« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »
Friday, September 30, 2005
Sufi Poet's 798th Birthday
Why America Needs Rumi
By Maliha MasoodWhen Cat Stevens (a.k.a. Yusuf Islam) got on a plane from London, it did not touch ground at Dulles International as anticipated. Instead the flight was diverted to Maine's Bangor airport where the former pop singer turned Muslim peace activist endured a four hour detention and a subsequent return to England on grounds of being on a government watch list. Refusal to enter the United States also befell a prominent Swiss Muslim scholar whose visa to teach at the University of Notre Dame was revoked at the last minute. Both scenarios are sordid examples of the paranoia that has engulfed the U.S. administration in the name of national security. They alienate meaningful cultural dialogue, reinforce stereotypes and deepen the growing chasm between Islam and the West.
Perhaps it is somewhat surprising then that one of America's most widely read and best selling poets has been a devout Muslim mystic born eight centuries ago in Afghanistan – Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi also known as Maulana Jelaluddin Rumi (1207-1273 CE). The usual brief reference to him is simply, Rumi. His verses in praise of Allah were set to music by Madonna; Donna Karan has used recitations of his poetry as background to her fashion shows. A two year old Time magazine article heralds the rise of Rumi's popularity with American readers in the tenuous aftermath of September 11, when Harper Collins published a pricey hardback entitled "The Soul of Rumi," 400 pages of poetry translated by Coleman Barks, to follow up its previous best seller, "The Essential Rumi," published in 1995 with more than 250,000 copies in print. In the currently deteriorating relations between America and Islamic constituents, the words of an ancient Muslim mystic as having captured the hearts of so many Americans might seem a total aberration or imply some hidden logic of hope and renewal.
Historic LinkagesThe 13th century Rumi was no stranger to cultural animosity. He had witnessed the Mongol pillage and plunder of Muslim dynasties of Central and West Asia. Influenced by Islamic Sufism and the Christian mysticism of St. John of the Cross, he longed for a world exuding immense affection for humankind. This alone could turn the world into a paradise. His verses spread the message of love - love for its own sake, not in consideration of a good turn – that resonated with Western/Christian teachings of selfless love. The twentieth century German poet Hans Meinke considered Rumi's work as "the only hope for the dark times we are living in."
In his masterpiece, the "Mathnawi," (a Persian word for God), Rumi bleeds the sacred and the profane, countering the notion that Islam is antithetical to secular thought. He likens the world to a tavern, where people drunk with desire and longing, mingle around until they realize their calling to return to a God whose sweeping love supersedes all earthly love from the most mundane to the deepest of passions. He poses a question that we have all asked ourselves at one point or another: "Where did I come from, and what am I supposed to be doing?" His answer: "I have no idea. My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that, and I intend to end up there."
The God intoxicated philosophy of Rumi urging a spiritual union with the divine showcases the softer, prettier side of Islam known as Sufism that Westerners find most appealing. But what the majority of non-Muslims and even most Muslims don’t realize is that this all abiding love for God rooted in the idea of Tawhid or oneness, free from the institutionalized mosque culture and the heady violence committed in the name of the Holy Quran, is the real heart and soul of Islam, not an esoteric branch of faith disguised as mystical belief. It is also important to realize that an Islam without barriers - be they national, cultural or dogmatic - is not an instamatic oasis of peace - but a daily striving of human dignity overriding power and greed. Rumi reflects on the spiritual journey that welcomes uncertainty and places the burden of responsibility on the individual to make enlightened choices.
This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.
A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes as an unexpected visitor.
Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they're a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.
The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
meet them at the door laughing,
and invite them in.
Be grateful for whoever comes,
because each has been sent as a guide from beyond.
(The Essential Rumi, 109)
Feeding Spiritual HungerPublic figures such as Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Choprah have made it clear that Americans are looking to get in touch with their "inner self." Evidence of this can be found in any New Age bookstore across the nation promoting a wide variety of books dealing with enrichments from yoga to Zen Buddhism. Their common goal is to reach a state of serenity in a life fraught with chaos and material demands. Rumi is not the first Asian mystic imported to American shores to quench a spiritual thirst. Even though he speaks from a vessel grounded in Islamic concepts, his words refuse to essentialize one faith over another, but offer a seven hundred year old poetic history of human acceptance without limitations.
The enigma of Rumi's attraction to American audiences, despite a daily barrage of negative images and sound bites concerning Muslims, can be explained by the priority of religion in this society compared to its relative decline in Europe. The recent debate in Congress to retain the "one nation under God" clause in the pledge of allegiance affirms this theory. Furthermore, as Americans are among the most materially fortunate people in the world, they can also afford the luxury of spiritual exploration that developing nations, caught up in the daily stresses of basic survival, are less equipped to indulge in. Therefore, the message of Rumi is more relevant in an America grappling with individual sustenance and the collective neurosis of fear and ignorance when it comes to the "other."
The Sufi and the TerroristIn the polarized tensions between Islamic militants, global terrorism, homeland security and national interests, the teachings of Rumi are all the more relevant in deflecting misunderstandings. It seems odd that the same poet is read with voracious intensity across America, Afghanistan and Iran. One would think that the World Trade center attacks would have also obliterated appreciation of Islamic literature and poetry in the U.S. But the Rumi resurgence in spite of, or perhaps because of, September 11, is a strong testament to Americans' new found receptivity to learn more about Islam. Rumi is a necessary voice to bridge the gap between the Islam which stands for pluralism and tolerance and the belligerent abuse of religion branded by extremist factions, that gets the most media attention to distort public perceptions.
Since many Americans admire and relate to Rumi's philosophy, they can also learn to distinguish between Rumi's message of a peace loving Islam that embraces humanity and the misdirected Islam of bigotry and desperation that leads to violence. It is easy to forget that tragedies have occurred throughout history by people of other religions in the name of God. To categorize the entire tapestry of Muslims as dangerous because of the actions of militant elements (that are inexcusable and beyond justification) is a shortsighted tactic of addressing symptoms rather than the root causes of a particular disease. It can only lead to an endless cycle of reprisals and counter attacks. The onus on the American people to influence their allegedly representative government to channel the Sufis' passion for tolerance and understanding over the terrorist mentality of self-righteous indignation has never been greater.
