John Shelby Spong, in his 1998 book Why Christianity Must Change or Die (Bishop Spong doesn't pussyfoot around, obviously) discusses (on pp. 75-83) the chronological development of the notion of Jesus as the Christ.
He notes that, as the earliest of the canonical writings, the Epistles of Paul, written between 50 and 60 C.E., not only fail to mention the birth of Jesus, but, in Romans (1:1-5) states that Jesus was designated "Son of God" by the Father only at his resurrection.
Mark, the earliest of the synoptic writers, writing some 20 years later, moves this designation backward in time to the baptism of Jesus (1:9-10), while Matthew, writing 10 to 20 years after Mark, moves even further backward in time to his birth.
Luke, writing 5 to 10 years after Matthew, changes the birth details somewhat, but makes the Annunciation the moment of divine designation.
Finally, John, writing almost 100 years into the Common Era, dispenses with all previous times of designation and proclaims that Jesus shared divine identity from "In the beginning," then states that "the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us."
As for the noncanonical infancy narratives, many are based on the 2d century Protoevangelium of James, which concentrates on the virginity of Mary, rather than the circumstances of Jesus's birth as well as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of James (It's worthwhile to note, I think, that these latter sources are the basis for Anne Rice's recent novel, Christ the Lord. No doubt it'll become a best seller, given the current temper of the times... Boreas
A quick note, not by way of argument or disagreement, but clarification.
This idea is not original with Spong, nor really all that challenging. Fr. Raymond Brown acknowledges as the same exegetical understanding in his magisterial (and, by modern scriptural studies standards, quite safe and conservative) Birth of the Messiah (a book I like even as I might disagree with it; but then, I disagree with Bultmann's "demythologization," which is basically Spong's shtick).
Mark is dated to around 70 C.E., and contains no mention of a nativity at all. Neither does john, which clocks in between 100 and 120 C.E.
The only story from the life of Jesus of Nazareth in Paul's letters is the reference to the eucharisto in Corinthians. Otherwise, Paul preaches "Christ crucified," which for Paul clearly is what made Jesus of Nazareth "Messiah" (which means the "last supper" for Paul is a memorial meal; the metaphysics of it came much later. Although it raises the interesting question, again: what do the words of institution in Corinthians mean?)
Matthew and Luke both have widely divergent nativity stories, which cannot be reconciled. In Matthew, Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, and the wise men come when Jesus is 2 or younger (because that's the age of the innocents slaughtered by Herod). The family flees to Egypt (recaptiulating Israel's history; in with Joseph, out with Moses), and comes back to settle in Nazareth.
In Luke, they live in Nazareth and go to Bethlehem for the census (for which there is no other record than in Luke's tale).
By John's gospel, metaphysics has taken over, and Jesus not only predates Creation, but is the shaping force of Creation (the logos of Greek philosophy is thus reconciled with the Creator of Hebraic belief). Birth is irrelevant to the Word, which exists, with God, prior to the beginning.
What does this mean?
Well, that the gospels are not history texts in the way the Greeks understood them, or even as we, after them, do. They are, in seminary language, confessional documents. They confess a belief in the God of Abraham and Jesus, based on an experience that the communities which created these documents felt could best be expressed in this way. I learned all this in seminary, and yet I still sing "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" every December, still read Luke 2 in the King James Version every Christmas Eve, still believe in the songs of Mary and Zechariah and Simeon and the angels, and even in the dreams of Joseph. I know what it all means, and yet is still means something to me. I can exegete the Magnificat and the gifts of the Magi and even the journeys of the holy family and the visitation of shepherds.
But they still have their confessional meaning, too.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
So we cannot pull out of Iraq until the "insurgents" declare us the victors and lay down their IED's and submit to our hand-picked government and the rule of Ahmed Chalabi.
But by declaring we won't leave until stability is restored, we give our "enemies" the power over how long we stay, and how much more punishment we take. They determine when we leave; not us. And the fact that we stay is what makes us targets: not just because we are present and available, but because we also provoke the violence just by being there.
That's some catch, that Catch-22.
And I read somewhere this morning that European intellectuals and diplomats are starting to see a silver lining to the U.S. presence in Iraq: we're drawing terrorists away from Europe (which, after all, is easier to get to from Middle Eastern countries than America). So they'd just as soon we stayed.
So far from being the hyper-power on the planet, we've been put at the tender mercies of the insurgents, and we're propping up the Europeans by dying in their place.
Is Bush a great war leader, or what?
So we cannot pull out of Iraq until the "insurgents" declare us the victors and lay down their IED's and submit to our hand-picked government and the rule of Ahmed Chalabi.
