles of sin and salvation in the day of an alien sister society. Sin has always been the unique curse of mankind, exempted from the "lower" life forms unable to make the conscious choice of evil. But is sin the curse of humanity or the curse of human-like intelligence? Do our extra-terrestrial neighbors need or deserve absolution or were they not present in the Garden of Eden to partake in the Fall? If they were sinners or could be somehow tainted by this human curse, would the salvation of Christ be available to them? My reading of the compassionate, loving Christ would say, unequivocally, "Yes"; salvation needed would be open to all, even 20,000 light years distant.

For my part, as a secular humanist, I can't imagine a more exciting time than to be faced with learning from a completely new society. The potential for billions of new perspectives of morality and societal structure could be the push humanity needs to break away from some of our onerous history. It would be a second Enlightenment that would spark an interest in scientific discovery likely unparalleled in human history. I get chills just thinking about it!

So get to it, NASA, and find us our first counterparts beyond the solar system. We desperately need the widening of perspective here in the current Center of the Known Universe. No one knows to whom E.T. prays, but we on Earth will be better off once we can pray with him.

Kerry Says The Magic Word

"Filibuster". The one word that we on the Left have been waiting anxiously to hear from one of our esteemed Democratic Senators. "Filibuster". Senator John Kerry, along with Senator Ted Kennedy, has announced a planned filibuster of the Samuel Alito nomination. For those not steeped in the exciting parliamentary procedure of our Senate, a filibuster is when a group of Senators, being at least 41 in number, prevent "cloture" or the end of debate on a matter. It essentially makes sure that no "up or down" vote is possible so long as the filibuster is in place. In years past, Senators actually held the floor, speaking during the entire filibuster. Readings of the Bible or various other documents was often used to fill the time. The intent of the filibuster is to basically tell the majority to table the matter at hand; in this case, withdraw the Samuel Alito nomination. It's perhaps the purest demonstration of how the minority is protected in the Senate. Which means that it, like most minority protections, is not needed by the Republicans now and is thus despised by them.

Kerry summed up the problems with Alito nicely in a speech yesterday:

President Bush has nominated Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court. He has nominated a man who consistently defers to the government action regardless of how egregious it may be; a man who erects rather than breaks down barriers in the area of civil rights, a man who, to this day, has never retreated from his declaration that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to privacy, a man who has demonstrated a persistent insensitivity to the history of racial discrimination in this country and, was even, at the government's request, willing to ignore overwhelming evidence that African Americans were intentionally stricken from an all-white jury in a black defendant's capital case.

The Alito hearings were largely a joke; a dog and pony show designated as a coronation by the Republicans, smug in their majority status. The real meat of Judge Alito's judicial philosophy is found in his writings and rulings and they render him unfit to sit on the Supreme Court. I've seen numerous ads on TV lately of purported Democrats throwing their support behind Alito because he's "supremely qualified". Another typical Straw Man fallacy by the Right, since no one was arguing that Alito wasn't qualified.

The reason Alito doesn't belong on the Supreme Court is because he's a rightwing ideologue whose judicial philosophy bears little resemblance to the United States in which we live. We don't need fewer civil rights, more corporate power and more executive authority in the White House.

We don't need a nanny state that dictates personal medical, sexual and reproductive decisions to us. Abortion is too personal and too important for the government to step in and criminalize just because certain religious fundamentalists can't deal with dissent. Roe vs. Wade and the right to a safe abortion is a necessary right in our society, as our own history shows. Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not stop abortions. It will only make them more dangerous and more expensive, while adding an undue burden on a minority (pregnant women wanting an abortion) that is already facing a very difficult choice.

We don't need a judiciary that gives even more unregulated privilege to business interests in America. The judiciary is often the only defense the average American has against the carelessness and malfeasance of companies like Enron and WorldCom. Giving such entities even more protection than their copious wealth already buys them is to structure a society against its own people's interests.

We don't need an America where the wall separating church and state is slowly torn down by Conservative Christians whose faith is too weak to stand in their own hearts alone. The United States has flourished as a spiritual nation because religious institutions were protected from the interference of the government. More importantly, we have been able to flourish as a secular nation because the Unconstitutional privileges granted to Christianity over the years have been rightly struck down in recent years. America is not the church, nor the church America.

We don't need an America where civil liberties can be curtailed because the President thinks such rights are inconvenient to his job. We don't need strip searches of children and illegal wiretaps to "protect" us; if we have no civil liberties, then we have nothing left worth protecting anyway.

All of these things, these curtailments of civil rights and assertions of executive and corporate power, all have something in common. They've been tried before. Samuel Alito and his judicial philosophy are nothing new. It's the America of the Great Depression. It's the America of the "robber barons" and the policing of morality by the government. Liberal ideals of equal rights for all, protection from corporate negligence and malfeasance and a strong separation between religion and government allowed our society to be a shining example of liberal democracy and break out of those darker days.

President Bush and his conservative supporters want to put an end to all that. They want their business interests to get preferential treatment, but lie to pretend it's to help the economy. They want to reinstate the societal privileges of the wealthy, white man, and lie about it by talking of "fairness" and "traditional values". They know nothing of either. Our traditional American values are rooted in the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, not religious medievalism and economic social castes. We don't need another Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to further stamp out the very freedoms that make the United States a great country.