Americanizing RumiIt is arguable that Rumi's popularity in the U.S. has been stripped of its linguistic and religious integrity and Americanized to accommodate a spiritual Starbucks of mass consumption. But an American Rumi who speaks to the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands of people and builds bridges of understanding between Islam and the West is, after all, better than a defunct national media incapable of projecting a balanced perspective of the Muslim world, and certainly more effective than the official rhetoric of good vs. evil, the evil being undoubtedly the "Islamist threat" that kept Yusuf Islam off U.S. shores. A lover of irony, Rumi would have groaned knowingly at such an absurdity. He certainly would have appreciated the confluence of spiritual hunger and terrorist alerts that keeps his pages turning in America.
Maliha Masood is a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Medford, MA. She is the author of a travelogue on the Middle East published by Cune Press and the co-producer of a documentary film on American-Muslim women. She resides in Seattle, WA.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 30, 2005 at 12:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 29, 2005
America's Blandness
Letter from Chicago
By Ethan JacobsSome people say that ethnic diversification will be the death of America as we know it.
Don't believe it.
Actually homogenization is killing the America I know and love.
I remember in the '40s and '50s, when Howard Johnson started spreading out from New England into New York and Pennsylvania. People said it was a good thing because you could go there and you always knew what you would get.
Yes - no surprises, just sameness, blandness and mediocrity.
In the late '60s, my wife and I drove our VW from Chicago to Florida. All the way down and all the way back, every single Holiday Inn sign advertised the same roast turkey dinner for $2.19. We didn't eat a single one. We ate scrapple in the Alleghenies, crab cakes on the coast and 'gator nuggets in Florida - made by locals, served by locals and enjoyed by all.
I know the HoJo standardization idea has a sound basis in business theory and has been proven over and over by McDonald's, Burger King, KFC and others. But the theory has been driven to extremes while all the flavor of life has been sacrificed on the altar of the great god efficiency.
When I was going to college in Cambridge in the late '50s and early '60s, one of the exciting things to do was drive all the way to Freeport, Maine, to visit L.L.Bean, which was something really different from Filene's in Boston.
In the mid-'60s, when I took my first business trip, I was in Houston and asked my colleague's wife what local thing I could take back as a gift for my wife. She suggested "anything from Neiman Marcus." My wife and I still remember the lovely white blouse with embroidered Texas bluebonnets I was able to give her.
Nowadays you can shop at Bean, Filene's or Neiman without leaving your computer terminal. Where is the novelty in that? Does that make life any richer? Or does it only make Bean, Filene's and Neiman richer?
Which is the whole point of this letter. Yes, in the name of standardization, efficiency, brand recognition and, thus, increased profit, Federated Department Stores can change Marshall Field's into Macy's and get rid of the green bags and awnings, but will Chicago, or America, or the world be richer for it?
No, we will all be poorer for it. In the long run even the Federated shareholders will be poorer for it - if they have souls as well as pocketbooks.
You see, homogenization is good for milk, but it's not good for a country, or for life.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 29, 2005 at 12:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Agricultural 'Progress'
Posted by fm on September 28, 2005 at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Senate Confirmation Hearings
Statement on Judiciary Committee Vote
By Ralph G. Neas
Source: People For the American WayLast week's Judiciary Committee vote in favor of John G. Roberts' confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States was a defeat for the Constitution and the country.
We are especially disappointed in the Democratic senators who voted for Roberts, particularly in light of the Bush administration's stonewalling on access to documents that could shed light on Roberts' approach to important legal and constitutional questions and because of Roberts' own evasive and misleading answers to questions. The appointment of a Chief Justice for life, someone who will lead the Court for the next three or four decades, requires more than a hope and a prayer. We should not be gambling with Americans' rights and freedoms.
We applaud the majority of Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee who voted to oppose Roberts' confirmation. Their votes and statements send a message to their colleagues and to President Bush. Nominees for powerful lifetime positions on the Supreme Court have an obligation to demonstrate that they have a basic commitment to Americans' constitutional rights and legal protections. This is a burden that Roberts did not meet.
The stakes are enormous in both this nomination and the upcoming nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Together these nominees will shape the future of privacy, reproductive rights, freedom from discrimination in the workplace and in the voting booth, the ability to protect the environment, and the liberty to worship as we choose, free from government interference.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 27, 2005 at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, September 26, 2005
Roberts' Testimony Evasive
Statement on Voting against John G. Roberts
By U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.)There is no question that Judge Roberts is an extraordinary person. I think there is no question that he has many stellar qualities, certainly a brilliant legal mind and a love and abiding respect for the law, and I think a sense of its scope and complexity as well.
But before taking the momentous step of agreeing that a nominee serve as the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, for what in this case could be over 30 years, I wanted to have a reasonable sense of confidence that he would uphold certain essential legal rights and protections that Americans rely on, and rights that reflect the values and ideals that make our country so great.
I don't ask for certainty.
I don't ask for promises - especially as to how a nominee would rule in any case in the future - even one as important as Roe v. Wade.
But I ask for some ability to find a commitment to broad legal principles that form the basis of our fundamental rights:
Equal protection under the law, and the ability to remedy discrimination.
A basic right to privacy that extends from the beginning of life to the end of life.
The ability of the American public to elect representatives that have the constitutional power and authority to protect and respond to America's safety, social, and environmental needs; and
A view of Executive Power that extends deference - but within the law.
It's important to know that a Justice will be willing to at least start with these fundamental rights.
In making the judgment as to how Judge Roberts evaluates these fundamental rights, I must start with his record.
As a young lawyer in government service, he was involved in the most important issues of the day and issues that continue to be critical to this day. He was in positions to advise the most important lawyers in the Executive Branch.
In these positions, he advanced arguments opposing many of these fundamental rights, and, when asked whether he disagreed with any of those positions today - some even more extreme than his superiors adopted - he did not disagree with virtually any of them.
I asked him about a series of written comments and margin notes that appeared to demonstrate a denigrating view of issues impacting women.
I said it appears he used a very acerbic pen or else he really thought that way. Then I gave him an opportunity to distance himself, to say that he was a young lawyer and would not use that language today, or whatever it might be, to distance himself.
I expected him to admit that the derogatory comments about women were wrong or that at least he regretted making them.
Instead, Judge Roberts responded, "Senator, I have always supported and support today equal rights for women, particularly in the workplace." When Senator Schumer asked him a similar question he received a disappointing response. Senator Schumer said, "So my question is not the substance, but do you regret the tone of some of these memos? Do you regret some of the inartful phrases you used in those memos, a reference to 'illegal amigos' in one memo?" Again, an easy question with an obvious response. Instead, Judge Roberts responded, "Senator, in that particular memo, for example, it was a play on the standard practice of many politicians, including President Reagan."