But by declaring we won't leave until stability is restored, we give our "enemies" the power over how long we stay, and how much more punishment we take. They determine when we leave; not us. And the fact that we stay is what makes us targets: not just because we are present and available, but because we also provoke the violence just by being there.
That's some catch, that Catch-22.
And I read somewhere this morning that European intellectuals and diplomats are starting to see a silver lining to the U.S. presence in Iraq: we're drawing terrorists away from Europe (which, after all, is easier to get to from Middle Eastern countries than America). So they'd just as soon we stayed.
So far from being the hyper-power on the planet, we've been put at the tender mercies of the insurgents, and we're propping up the Europeans by dying in their place.
Is Bush a great war leader, or what?
Yes, Virginia, there is a History of Christmas
[This was going down for the third time, so I've redated it should the conversation want to continue]
Stephen Nissenbaum's The Battle for Christmas is as dense and rich as a good Christmas pudding, and trying to summarize it is like trying to describe the taste of such a pudding: eventually you just throw up your hands and say: "Here. You just have to try this."
That said, I want to delve a bit deeper into it, mine it for a bit more information. His is a cultural history (v. Penne Restad's equally excellent book, which is a more "traditional" history), which means its full of detail, packed dense with it, in fact, all the better to buttress his argument. So, while I can give you the basics of his conclusions, if you want to question the validity of the process, you'll have to go to the source. I can only do him an injustice here.
First, Nissenbaum notes that in America Christmas has been more honored in the breach than in the observance. There are many reasons for this: the Puritans, for one, banned it outright (Massachusetts made the observance of Christmas a criminal offense for 22 years (1659-1681; Battle, p. 3) But we forget, on the other side of the "melting pot," what a polyglot land this was after it was created by the Constitutional convention. Swedes, Danes, Germans (of many stripes; the "Germany" we all know didn't exist in the 19th century, or the 18th), Italians, Irish, as well as the Puritans who dominated New England, all added to the mix at one time or another. As Restad points out, the Europeans didn't even have a uniform calendar in the 18th century.
See what you missed in history class?
So the syrup of uniformity we pour on the past is entirely anachronistic, and clouds our understanding. But the real problem with Christmas, per Nissenbaum, was the English celebration of it.
Originally, in Europe, the celebration coincided with the Feast of Fools. This was a time when the poor were able to freely mock the rich. Victor Hugo describes the fete in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Even the powerful church of medieval Europe was not immune, as revelers might crown a monkey or a monster (Quasimodo) as Bishop, and treat the king in ways that would make the New York Times editorial board today, blush and mutter intemperately. And that was, finally, precisely the problem with it.
The feast was, as Nissenbaum points out, a "system of control" (to steal a term from "Matrix Reloaded").
It is Nissenbaum's insight (persuasively argued in the book, butchered here by your humble host), that this famous Christmas poem created the modern, family oriented Christmas celebration. Not single-handedly, of course; it came at the confluence of a number of social changes which Nissenbaum outlines in full detail (I won't bore you). But the centerpiece is the poem; and maybe the proof of the importance of tha poem is that it has become itself both a Christmas tradition, and has been "translated" into so many forms (Texas Night before Christmas; Cajun Night before Christmas, etc.) and all those forms quite peculiarly American.
How did Moore pull of this amazing feat? Put simply, by turning Santa the "home invader" (rowdiness and insistence on being treated bordered on violence and mayhem in America around Christmas; as I say, the vestiges of that remain in stories of "tricks" being performed at Hallowe'en in my father's and grandfather's day, when no treats were forthcoming) into a "kindly old peddler" who entered the home not to do harm, nor to demand food, but to actually bring gifts. The obligation, in other words, finally shifted away from the Lord of the Manor not to the peasants, but to a "jolly old elf." And the gifts were given, not to those economically dependent on the rich, but to the legal dependents of the rich: the family members.
As I say, Nissenbaum explains this in detail and quite well; I can only offer a poor summary here. But one other matter Nissenbaum points out is that this kind of Christmas celebration was not only inevitably "commercial," but fundamentally and unavoidably commercial as well. Indeed, Nissenbaum offers ample evidence to establish that the "Christmas customs" of a tree and exchanging presents were products of burgeoning commercialism, and were made possible and widely spread, and readily accepted, because of it, not in spite of it.
That's yet another topic about the "war on Christmas" which has raged at least as long as I have been alive. And we haven't even gotten to the topic of the religious observance of Christmas; but we will.
Stephen Nissenbaum's The Battle for Christmas is as dense and rich as a good Christmas pudding, and trying to summarize it is like trying to describe the taste of such a pudding: eventually you just throw up your hands and say: "Here. You just have to try this."