To John Kerry and his fellow Democrats I say "It's about time!" The line in the sand has to be drawn; the line from which liberals will retreat no further. Liberalism is the safeguard of our democracy and our supposedly "liberal" Democratic Senators have been absent too often of late. The filibuster is supposed to be saved for a time of great importance and that time is right now. President Bush is President over the entire United States, not just the conservative half that supported him in the last election. It's time he nominates a Supreme Court Justice to benefit all of America, not just the half that the President relates to ideologically. The Supreme Court is not a political prize for the President and his party, but the solemn safeguard of our American liberties.

Time to send Alito back home and remind George W. Bush that most of the 300 million folks he works for have had enough of his incompetent partisanship. Filibuster away!

Sometimes Democracy Is Messy

For all the talk out of the Bush White House about the wonder and brilliance of democracy around the world, sometimes that beloved ideal yields some surprising results. All the major news outlets are buzzing today about Hamas' landslide victory in the Palestinian elections. From the perspective of the United States, a Hamas-led Palestinian government is a tricky problem. The U.S. lists Hamas as a terrorist organization, thus creating some real questions about relations between the U.S. and the Palestinian Authority.

Our naked Emperor had some thoughts on the issue in his press conference today:

So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, and the results of which remind me about the power of democracy. You see, when you give people the vote, you give people a chance to express themselves at the polls -- and if they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know. That's the great thing about democracy, it provides a look into society.

Maybe somewhat off-topic on the issue, but it gets so very tiresome listening to Bush explain the most basic concepts in his press conferences, as though the American people are small children unable to mentally process the most basic concepts of society and government. I suspect it's because Bush himself is a little shaky on just what democracy is and how it works. I also find it either charmingly naive or disturbingly cynical that Bush claims to believe that voting changes the status quo. If only that were true.

And yesterday the turnout was significant, as I understand it. And there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that's positive. But what was also positive is, is that it's a wake-up call to the leadership. Obviously, people were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care.

Bush is probably partially correct here. The level of corruption in the Fatah party is widely known, or at least assumed. However, I think he's really missing the elephant in the room, which is the nation right next door. The Palestinian people seem to be voting on their perception of Israel as a partner for peace in the region. The dynamic changes once the militant fringe group becomes the mainstream political party. The support of the Palestinian people for Hamas could very well be indicative of a backlash against a potential rightward shift in Israeli politics. Certain hardline Likud members, such as Benjamin Netanyahu, have already used harsh language to condemn the Palestinian vote.

I like the competition of ideas. I like people who have to go out and say, vote for me, and here's what I'm going to do. There's something healthy about a system that does that.

Some more off-topic sniping at the President, but Bush saying he likes the competition of ideas deserves a loud snort of derision. Bush has demonstrated his love of competing ideas by listening to ideas from both the conservatives and Neo-conservatives. Plus, if Bush has so much respect for campaign promises, maybe he could try keeping a few of his own. I'm still waiting to see him restore dignity to the Oval Office, practice a humble foreign policy and be a uniter instead of a divider. I won't hold my breath...

I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing. The elections just took place. We will watch very carefully about the formation of the government. But I will continue to remind people about what I just said, that if your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace. And we're interested in peace.

Finally, the President gets to the heart of the matter, though his hesitation about the formation of a new Palestinian government is an attempt to dodge a substantive answer. The new government is certain to be Hamas controlled, given the party's win and the resignation of the Fatah-controlled government. The question of the status of Hamas in the eyes of the United States and Israel is a difficult issue for the White House.

On the one hand, the United States has been right to place Hamas on its list of terrorist organizations. They've supported and perpetrated violent acts throughout the Middle East for many years. Though their political platform doesn't mention it, the group's stated aim has always been the complete destruction of the state of Israel. It also seems very unlikely that Hamas will be willing to disarm anytime soon, either, especially given the continued tit-for-tat violence between the two peoples.

A more optimistic look, however, could give indications of some real progress towards the peace process and the two state solution. Legitimate political power and a role in the administrative side of governing could bring about a change in the way Hamas operates, much in the way the IRA changed over time. It's also possible that a change in the Palestinian Authority away from the remnants of the Arafat regime could help engender trust between the two parties. Some ethereal hopes at best but all still possibilities.

Again, though, as with Iran, U.S. credibility when dealing in this issue has been badly tarnished by the Bush Administration's hawkish policies. Bush's stubborn insistence on compartmentalizing the entire world into "good guys" and "bad guys" along shifting lines of political expediency, not to even mention the invasion & occupation of Iraq, has left other nations wary of U.S. intentions in the region. The White House may, in fact, have to scale back its terrorist rhetoric a bit and give Hamas the chance to re-establish itself as a legitimate player. Continued marginalization could just exacerbate possible tensions between the PA and Israel, especially with bellicose warhawks like Netanyahu spoiling for a resumption of the hardline policies of Sharon's Likud government. Bush Administration foreign policy has the potential to move the process in both directions, for good or ill.

Whatever else the Palestinian elections may be, they are certainly a harbinger of change in the region, hopefully for the better. But some tense days likely lie ahead for all involved. Like the Israelis electing Likud, the Palestinians have chosen a harder line approach, and the mixture of the two could be explosive.