If Judge Roberts had provided different answers to these questions, he could have easily demonstrated to us that wisdom comes with age, and a sense of his own autonomy. But he did neither.
Simply put, I didn't find the argument that he was just an employee doing what his boss wanted him to do to be credible.
When discussing his work while Principal Deputy Solicitor General, where he argued to overturn Roe and advanced many other troubling positions, we received similar dispassionate answers.
Not only did he refuse to disavow the tone used in his earlier memos, he also refused to disavow many of the positions he advocated while in the Solicitor General's office.
I had hoped he would have given some indication that, even if he would not tell me what he thought about a particular case, he would tell the Committee that he believed in a general right to privacy. But he refused.
Senator Schumer specifically asked whether Judge Roberts agreed that there is a "general" right to privacy provided in the Constitution.
His response was, "I wouldn't use the phrase 'general,' because I don't know what that means." Then when I couldn't get a sense of his judicial philosophy, I attempted to get a sense of his temperament and values. And I asked him about end of life decisions - clearly, decisions that are gut-wrenching, difficult, and extremely personal. Rather than talking to me as a son, a husband, a father - which I specifically requested that he do. He gave a very detached response: "Well, Senator, in that situation, obviously, you want to talk and take into account the views and heartfelt concerns of the loved one that you're trying to help in that situation, because you know how they are viewing this." I also asked him about how he planned to be in touch with "the problems real people have out there?" And once again, rather than discussing the importance of reaching out to communities that he normally would not be in contact with, and spending time to understand the problems that average people face, in my communities of Hunters Point, of East L.A., of some of the agriculture areas of our state, he mentioned the attendance at soccer games with his family. Now, that is a slice of life, true, but it is a very narrow slice of life. His answer failed to recognize the point of the question and the concern about staying in touch with people who have different life experiences. Several Senators asked him about whether he could admit he made a mistake when he was wrong. Senator Biden asked him about a very specific legal term regarding what kind of review the Court should give to cases involving gender discrimination.
Rather than clarifying his position or admitting he was wrong to argue for a lesser standard, Judge Roberts said he was using two very different legal terms interchangeably. He stated, "And, Senator, the memorandum is using 'heightened scrutiny' the way you use 'strict scrutiny,' which is scrutiny that's limited to the basis of race." Now, it seems hard to believe that such a sophisticated jurist would interchange these two well-defined legal terms. This was brought to my attention by a lawyer. I didn't know about it. I have asked other lawyers. They all said this is something you learn about during the first year of law school. That they are not in fact interchangeable. I posed a series of questions regarding the Plyler case, which had to do with Texas statutes that prohibited illegal alien children from going to public schools. I asked him, "Do you believe you were wrong? Could you say you were wrong if you believed you were wrong?" And again, I got an unsatisfactory response. I had given him the memo. I had asked him to review it overnight. The response I got was, "I have no quarrel with the Court's decision." I was struck as I reread the transcript by his use of the line "I have no quarrel with" five times in referencing the Plyler case, the Eisenstadt case and other cases. Then I went back and read Judge Thomas' transcript and he used that phrase numerous times on eight different topics.
And yet when faced with these topics on the Court, he took a position indicating that he did in fact have a quarrel with the case. On abortion, on Church and State separation, on precedent, and on the Commerce Clause he took a clear position that contradicted his use of the words, "I have no quarrel with it."
So I came to believe that "I have no quarrel with it" is a term of art of equivocation, frankly.
Judge Roberts used this phrase when discussing 5 topics adoption rights, the right to privacy as applied to a single person, Title IX and remedies, the Americans with Disabilities Act and its application to States, and Plyler.
So does this mean that he, too, will have a quarrel with these issues when they come before him?
Now, I realized this past week, after reading and rereading the transcripts and going over his answers to the questions that I felt that I knew as little about what Judge Roberts really thought after the hearing as I did before the hearings.
This makes it very hard for me, because he was very young when he wrote many of these memos.
And yet, when we asked to review his memos from 16 cases when he was Principal Deputy Solicitor General, we were denied those documents, which denied us the ability to really see whether his thinking had changed or matured.
What remains is the few years on the Circuit Court, where virtually all of the 50 cases -- over 40 were unanimous -- were relatively uncontroversial in the nature of the decision.
So, I can not in good conscience, cast a "yea" vote. I will cast a "no" vote.
However, I also expect that a majority of my colleagues in the Senate will vote for his confirmation. I respect their decision.
I take this position mindful of the fact that Judge Roberts will very likely be our next Chief Justice and I hope and pray that when he serves in that most important post he will do so in a way that protects and preserves our Nation's fundamental strengths and some of our most important laws and protections of people.
I basically believe that once someone has earned a right they should not lose that right and the rights coming before the court in this upcoming session and in future sessions are really critical rights.
I am the only woman on this committee. And when I started, I said that was going to be my bar. He didn't cross my bar.
Thank you very much.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 26, 2005 at 12:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Government by Star Chamber
America in the Clutches of Autocrats
By Paul Craig Roberts
Source: CounterPunchThe most important casualties of September 11 are respect for truth and American liberty. Propaganda has replaced deliberation based on objective assessment of fact. The resurrection of the Star Chamber has made moot the legal protections of liberty.
The US invasion of Iraq was based on the deliberate suppression of fact. The invasion was not the result of mistaken intelligence. It was based on deliberately concocted "intelligence" designed to deceive the US Congress, the American public, and the United Nations.
In an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC News, General Colin Powell, who was Secretary of State at the time of the invasion, expressed dismay that he was the one who took the false information to the UN and presented it to the world. The weapons of mass destruction speech, he said, is a "blot" on his record. The full extent of the deception was made clear by the leaked top secret "Downing Street Memos."
Two and one-half years after the March 2003 invasion, the US Congress and the American people still do not know the reason Iraq was invaded. The US is bogged down in an expensive and deadly combat, and no one outside the small circle of neoconservatives who orchestrated the war knows the reason why. Many guesses are rendered--oil, removal of Israel's enemy--but the Bush administration has never disclosed its real agenda, which it cloaked with the WMD deception.
This itself is powerful indication that American democracy is dead. With the exception of rightwing talk radio, everyone in America now knows that the invasion of Iraq was based on false information. Yet, 40 percent of the public and both political parties in Congress still support the ongoing war.