That said, I want to delve a bit deeper into it, mine it for a bit more information. His is a cultural history (v. Penne Restad's equally excellent book, which is a more "traditional" history), which means its full of detail, packed dense with it, in fact, all the better to buttress his argument. So, while I can give you the basics of his conclusions, if you want to question the validity of the process, you'll have to go to the source. I can only do him an injustice here.
First, Nissenbaum notes that in America Christmas has been more honored in the breach than in the observance. There are many reasons for this: the Puritans, for one, banned it outright (Massachusetts made the observance of Christmas a criminal offense for 22 years (1659-1681; Battle, p. 3) But we forget, on the other side of the "melting pot," what a polyglot land this was after it was created by the Constitutional convention. Swedes, Danes, Germans (of many stripes; the "Germany" we all know didn't exist in the 19th century, or the 18th), Italians, Irish, as well as the Puritans who dominated New England, all added to the mix at one time or another. As Restad points out, the Europeans didn't even have a uniform calendar in the 18th century.
Dutch settlers, and presumably Germans, Swedes, and other Continental Europeans, used the Gregorian Calendar. Until the British government switched to the Gregorian in 1752/3, English settlers used the Julian calendar. Dissenters in New England and Quakers in the Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania used the same calendar, but renamed the months and days to avoid referring to their pagan origins. January became First Month, and Sunday became First Day. (Restad, 18)And uniform customs? Fuggedaboutit!
See what you missed in history class?
So the syrup of uniformity we pour on the past is entirely anachronistic, and clouds our understanding. But the real problem with Christmas, per Nissenbaum, was the English celebration of it.
Originally, in Europe, the celebration coincided with the Feast of Fools. This was a time when the poor were able to freely mock the rich. Victor Hugo describes the fete in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Even the powerful church of medieval Europe was not immune, as revelers might crown a monkey or a monster (Quasimodo) as Bishop, and treat the king in ways that would make the New York Times editorial board today, blush and mutter intemperately. And that was, finally, precisely the problem with it.
The feast was, as Nissenbaum points out, a "system of control" (to steal a term from "Matrix Reloaded").
At other times of the year it was the poor who owed goods, labor, and deference to the rich. But on this occasion the tables were turned--literally. The poor--most often bands of boys and young men--claimed the right to march to the houses of the well-to-do, enter their halls, and recieve gifts of food, drink, and sometimes money as well. And the rich had to let them in--eseentially, to hold "open house." [This custom remains vestigially in our culture, in the Fall; we call it "Hallowe'en"] Christmas as a time when peasants, servants, and apprentices exercised the right to demand that their wealthier neighbors and patrons treat them as if they were wealthy and powerful. The Lord of the Manor let the peasants in and feasted them. In return, the peasants offered something of true value in a paternalistic society---their goodwill. Just when and how this actually happened each year--whether it was a gracious offering or the forced concession to a hostile confrontation--probably depended on the particular individuals involved as well as the local customs that had been established in years past (and which were constantly being "re-negotiated" through just such ritualized practices as these.) (Battle, 9)This eventually came to an end, of course, but the ritual, the practice, did not end as cleanly. What ended the attitude of the "rich" was the industrial revolution, and the rise of the middle class, which meant an end to the "paternalistic society."
E.P. Thompson has argued that in eighteenth-century England it was the upper classes themselves who severed the paternalist bonds that allowed the rituals of misrule to operate as a safety valve. Both the gentry and the established church abandoned their control over holiday ritual; these now became purely "plebeian" cultural expressions....In this new setting, rituals of misrule began to assume are more openly oppositional form. (Battle, 51)Which leads us to "A Visit from St. Nicholas."
It is Nissenbaum's insight (persuasively argued in the book, butchered here by your humble host), that this famous Christmas poem created the modern, family oriented Christmas celebration. Not single-handedly, of course; it came at the confluence of a number of social changes which Nissenbaum outlines in full detail (I won't bore you). But the centerpiece is the poem; and maybe the proof of the importance of tha poem is that it has become itself both a Christmas tradition, and has been "translated" into so many forms (Texas Night before Christmas; Cajun Night before Christmas, etc.) and all those forms quite peculiarly American.
How did Moore pull of this amazing feat? Put simply, by turning Santa the "home invader" (rowdiness and insistence on being treated bordered on violence and mayhem in America around Christmas; as I say, the vestiges of that remain in stories of "tricks" being performed at Hallowe'en in my father's and grandfather's day, when no treats were forthcoming) into a "kindly old peddler" who entered the home not to do harm, nor to demand food, but to actually bring gifts. The obligation, in other words, finally shifted away from the Lord of the Manor not to the peasants, but to a "jolly old elf." And the gifts were given, not to those economically dependent on the rich, but to the legal dependents of the rich: the family members.