The CIA has issued a report that the war is working only for Osama bin Laden. The unprovoked American aggression against Iraq, the horrors perpetrated against Muslims in Abu Gharib prison, and the slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqi noncombatants, have radicalized the Muslim world and elevated bin Laden from a fringe figure to a leader opposed to American hegemony in the Middle East. The chaos created in Iraq by the US military has provided al Qaeda with superb training grounds for insurgency and terrorism. Despite overwhelming evidence that the "war on terror" is in fact a war for terror, Republicans still cheer when Bush says we have to "fight them over there" so they don't come "over here."
If fact played any role in the decision to continue with this war, the US would not be spending hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars to provide recruits and training for al Qaeda, to radicalize Muslims, and to destroy trust in the United States both abroad and among its own citizens.
American casualties (dead and wounded) of this gratuitous war are now approximately 20,000. In July, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the war might continue for 12 years. US casualties from such protracted combat would eat away US troop strength. Considering the well publicized recruitment problems, America would require a draft or foreign mercenaries in order to continue a ground war. LIke the over-extended Roman Empire, the US would have to deplete its remaining wealth to pay mercenaries.
Dead and wounded Americans are too high a price to pay for a war based on deception. This alone is reason to end the war, if necessary by impeaching Bush and Cheney and arresting the neoconservatives for treason. Naked aggression is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard, and neoconservatives have brought this shame to America.
There is an even greater cost of the war--the legal system that protects liberty, a human achievement for which countless numbers of people gave their lives over the centuries. The Bush administration used September 11 to whip up fear and hysteria and to employ these weapons against American liberty. The Orwellian named Patriot Act has destroyed habeas corpus. The executive branch has gained the unaccountable power to detain American citizens on mere suspicion or accusation, without evidence, and to hold Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Foolishly, many Americans believe this power can only be used against terrorists. Americans don't realize that the government can declare anyone to be a terrorist suspect. As no evidence is required, it is entirely up to the government to decide who is a terrorist. Thus, the power is unaccountable. Unaccountable power is the source of tyranny.
The English speaking world has not seen such power since the 16th and 17th centuries when the Court of Star Chamber became a political weapon used against the king's opponents and to circumvent Parliament. The Star Chamber dispensed with juries, permitted hearsay evidence, and became so reviled that "Star Chamber" became a byword for injustice. The Long Parliament abolished the Star Chamber in 1641. In obedience to the Bush regime, the US Congress resurrected it with the Patriot Act. Can anything be more Orwellian than identifying patriotism with the abolition of habeas corpus?
Historians are quick to note that the Star Chamber was mild compared to Gitmo, to the US practice of sending detainees abroad to be tortured, and to the justice (sic) regime being run by Attorney General "Torture" Gonzales and his predecessor, "Draped Justice" Ashcroft, who went so far as to say that opposition to the Patriot Act was itself the mark of a terrorist.
The time-honored attorney-client privilege is another casualty of the "war on terror." Taking their cue from the restrictions placed on lawyers representing Stalin's victims in the 1930s show trials, Justice (sic) Department officials seek to limit attorneys representing terrorist suspects to procedural niceties. Lynn Stewart, attorney for Omar Abdel Rahman, was handed a letter by a Justice (sic) Department prosecutor instructing her how to represent her client. When she did what every good lawyer would do and represented her client aggressively, she was arrested, indicted and convicted.
Many conservative lawyers have turned a blind eye, because Stewart is regarded as a leftwing lawyer whom they dislike. Only a few civil libertarians, such as Harvey Silverglate, have pointed out that prosecutors cannot create felonies by writing letters to attorneys. Stewart was convicted for violating a prosecutor's letter (technically, a Special Administrative Measure). This should make it obvious even to the blind that American democracy has lost all control over law.
Federal officials have sensed the sea change in American law: arbitrary actions and assertions by federal officials are taking the place of statutory legislation. We saw an example recently when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced that news media covering the New Orleans hurricane story were prohibited from taking pictures of the bodies of inhabitants drowned when the levees failed. Nowhere is FEMA given authority to override the First Amendment. Yet, FEMA officials saw no reason not to issue its decree. Rome had one caesar. America has them throughout the executive branch.
We see the same exercise of arbitrary authority in breakins by police into New Orleans homes in order to confiscate legally owned firearms. No authority exists for these violations of the Second Amendment. No authority exists for the forceful removal of residents from non-damaged homes. Tyrannical precedents are being established by these fantastic abuses of government authority.
In the US today nothing stands in the way of the arbitrary exercise of power by government. Federal courts have acquiesced in unconstitutional detention policies. There is no opposition party, and there is no media, merely huge conglomerates or collections of federal broadcasting licenses, the owners of which are afraid to displease the government.
The collapse of the institutions that confine government to law and bind it with the Constitution was sudden. The president previous to Bush was impeached by the House for lying about a sexual affair. If we go back to the 1970s, President Richard Nixon had the decency to resign when it came to light that he had lied about when he first learned of a minor burglary. Bush's failures are far more serious and numerous; yet, Bush has escaped accountability.
Polls show that a majority of Americans have lost confidence in the Iraq war and believe Bush did a poor job responding to flooded New Orleans. Many Americans hope that these two massive failures have put Bush back into the box of responsible behavior from which September 11 allowed him to escape. However, there is no indication that the Bush administration sees any constraints placed on its behavior by these failures.
The identical cronyism and corrupt government contract practices, by which taxpayers' money is used to reward political contributors, so evident in Iraq is now evident in New Orleans.
Despite having been fought to a stalemate by a few thousand insurgents in Iraq, the Bush administration continues to issue thunderous threats to Syria and Iran.
To press its fabricated case against Iran's alleged weapons of mass destruction program, the Bush administration is showing every foreign diplomat it can corral an hour-long slide show titled, "A History of Concealment and Deception." Wary foreigners are reminded of the presentations about Iraq's WMD and wonder who is guilty of deception, Iran or the Bush administration.
Now that the war in Iraq has established that US ground forces cannot easily prevail against insurgency, the Bush administration is bringing new military threats to the fore. The neocon orchestrated "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" abandons the established doctrine that nuclear weapons are last resort options. The Bush administration is so enamored of coercion that it is birthing the doctrine of preemptive nuclear attack. US war doctrine is being altered to eliminate the need for a large invasion force and to use "preventive nuclear strikes" in its place.
Is this the face that the American people want to present to the world? It is hard to imagine a greater risk to America than to put the entire world on notice that every country risks being nuked based on mere suspicion. By making nuclear war permissible, the Bush administration is crossing the line that divides civilized people from barbarians. The United States is starting to acquire the image of Nazi Germany. Knowledgeable people should have no trouble drawing up their own list of elements common to both the Bush and Hitler regimes: the use of extraordinary lies to justify military aggression; reliance on coercion and threats in place of diplomacy; total belief in the virtue and righteousness of one's cause; the equating of factual objections or "reality-based" analysis to treason; the redirection of patriotism from country to leader; the belief that defeat resides in debate and a weakening of will; refuge in delusion and denial when promised results don't materialize.