As I say, Nissenbaum explains this in detail and quite well; I can only offer a poor summary here. But one other matter Nissenbaum points out is that this kind of Christmas celebration was not only inevitably "commercial," but fundamentally and unavoidably commercial as well. Indeed, Nissenbaum offers ample evidence to establish that the "Christmas customs" of a tree and exchanging presents were products of burgeoning commercialism, and were made possible and widely spread, and readily accepted, because of it, not in spite of it.
That's yet another topic about the "war on Christmas" which has raged at least as long as I have been alive. And we haven't even gotten to the topic of the religious observance of Christmas; but we will.
"Thou has committed fornication....
"But that was in another country/and besides, the wench is dead."--Christopher Marlowe
H: Oh, yes.
I: If I may begin at the beginning. First there is the Cherry Fondue.
Now this is extremely nasty. (pause) But we can't prosecute you for that.
H: Ah, agreed.
I: Then we have number four. Number four: Crunchy Frog.
H: Yes.
I: Am I right in thinking there's a real frog in 'ere?
H: Yes, a little one.
I: What sort of frog?
H: A...a *dead* frog.
I: Is it cooked?
H: No.
I: What, a RAW frog?!?
H: Oh, we use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in the finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and sealed in a succulent, Swiss, quintuple-smooth, treble-milk chocolate envelope, and lovingly frosted with glucose.
I: That's as may be, but it's still a frog!
H: What else?
I: Well, don't you even take the bones out?
H: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?
I: Constable Clitoris et one of those!! We have to protect the public!"
H: Oh, we use only the finest juicy chunks of fresh Cornish Ram's bladder, emptied, steamed, flavoured with sesame seeds, whipped into a fondue, and garnished with lark's vomit.
I: LARK'S VOMIT?!?!?
H: Correct.
I: It doesn't say anything here about lark's vomit!
H: Ah, it does, at the bottom of the label, after "monosodium glutamate".
I: I hardly think that's good enough! I think it's be more appropriate if the box bore a great red label: "WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!!!"
H: Our sales would plummet!"
frog in chocolate! Constable Clitoris thought it was an almond whirl!
They're bound to expect some sort of mock frog!
H: (outraged) MOCK frog!?! We use NO artificial additives or preservatives of ANY kind!
H: Ah, that's one of our specialities. Covered in dark, velvety chocolate, when you pop it into your mouth, stainless steel bolts spring out and plunge straight through both cheeks.
I: (stunned) Well where's the pleasure in THAT?!? If people pop a nice little chockie into their mouth, they don't expect to get their cheeks pierced!!!"
From the Battle Book ST 100-3, (1999) U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Leavenworth, Kansas, Chapter 5:
H: (shrugging) It's a fair cop.
I: And DON'T talk to the audience."
AMY GOODMAN: But the Pentagon was caught in a lie after it was revealed that an official Army publication called Field Artillery magazine had disclosed the Army had, in fact, used white phosphorus as a weapon. The magazine in its March/April issue reported, quote, "White phosphorus proved to be an effective and versatile munition and a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes." The magazine went on to report, quote, "We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents using W.P. [white phosphorus] to flush them out and H.E. [high explosives] to take them out." On Tuesday, Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable, another Pentagon spokesperson, admitted on the BBC that white phosphorus was used as an offensive weapon to target insurgents."I: Constable Clitoris and I are from the 'ygiene squad, and we'd like to have a word with you about your box of chocolates entitled the "Whizzo Quality Assortment".
H: Oh, yes.
I: If I may begin at the beginning. First there is the Cherry Fondue.
Now this is extremely nasty. (pause) But we can't prosecute you for that.
H: Ah, agreed.
I: Then we have number four. Number four: Crunchy Frog.
H: Yes.
I: Am I right in thinking there's a real frog in 'ere?
H: Yes, a little one.
I: What sort of frog?
H: A...a *dead* frog.
I: Is it cooked?
H: No.
I: What, a RAW frog?!?
H: Oh, we use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in the finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and sealed in a succulent, Swiss, quintuple-smooth, treble-milk chocolate envelope, and lovingly frosted with glucose.
I: That's as may be, but it's still a frog!
H: What else?
I: Well, don't you even take the bones out?
H: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?
I: Constable Clitoris et one of those!! We have to protect the public!"
The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare."I: Now what about this one, number five, it was number five, wasn't it? Number five: Ram's Bladder Cup. (beat) Now, what sort of confectionery is that?!?
The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".
The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to provide smoke for camouflage.
This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year.
The article, written by a captain, a first lieutenant and a sergeant, was a review of the attack on Falluja in November 2004 and in particular of the use of indirect fire, mainly mortars.
H: Oh, we use only the finest juicy chunks of fresh Cornish Ram's bladder, emptied, steamed, flavoured with sesame seeds, whipped into a fondue, and garnished with lark's vomit.
I: LARK'S VOMIT?!?!?
H: Correct.
I: It doesn't say anything here about lark's vomit!
H: Ah, it does, at the bottom of the label, after "monosodium glutamate".
I: I hardly think that's good enough! I think it's be more appropriate if the box bore a great red label: "WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!!!"
H: Our sales would plummet!"
This tactic of forcing opponents out of cover is not new and should not really have come as a surprise. An article looking back at the Vietnam war published in 1996 by a US armoured unit (1st Battalion, 69th Armor) referred to "Willie Pete" weapons and their use in getting North Vietnamese troops to leave their positions:I: We have to protect the public! People aren't going to think there's a real
"Our normal procedure was to fire these things at a hillside as soon as possible in order to get them out of the fighting compartment."
One wonders of course if, in Falluja, WP was used more directly to kill insurgents and not just to flush them out. In battle, soldiers take short cuts and this seems an obvious one.
frog in chocolate! Constable Clitoris thought it was an almond whirl!
They're bound to expect some sort of mock frog!
H: (outraged) MOCK frog!?! We use NO artificial additives or preservatives of ANY kind!
The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party."I: (continuing) And what is this one: Spring Surprise?
The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:
"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
....
The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.
...
However the United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use.
This convention has the cumbersome title "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." Agreed in 1980, its Protocol III covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons."
This prohibits WP or other incendiaries (like flamethrowers) against civilians or civilian objects and its use by air strikes against military targets located in a concentration of civilians. It also limits WP use by other means (such as mortars or direct fire from tanks) against military targets in a civilian area. Such targets have to be separated from civilian concentrations and "all feasible precautions" taken to avoid civilian casualties.
H: Ah, that's one of our specialities. Covered in dark, velvety chocolate, when you pop it into your mouth, stainless steel bolts spring out and plunge straight through both cheeks.
I: (stunned) Well where's the pleasure in THAT?!? If people pop a nice little chockie into their mouth, they don't expect to get their cheeks pierced!!!"
From the Battle Book ST 100-3, (1999) U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Leavenworth, Kansas, Chapter 5:
(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."I: (stunned) I shall have to ask you to accompany me to the station.
H: (shrugging) It's a fair cop.
I: And DON'T talk to the audience."
What are bloggers for?
So, the question du jour is: are blogs "views you can use"? Or are they a new form of reportage?
The grounds of Ms. Alexander's complaint seem to be that people are saying things and discussing things via blogs without benefit of editors or the restrictions of a one-way conversation. Oh, and also not for pay. Or if it is for pay, then that's the problem.
The only way I can understand her complaint, indeed, is that blogs don't allow the mainstream media to decide what the national conversation will be. Mind, this is not a new situation; but the urge for control may be a logical outgrowth of the "objective" "professionalism" of journalism, something that "Citizen Kane" reminds us, is of fairly recent vintage.
In 19th century America, the hey-day of the newspaper, all newspapers were biased and carried a particular political and social point of view. It was expected, and you bought the newspaper that fit your interests. "Special interest" newspapers that still exist today, especially in large urban areas like New York City and Houston (I live near a Korean newspaper publisher; there are more than a few Spanish language newspapers on almost every street corner; none of these, of course, rival the distribution of the "major newspaper" in town, the Houston Chronicle). are faint echoes of these 19th century papers.
The control of public opinion reached its nadir under the "yellow journalism" of people like Randolph Hearst (Welles' target, as everyone knows). Such journalism led to the "reform" of the objective standards for journalism, for "professionalism" (try to imagine H.L. Mencken as a "professional journalist") championed by Joseph Pulitzer and then canonized in the form of Edward R. Murrow (currently starring as a candidate for sainthood in George Clooney's new movie "Good Night, and Good Luck," although I'd never heard of Murrow in connection with the rise and fall of McCarthy, and many say he, like contemporary journalists, jumped on the train long after it had left the station).
Then "media" slowly and inexorably became "media," and just as slowly and inexorably became "corporate." And more relentlessly, became entirely one-way.
You can't talk back to the newspaper (nor are they required to publish your letter when you do); and when it is the only paper in town (I still remember when Houston, 4th largest city in the country, was a "tw0-newspaper town"; no longer). You can't talk back to the TV. You can talk back to the radio, but only if you get past the screener.