As Professor Claes Ryn made clear in his book, America the Virtuous, the neoconservatives are neoJacobins. There is nothing conservative about them. They are committed to the use of coercion to impose their agenda. Their attitude is merciless toward anyone in their way, whether fellow citizen or foreigner. "You are with us or against us." For those on the receiving end, the Nazi and Jacobin mentalities come to the same thing.
The Bush administration has abandoned American principles. It is a Jacobin regime. Woe to its citizens and the rest of the world.
Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of "The Tyranny of Good Intentions."
Roberts can be contacted at paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 25, 2005 at 12:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Crony Waiting in the Wings
Posted by fm on September 24, 2005 at 12:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, September 23, 2005
13-5 Vote in Favor of Roberts
Posted by fm on September 23, 2005 at 12:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 22, 2005
European Union
Posted by fm on September 22, 2005 at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Double Standard
Posted by fm on September 21, 2005 at 12:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
'Under God'
Posted by fm on September 20, 2005 at 12:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, September 19, 2005
Davis-Bacon Act
Reconstruction Ruling Benefits Bush Pals
By U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Source: The Chicago Sun-TimesAs the death toll across the Gulf Coast rises, one of the largest reconstruction efforts in American history begins. An estimated 400,000 jobs have been lost, and 1 million Americans have been displaced from their homes. Workers who have found the courage to return to their devastated communities suffered another blow last week when President Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act.
Davis-Bacon ensures that workers who perform similar jobs for government contractors are paid the local prevailing wage. In New Orleans, where a quarter of the residents lived in poverty before Hurricane Katrina, that wage was $8.49 an hour for service workers and slightly above $10 an hour for most construction workers: not an excessive wage by any stretch. In fact, if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be $8.88 today.
The lower wages resulting from Bush's action will increase contractors' profits but harm workers who need to rebuild their financial security. Any savings gained by paying substandard wages will not be reinvested to fund the reconstruction efforts or given back to the taxpayers. Instead, it will go to the cronies of the Bush administration who have already received no-bid contracts in the aftermath of the hurricane.
While residents of the Gulf Coast are returning home looking for work, the same cast of characters who were rewarded with contracts in Iraq - Halliburton, Fluor and Bechtel - are busy setting up shop. Under the Bush administration, disaster has been consistently (and rapidly) followed by profiteering.
For many, Katrina exposed what life is like for the 37 million Americans who live in poverty and gives new meaning to the president's "ownership society." If you owned a car, had a full tank of gas and enough money for a hotel room, you were able to escape the hurricane. Those without the means to escape were left behind, trying to survive the storm and its aftermath.
Hurricane Katrina forced the country to confront poverty, but it also has made us think about the role that government should play in providing economic opportunity, protecting our communities and keeping our country strong. We can promote an ownership society in which you're on your own. Or we can demand government that promotes a shared community in which we care for each other and are stronger for doing so.
We saw the results of a "sink or swim" approach to government in the aftermath of Katrina. Katrina evacuees who are willing and able to work should be hired to help lead reconstruction efforts in the Gulf region. At a bare minimum, those workers should be given the same wage protections that have been in place for the last 75 years.
Our government, which failed to adequately prepare for and respond to the hurricane, should now give them a helping hand in rebuilding their homes and their lives. Bush's suspension of Davis-Bacon is just another example of his "take from the poor, give to the rich" philosophy, which apparently applies even in times of grave crisis.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 19, 2005 at 12:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Constitution Day
Posted by fm on September 18, 2005 at 12:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Nominee John G. Roberts
Posted by fm on September 17, 2005 at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, September 16, 2005
Alternative News Sources
Posted by fm on September 16, 2005 at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Network Broadcasting
Bombs away on Television News
By Orville Schell
Source: The Los Angeles TimesWant happy stories delivered by perky, perhaps half-naked, anchors? The future of network broadcasting may suit you just fine. "I want to bomb the whole building," CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves reportedly told his colleagues, as if his network's once legendary news-gathering operation had become an enemy outpost within the larger Viacom conglomerate.
According to a profile in the New York Times Magazine, Moonves believes it's time to "break the mold in news" and reinvent the network. "We don't have a choice," he said. Why is change so essential? It seems that "American audiences don't like dark," Moonves said. "They like strength, not weakness, a chance to work out any dilemma. This country is built on optimism."
His solution, according to the Times profile, is to make his news programs more like his entertainment shows, with "better stories told by attractive personalities in exciting ways." Moonves only half-facetiously declares that he is looking for something between "The Naked News," a British show ("It's a woman giving the news," he said, "as she's getting undressed"), and "two boring people behind a desk."
When this nation's founding fathers set out on their experiment in democratic governance, one of their most revolutionary ideas was that political power would be moderated not only by checks and balances built into the government, but by a free and independent press that would provide knowledge to the public and warn of pending dangers.
As James Madison bluntly observed, "A popular government without popular information, or the means of securing it, is but a prelude to a farce or tragedy, perhaps both." It is increasingly difficult to discern the vision of Madison in broadcast news today, even though most of it comes over airwaves owned by the public and licensed to commercial outlets for a few hundred dollars a year.
And now, Moonves, one of the most powerful figures in American media, says that, because of poor ratings (7 million daily viewers) and aging demographics, his network needs to go even further and "break the mold in news."
But if avoiding "dark" becomes the criterion for broadcast, how will Americans learn about such stories as New Orleans and Iraq, never mind Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the melting polar ice cap or the dying oceans? If only perky, upbeat stories and shows make it onto the air, who will inform the public and play the watchdog role?
Most correspondents, editors and producers at CBS (and elsewhere in the industry) want to do serious journalism. But as the media get increasingly ratings-driven and profit-hungry, fewer and fewer news division executives support them in this effort. The result is that too many excellent broadcast journalists now feel discouraged, debased and disgusted.
Moonves, a businessman rather than a journalist, lives on one side of an ever-widening contradiction between journalism as a profession and as a commercial venture. His responsibility is not to the public interest but to maximize CBS' bottom line for Viacom's Wall Street investors, who expect television to earn between a 40% to 50% return on capital. (Newspaper chains are expected to make only 20% to 30%.) These rates of return impress someone on the journalistic side of the divide as excessive, especially for businesses exploiting airwaves that belong not to them but to their viewers.
So the Moonves' vision leaves us with a dilemma: How will the public — which still gets most of its news and information from broadcast — learn what it needs to know?
The reality is that it is increasingly less realistic to expect commercial broadcast outlets to effectively serve two masters: the public interest and corporate bottom line. Moonves may not like the tragedy and darkness of so much of the world because viewers change channels and CBS loses money. But the country still needs to be informed, and this can only happen — the rapidly evolving Internet notwithstanding — via mass communication.
Moonves has said what few others in such a position would publicly say. And his comments remind us that a national conversation about how to protect, or even create, broadcast outlets consecrated to informing rather than merely maximizing return on investment is long overdue.
If his painful frankness could help catalyze such a discussion, Moonves might end up accomplishing far more even than returning CBS News to its glory days.
Orville Schell is the Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. He can be contacted at schell@uclink.berkeley.edu.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 16, 2005 at 12:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Flag Amendment
• Can one wear a flag on one's shirt or pants (torn blue jeans included)?
• Is a toothpick flag inserted into cupcakes disrespectful?
• Can one fly an old flag or one with fewer stripes or stars?
• What if, after our patriotic celebrations, a paper flag is thrown in the trash?
Posted by fm on September 15, 2005 at 12:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Story of Brian
Posted by fm on September 14, 2005 at 12:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
By Robert Scheer
The Real Costs of a Culture of Greed
Source: The Los Angeles TimesWhat the world has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.
Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.
Yet the problem is much deeper. For half a century, free-market purists have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern government performs as some terrible liberal plot. Thus, the symbolism of New Orleans' flooding is tragically apt: Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the 1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity; the Reagan Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent them back toward the abyss.
Now we have a president who wastes tax revenues in Iraq instead of protecting us at home. Levee improvements were deferred in recent years even after congressional approval, reportedly prompting EPA staffers to dub flooded New Orleans "Lake George."
None of this is an oversight, or simple incompetence. It is the result of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to systematically vilify the role of government in American life. Manipulative politicians have convinced lower- and middle-class whites that their own economic pains were caused by "quasi-socialist" government policies that aid only poor brown and black people — even as corporate profits and CEO salaries soared.
For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone — education, community policing, public health, environmental protections and infrastructure repair, emergency services — in steady, steep decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending. But it is a false savings; it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.
And, although the wealthy can soften the blow of this national decline by sending their kids to private school, building walls around their communities and checking into distant hotels in the face of approaching calamities, others, like the 150,000 people living below the poverty line in the Katrina damage area — one-third of whom are elderly — are left exposed.
Watching on television the stark vulnerability of a permanent underclass of African Americans living in New Orleans ghettos is terrifying. It should be remembered, however, that even when hurricanes are not threatening their lives and sanity, they live in rotting housing complexes, attend embarrassingly ill-equipped public schools and, lacking adequate police protection, are frequently terrorized by unemployed, uneducated young men.
In fact, rather than an anomaly, the public suffering of these desperate Americans is a symbol for a nation that is becoming progressively poorer under the leadership of the party of Big Business. As Katrina was making its devastating landfall, the U.S. Census Bureau released new figures that show that since 1999, the income of the poorest fifth of Americans has dropped 8.7% in inflation-adjusted dollars. Last year alone, 1.1 million were added to the 36 million already on the poverty rolls.
For those who have trouble with statistics, here's the shorthand: The rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting, in the ripe populist language of Louisiana's legendary Long, the shaft.
These are people who have long since been abandoned to their fate. Despite the deep religiosity of the Gulf States and the United States in general, it is the gods of greed that seem to rule. Case in point: The crucial New Orleans marshland that absorbs excess water during storms has been greatly denuded by rampant commercial development allowed by a deregulation-crazy culture that favors a quick buck over long-term community benefits.
Given all this, it is no surprise that leaders, from the White House on down, haven't done right by the people of New Orleans and the rest of the region, before and after what insurance companies insultingly call an "act of God."
Fact is, most of them, and especially our president, just don't care about the people who can't afford to attend political fundraisers or pay for high-priced lobbyists. No, these folks are supposed to be cruising on the rising tide of a booming, unregulated economy that "floats all boats."
They were left floating all right.
Robert Scheer, a journalist with over 30 years experience, is a contributing editor to the Los Angeles Times and The Nation, and author of numerous books. He has built his reputation on the strength of his social and political writing, and his in-depth interviews have made headlines. Scheer's national column appears in the Los Angeles Times every Tuesday and is distributed by Creators Syndicate to more than 20 metropolitan dailies across the United States.
Robert Scheer has taught courses at Antioch College in San Francisco, New York City College, UC Irvine, UCLA and UC Berkeley. He is now a Senior Lecturer at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication, where he teaches courses on media and society. Scheer is director of the Privacy Project at the Annenberg School, and he also has a weekly syndicated political radio show co-hosted with Arianna Huffington, Matt Miller and Tony Blankley on KCRW, the National Public Radio affiliate in Santa Monica, Calif.
Scheer can be contacted at rscheer@aol.com.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 13, 2005 at 12:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, September 12, 2005
Consumer Society
Posted by fm on September 12, 2005 at 12:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, September 11, 2005
A Matter of Perspective
• corporations to be people: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac R Co
• money to be speech: Buckley v. Valeo, and
• allowed unlimited corporate money in referenda elections: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti?
Posted by fm on September 11, 2005 at 12:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Confirmation Hearings
Posted by fm on September 10, 2005 at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, September 09, 2005
Rehnquist's Legacy
Posted by fm on September 09, 2005 at 12:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 08, 2005
After Rehnquist
America’s Supreme Court
Source: The Economist MagazineWilliam Rehnquist, the chief justice of America’s Supreme Court, has died, and President George Bush has nominated John Roberts to replace him. Since Mr Roberts had already been picked to replace another justice on the court, this means that a second high-court seat is now available. It is an opportunity conservatives have dreamed of, but it comes as Mr Bush’s political capital is at an all-time low.
Even his ideological opponents agreed that William Rehnquist was an honest and fair-minded man who ran a tight ship as the top judge on America’s Supreme Court. His death on Saturday September 3rd was, in the overused phrase, the end of an era. As chief justice for nearly 20 years, the conservative Mr Rehnquist pulled the court slowly but surely to the right, and power in America firmly away from the federal government and towards the states. How his legacy is judged is a question for future historians, but that it is significant is beyond doubt.