You can always have a conversation on a blog.
I'm a big believer in conversations. They change people. It isn't dialectic, exactly, not one force reacting to another force, and the encounter creating a third force. But it is entirely, and dare I say peculiarly, human. And as such, too valuable to lose, which is why we refuse to let go of it. Our culture, our religions, our science, our business, our societies, all are built on conversation. It is more powerful than sex, more transforming than love or war, more multifarious and multivalent than any single person's imagination. It is, to almost prove Hume right, almost where we find human identity, the human "self."
So is that Ms. Alexander's problem? Is that what bothers her? That blogs allow for conversations?
The grounds of Ms. Alexander's complaint seem to be that people are saying things and discussing things via blogs without benefit of editors or the restrictions of a one-way conversation. Oh, and also not for pay. Or if it is for pay, then that's the problem.
The only way I can understand her complaint, indeed, is that blogs don't allow the mainstream media to decide what the national conversation will be. Mind, this is not a new situation; but the urge for control may be a logical outgrowth of the "objective" "professionalism" of journalism, something that "Citizen Kane" reminds us, is of fairly recent vintage.
In 19th century America, the hey-day of the newspaper, all newspapers were biased and carried a particular political and social point of view. It was expected, and you bought the newspaper that fit your interests. "Special interest" newspapers that still exist today, especially in large urban areas like New York City and Houston (I live near a Korean newspaper publisher; there are more than a few Spanish language newspapers on almost every street corner; none of these, of course, rival the distribution of the "major newspaper" in town, the Houston Chronicle). are faint echoes of these 19th century papers.
The control of public opinion reached its nadir under the "yellow journalism" of people like Randolph Hearst (Welles' target, as everyone knows). Such journalism led to the "reform" of the objective standards for journalism, for "professionalism" (try to imagine H.L. Mencken as a "professional journalist") championed by Joseph Pulitzer and then canonized in the form of Edward R. Murrow (currently starring as a candidate for sainthood in George Clooney's new movie "Good Night, and Good Luck," although I'd never heard of Murrow in connection with the rise and fall of McCarthy, and many say he, like contemporary journalists, jumped on the train long after it had left the station).
Then "media" slowly and inexorably became "media," and just as slowly and inexorably became "corporate." And more relentlessly, became entirely one-way.
You can't talk back to the newspaper (nor are they required to publish your letter when you do); and when it is the only paper in town (I still remember when Houston, 4th largest city in the country, was a "tw0-newspaper town"; no longer). You can't talk back to the TV. You can talk back to the radio, but only if you get past the screener.
You can always have a conversation on a blog.
I'm a big believer in conversations. They change people. It isn't dialectic, exactly, not one force reacting to another force, and the encounter creating a third force. But it is entirely, and dare I say peculiarly, human. And as such, too valuable to lose, which is why we refuse to let go of it. Our culture, our religions, our science, our business, our societies, all are built on conversation. It is more powerful than sex, more transforming than love or war, more multifarious and multivalent than any single person's imagination. It is, to almost prove Hume right, almost where we find human identity, the human "self."
So is that Ms. Alexander's problem? Is that what bothers her? That blogs allow for conversations?
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Next week: the Cake Stand
Reality overtakes comedy:
Another man who had his head nailed to the floor was Stig O' Tracy."I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor."
Rogers: I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor.
Stig: No. Never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to buy his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.
Rogers: But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor.
Stig: (pause) Oh yeah, he did that.
Rogers: Why?
Stig: Well he had to, didn't he? I mean there was nothing else he could do, be fair. I had transgressed the unwritten law.
Rogers: What had you done?
Stig: Er... well he didn't tell me that, but he gave me his word that it was the case, and that's good enough for me with old Dinsy. I mean, he didn't *want* to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off. He'd do anything for you, Dinsdale would.
Rogers: And you don't bear him a grudge?
Stig: A grudge! Old Dinsy. He was a real darling.
Rogers: I understand he also nailed your wife's head to a coffee table.
Isn't that true Mrs O' Tracy?
Mrs O' Tracy: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Stig: Well he did do that, yeah. He was a hard man. Vicious but fair.
Vince Snetterton-Lewis agreed with this judgement.
Yes, definitely he was fair. After he nailed me head to the table, I used to go round every Sunday lunchtime to his flat and apologise, and then we'd shake hands and he'd nail me head to the floor. He was very reasonable. Once, one Sunday I told him my parents were coming round to tea and would he mind very much not nailing my head that week and he agreed and just screwed my pelvis to a cake stand."