But even as his body lies in state in the Supreme Court building, thoughts are inevitably turning already to the future. President George Bush has nominated John Roberts to succeed Mr Rehnquist. Mr Roberts had already been nominated to an associate judgeship on the court on the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, a conservative who nonetheless earned a reputation as the swing voter on social matters. Mr Roberts’s confirmation hearings in the Senate had been expected to begin early this week.
But that was before the latest turmoil. Not only has Hurricane Katrina shaken America (see article), causing Mr Bush to postpone, among other things, a visit by China’s president. Mr Rehnquist’s death means that there are now two Supreme Court vacancies, and the president’s decision to nominate Mr Roberts as chief justice changes the picture further still. It was announced on Monday that his confirmation would be postponed until later this week or early next.
The chief justice has no more weight in voting than his eight colleagues. But he is the court’s chief administrator, and among his more important duties is assigning opinions for his fellow justices to write. This is no small power, since the different judges have both differing politics and styles. The chief’s position is important enough that Mr Rehnquist had to go through a fairly bruising confirmation hearing in 1986, even though he had already been an associate judge on the court for 15 years.
So even though Mr Roberts was widely expected to be confirmed as an associate justice, his nomination to the top spot will make activists and senators give him yet another close look. So far, they have failed to come up with anything embarrassing after combing through virtually everything he has ever written. Moreover, he is a likeable man with a formidable intellect, and is said to be more devoted to the law in the abstract than to pushing his personal conservatism.
Conservative he certainly is. He was a clerk to Mr Rehnquist in the early 1980s, and shows it. The two men shared a fondness for the tenth amendment to the constitution, and a corresponding wariness of the “commerce clause”. The tenth amendment says that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved for the states or “the people”. Conservatives consider it the most widely, and sadly, ignored part of the entire document. In particular, those who would arrogate powers to Washington have taken advantage of the clause that allows Congress to regulate “interstate commerce”. This has been the legal basis for federal intervention in all kinds of matters not obviously related to commerce.
The Rehnquist court has fought back. Mr Rehnquist opposed a federal law banning guns from a certain radius around public schools, on the ground that Congress had no constitutional power to do this (guns and schools having no obvious connection to interstate commerce). Mr Roberts used the same reasoning to oppose a law protecting a species of toad native to California.
Liberals worry that turning the tide against the federal government will weaken its ability to protect the environment, civil rights, abortion rights and a host of other causes dear to them. In particular, they worry about Mr Roberts’s stance on Roe v Wade, the 1973 decision that found a right to “privacy” in the constitution and thereby guaranteed legal abortion across the country. Mr Roberts has not said directly whether he would vote to overturn Roe, and probably won’t in his confirmation hearings. But Mr Rehnquist was against Roe already. Barring surprises, Mr Roberts will take the same stance as his former boss on this and a host of other issues. The succession is thus unlikely to change the court much.
Hence all the attention turning to the question of who will replace Ms O’Connor, the swing vote. She was known for her pragmatic approach to cases, supporting some forms of affirmative action but not others, and some shows of public religion but not others. Though conservative, she was nothing like her colleagues Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who bring dogmatic, even radical, conservative arguments to bear on cases.
Who will Mr Bush pick? Having just selected Mr Roberts in July, his shortlist is still close at hand. There is pressure on him to nominate someone who is not both white and male—especially in light of the racial divisions exposed by Hurricane Katrina (most of those too poor to leave New Orleans were black). Having rejected a “women-only” seat by replacing Ms O’Connor with Mr Roberts, to conservatives’ delight, Mr Bush might now win points on the other side by choosing either a woman or a non-white this time.
There are several possibilities. Edith Clement, who seems to be rather moderate, was rumoured to be in the running for the nomination Mr Roberts eventually got. Mr Bush might appoint his close friend, the attorney-general Alberto Gonzales—but religious conservatives consider him flaky, particularly on abortion, and would cry foul. Emilio Garza, currently a federal appeals-court judge, would be a more reliably conservative Latino. Or Mr Bush could drop a bomb by nominating Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman, but also one of the most controversial conservatives on the bench. Opponents see her as an extremist ready to overturn long-established social-protection legislation—she has written that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal “marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution”.
Anyone perceived as an extremist would face the threat of a filibuster—as few as 40 of the 100 Senate members can prevent a vote by debating endlessly. The Republicans are five seats short of the 60 needed to overturn such a ruse. In May, the two sides made a deal over a batch of Mr Bush’s lower-court nominees (including Ms Rogers Brown), saying that the filibuster against judicial nominees could be preserved in the Senate rules if the minority agreed to use it only under “extreme” circumstances. But the agreement is fragile and could easily unravel from either side.
That said, the president’s political capital is at an all-time low—thanks to violence in Iraq, spiralling petrol prices and the botched response to Katrina—and he may feel this is no time for a big fight. Caught between falling approval ratings and a conservative base threatening to revolt, he is likely to find nominating a replacement for Ms O’Connor a difficult test of his political touch. How he handles it could set the tone for much of his second term.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 08, 2005 at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Katrina's Aftermath
Posted by fm on September 07, 2005 at 12:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
The Blame Game
After Katrina - A Brewing Political Storm
Source: The Economist MagazineAlmost everyone in need of food and other supplies in the wake of Hurricane Katrina now has access to them, and the evacuation of New Orleans is largely complete. Who is to blame for the botched relief effort: George Bush, local officials, or no one in particular?
The evacuation of New Orleans was finally nearing completion on Monday September 5th, six days after the breaching of the low-lying city’s levees in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. National guardsmen, regular troops and federal marshals—many of whom had been brought in late last week following criticism of the sluggish relief effort—had moved into the worst-affected districts and were making house-to-house searches for the remaining survivors. However, some residents were still insisting on staying with their possessions.
With the survivors now mostly taken care of, the focus is shifting to those who perished in the storm and subsequent flood. The official death toll in the three worst-hit states—Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama—is still in the low hundreds. But the final toll could be several thousand. Many corpses have sunk in the water that still covers four-fifths of New Orleans. Some rescuers have reportedly been told to mark the submerged bodies they find by attaching buoys to them, and then move on. It could be several months before the waters subside, and up to a year before the city is ready to take back those who have fled.
Perhaps 100,000 people either could not or would not leave New Orleans when warned to do so before Katrina struck. Tens of thousands ended up at the city’s official shelter at the Superdome stadium for days, turning it into a sink of hot and smelly misery. Not far away, other homeless people made their way to the city’s convention centre, which quickly became a second giant shelter. By the weekend, these refugees had been bussed out. Some 20 states have offered to house and school refugees temporarily. But the strain is already starting to show in neighbouring states. In Texas, now home to almost half the refugees from New Orleans, officials say they are struggling to cope.
If the world was saddened by the devastation wrought by Katrina, it was shocked by the breakdown of law and order that followed. Looters roamed the streets, stealing food and water in desperation but also computers, sporting equipment and guns in opportunism. Rapes and car-jackings were reported, and there were angry confrontations between roving thugs and the few shop- and homeowners who stayed. Some saw the social tension as having a racial element, since most of those left behind were poor and black.
Though New Orleans was flooded on Tuesday of last week, it wasn’t until Friday that the relief effort gained real momentum, with the arrival of thousands of national guardsmen. Kathleen Blanco, the governor of Louisiana, gave warning that “they know how to shoot to kill”, and by the weekend they had restored order to most parts of the city. But they and other emergency personnel are under huge pressure, with many of them working round the clock; the New York Times quoted Edwin Compass, New Orleans’s police superintendent, as saying on Saturday that at least 200 of his 1,500 officers had refused to do their job.
Who should have been doing the thinking?
While Katrina was a powerful storm, the extent of the chaos and suffering in her wake has nonetheless been surprising. America has dealt with ferocious hurricanes before, and New Orleans’s vulnerabilities were well known. Thus many are starting to point fingers in relation to both the short-term response and long-term policy failures.Ray Nagin, New Orleans’s mayor, showed increasing frustration throughout last week, especially with the federal government’s response and its press conferences: “They're feeding the people a line of bull, and they are spinning and people are dying…Get off your asses and let’s do something.” An under-pressure President George Bush criticised the relief effort on Friday, calling it “not acceptable”, before flying to the region to see the damage. Later, he suggested that local officials had made some mistakes. This earned him the threat of a punch on the nose from one Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu.
Many of the immediate difficulties are understandable. As Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, pointed out, the disaster has in fact been a double one. The hurricane’s winds flattened homes on the Gulf of Mexico coast, and shortly thereafter the rains burst the levees, the latter creating a “dynamic” situation while authorities responded to the former. Plugging a hundred-metre hole in a levee while waters rush through is a huge challenge for engineers.
Nevertheless, many Americans are blaming the man at the top. Mr Bush should have gone to the region sooner, his critics say. (He was expected to make a second trip on Monday.) Some Bush supporters worry that the botched relief effort could hurt the president at a time when his ratings are already low, thanks to the troubles of Iraq—though a Washington Post/ABC poll, conducted late on Friday, found that the nation was split down the middle, with 46% saying Mr Bush had handled the crisis well and 47% saying he had done badly.
Some blame Mr Bush on the grounds that some of his administration's longer-term policy decisions have made the response to the disaster more difficult. The war in Iraq, it has been noted, has depleted the number of available national guardsmen by a third or more in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama; many of those serving in Iraq are trained emergency personnel. Others allege that the war has squeezed the budget, causing a postponement last year of projects to improve the levees—though it is far from clear that these could have been completed in time to stop the flooding after Katrina.
Even if some failures can be attributed to the Bush administration, the most important reasons for Katrina’s deadliness may lie in decisions that predate the current president, from Jean Baptiste le Moyne de Bienville’s decision to found the city in its precarious location, in 1718, to the more recent “improvements” in the area’s maritime navigability that have damaged south-eastern Louisiana’s wetlands. For much of the 20th century the federal government tampered with the Mississippi, to help shipping and—ironically—prevent floods. In the process it destroyed large swathes of coastal marshland around New Orleans—something which suited property developers, but removed much of the city’s natural protection against flooding. Support may now grow for a multi-billion-dollar plan to restore the wetlands, though a similar project in Florida has proved difficult.
It is an uncomfortable fact that millions of Americans have made the decision to live in areas prone to this kind of disaster. Though Congress has authorised an immediate $10.5 billion relief package, Denny Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives, has expressed doubt that large dollops of money should be spent on reconstruction in a location as exposed as New Orleans (though he later backpedalled). But there remain important questions to be asked at both the local and national level about the failures that led to Katrina’s destruction and chaos. It has provided yet another reminder that decisions made without due regard for the consequences can prove painful indeed later on.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 06, 2005 at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, September 05, 2005
False Security
Posted by fm on September 05, 2005 at 12:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Facing Reality
Hurricane Exposes Issues of Class, Race
Source: USA TodayAlthough TV correspondents covering Hurricane Katrina avoid commenting on the obvious, their cameras hold back nothing. The people who couldn't or wouldn't leave New Orleans are overwhelmingly poor and black. As are the looters.
The images may surprise people whose visual pictures of the city are of tipsy partiers on Bourbon Street or plump chefs in French Quarter restaurants. But the vicious winds of Katrina exposed a far different reality.
The Census Bureau reported this week that the number of Americans living in poverty rose last year to 12.7%, the fourth consecutive year the poverty rate has risen. New Orleans' poverty rate is nearly double the national rate, and 40% of the city's children live in poverty. More than two-thirds of the city's residents are African-American.
Those are the people gathered in desperation at the Morial Convention Center, their shattered and messy lives on full public display. Those are the faces behind the dry statistics in the government reports.
Failure to address that reality appears to be a central reason that New Orleans' meager and mismanaged disaster plan failed. Many of the poor lacked cars, leaving them unable to escape the city.
Lacking money, many also surely lacked places to go. Lacking education, many may not have grasped the threat. And lacking good health, many were too weak to survive.
Those shortcomings were not addressed. The result is the heartbreaking pictures coming out of the city Thursday. They were reminiscent of Third World refugee camps.
None of this, of course, excuses the looting, except perhaps to obtain food and water to survive. And it certainly doesn't excuse the shooting. Some looters even fired shots at rescuers Thursday, interfering with their critical missions as the city descended into near-anarchy.
But lawlessness is the inevitable companion of mass poverty, and a threat to civil order should have been anticipated.
There seems little doubt that order will be restored swiftly. Police and National Guard forces headed for New Orleans certainly have the capability. And there is no doubt that Americans will respond with an outpouring of generosity to citizens in need, just as they did for the tsunami victims of Southeast Asia.
Sadly, there is also no doubt that when New Orleans eventually returns to some form of normalcy, its poor will once again become invisible. At least until the next disaster strikes.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on September 04, 2005 at 12:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Simple Math
Posted by fm on September 03, 2005 at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, September 02, 2005
Questionable Priorities
Posted by fm on September 02, 2005 at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Separation of Powers Doctrine
Posted by fm on September 01, 2005 at 12:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)