Italy’s state-run RAI24 all-news television aired a documentary last week alleging the United States used white phosphorous shells “in a massive and indiscriminate way” against civilians during the November 2004 offensive in Fallujah."But the police have film..." :
The United States has said it used phosphorous shells “very sparingly” in Fallujah to illuminate the night sky. It says such shells used that way are legal.
...
The documentary showed photos of what it said were Iraqis burned by white phosphorous, and quoted former Marines as saying the shells were used.
The U.S. Embassy in Rome issued a statement criticizing the documentary, saying any suggestion that U.S. forces used white phosphorous or any chemical weapons against human targets was “simply wrong.”
While military experts have supported some of these criticisms, an examination by The Independent of the available evidence suggests the following: that WP shells were fired at insurgents, that reports from the battleground suggest troops firing these WP shells did not always know who they were hitting and that there remain widespread reports of civilians suffering extensive burn injuries. While US commanders insist they always strive to avoid civilian casualties, the story of the battle of Fallujah highlights the intrinsic difficulty of such an endeavour."No. Never. He was a smashing bloke."
It is also clear that elements within the US government have been putting out incorrect information about the battle of Fallujah, making it harder to assesses the truth. Some within the US government have previously issued disingenuous statements about the use in Iraq of another controversial incendiary weapon - napalm.
LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: White phosphorus has been used. I do not recall it was used as an offensive weapon. White phosphorus is used for marking targets for both air and ground forces. White phosphorus is used to destroy equipment and other types of things. It is used to destroy weapons caches. And it is used to produce a white smoke which can obscure the enemy's vision of what we are doing."Well he did do that, yeah."
....
I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus. Again, I did not say white phosphorus was used for illumination. White phosphorus is used for obscuration, which white phosphorus produces a heavy thick smoke to shield us or them from view so that they cannot see what we are doing. It is used to destroy equipment, to destroy buildings. That is what white phosphorus shells are used for.
Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.Well he had to, didn't he? I mean there was nothing else he could do, be fair."
Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.
"It was not used against civilians," Venable said.
Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory."I mean, he didn't *want* to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off."
White phosphorous is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.
Use of white phosphorous is not banned but is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits use of the substance as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas.
Blair's spokesman pointed out that Britain is a signatory to the convention. The United States is not.
Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans?
Start with the good news first:
What is Chertoff doing for homeland security? What is he doing to help the people who need help? Why is FEMA so completely useless?
UPDATE: As Scout Prime notes, things are only getting worse.
A demographer predicted that many New Orleans-area residents will return if they are guaranteed good housing.But still, so much depends on so many who have proven undependable. Case in point: the horror, the horror:
William Frey of the Brookings Institution was one of the speakers at the Louisiana Recovery and Rebuilding Conference, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported.
"This is a population that would really like to come back," William Frey said.
Frey cited statistics that 77 percent of the area's residents were born in Louisiana, a much higher percentage than other southern cities. For African-Americans, the percentage is even higher, 88 percent.
Some experts have predicted the city's population will fall by almost half. They cite its long decline in population before the hurricane, and suggest that many poor residents will find greater opportunities in Houston and other cities that took in large numbers of evacuees.
Frey said the number of people who return depends largely on what direction rebuilding takes.
More than a month after the official search for victims of Hurricane Katrina ended, the death toll in Louisiana has jumped by 104 as returning families in the New Orleans area continue to find bodies.Bodies that have been in attics in the sub-tropical climate of New Orleans since the end of August. Human beings, loved ones, being found by family members. These aren't ruined refrigerators that can simply be discarded. At first, reflexively, I blamed FEMA; but I was wrong, and Sheriff Jack Stephens is right:
New Orleans coroner Frank Minyard says medical examiners have worked tirelessly. Some have blasted their records as incomplete.
By Judi Bottoni, AP
Many of the newly discovered victims are elderly people who sought refuge in attics and upper floors from the rising waters throughout New Orleans' devastated 9th Ward, said Frank Minyard, the coroner in greater New Orleans.
"Some people are just now getting back to their homes and to the homes of their relatives," Minyard said. "The bodies are still coming in."
Louisiana's decision to end the official search for victims last month triggered harsh criticism from Jack Stephens, sheriff of ravaged St. Bernard Parish, east of New Orleans. He said state authorities never completely searched some of the most heavily damaged areas where many elderly residents lived when Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29.But the state of Louisiana says it is overwhelmed, much like the city of New Orleans was overwhelmed. And I don't doubt it. So I want to know, again: why does Michael Chertoff still have his job? If this isn't part of the recovery from a disaster, what is?
"For people to come home to that damage and then to make that gruesome discovery — that doesn't seem fair to me," Stephens said.
What is Chertoff doing for homeland security? What is he doing to help the people who need help? Why is FEMA so completely useless?
UPDATE: As Scout Prime notes, things are only getting worse.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
The Bingaman Amendment has failed
Just heard that the Bingaman amendment has failed, and the compromise on the Graham amendment has been approved. Graham insisted, in argument, that his amendment was simply trying to keep "enemy combatants" from "suing us over everything" in order to "undermine the war effort."
To better understand what is at stake, even under this compromise, this letter by a group of law professors is enlightening.(PDF file). (Notably, the letter proper is only two pages long; it contains 11 pages of signatures.) Some excerpts:
Not to mention, any compromise on habeas corpus pits one part of the Constitution (grant of habeas rights) against another (the power of the Congress to set the jurisdiction of the federal courts). Let's linger on this a moment. Habeas comes into American law via tradition and, not insigificantly, the Habeas Act of 1679, enacted by the British Parliament. It enters the U.S. Constitution in Art. I, Sec. 9:
Will this offer grounds for appeal? The plain language of the Constitution is that habeas is not to be suspended except under circumstances in which the republic faces immediate peril: rebellion (the Civil War) or invasion.
We face neither in the case of the Iraqis, Afghans, and others in Guantanamo and other prisons run by the U.S.
Will this be enough to give the courts reason to overrule this attempt to abrogate their jurisdiction? It's an interesting question, but not one I want to see litigated.
To better understand what is at stake, even under this compromise, this letter by a group of law professors is enlightening.(PDF file). (Notably, the letter proper is only two pages long; it contains 11 pages of signatures.) Some excerpts:
Pursuant to the Military Order signed by President Bush on November 13, 2001, the Department of Defense has set up non-statutory military commissions and vested them with power to impose sentences on detainees of long imprisonment and even of death. Earlier this month, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court agreed to review aspects of the legality of these military commissions. The Amendment apparently seeks to remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction to resolve the important legal questions raised by the Hamdan appeal – purporting to leave the issues within the exclusive control of the Executive.The fact that a "compromise" has been approved does not mean "the right thing" has been done. The clear intent of the Bush Administration, in ignoring and prolonging the cases mentioned in the letter, and simply blocking other "detainees" from court access, is to enact in fact what they cannot win in law. Under the compromise amendment, they can actually do this more effectively. Appeals will be limited, and limited access to courts is even easier to control than the issue as it currently stands.
Furthermore, the Amendment, as currently drafted, renders it impossible to implement in the federal courts the full scope of the rulings of the Supreme Court in two recent cases, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush....
The Graham Amendment would dramatically erode our core constitutional commitment to separation of powers. The Amendment consigns the protection of fundamental human liberties to unilateral executive determination under which the Executive chooses the prisoners, chooses the charges, chooses the judges, chooses the punishment – and cuts off judicial review of its determinations. We should not forget the Framers’ insight, expressed so eloquently by James Madison in the 47th Federalist Paper, that the “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
The Framers’ concerns are borne out by recent events. The abuses documented at Guantánamo and the Abu Ghraib prison, and other U.S. facilities around the world, are reminders of what can happen when Madison’s advice is cast aside. Further, were the Amendment enacted, it would undermine the ability to enforce in federal court the pending McCain Amendment. That Amendment, approved by the Senate 90-9, makes it unlawful for any “individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location [to be] subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The Graham Amendment departs from our commitment to checks-and-balances. The Amendment’s passage occurred without hearings by committees such as the Senate Judiciary Committee and without time for sufficient public debate. No discussion has been had on the Amendment’s apparent effect that persons sentenced to long incarceration or to death would have no federal judicial review. The extraordinary sweep of the Graham Amendment, at a minimum, warrants the Congress’s full deliberative processes. Enactment of the Amendment as currently drafted does harm to the Constitution and to the rule of law.
Not to mention, any compromise on habeas corpus pits one part of the Constitution (grant of habeas rights) against another (the power of the Congress to set the jurisdiction of the federal courts). Let's linger on this a moment. Habeas comes into American law via tradition and, not insigificantly, the Habeas Act of 1679, enacted by the British Parliament. It enters the U.S. Constitution in Art. I, Sec. 9:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.I would note again that the best defense Sen. Graham has for his amendment is that it "undermines the war effort" to allow "detainees" access to federal courts. As the law professors note, the Supreme Court begs to differ.
Will this offer grounds for appeal? The plain language of the Constitution is that habeas is not to be suspended except under circumstances in which the republic faces immediate peril: rebellion (the Civil War) or invasion.
We face neither in the case of the Iraqis, Afghans, and others in Guantanamo and other prisons run by the U.S.
Will this be enough to give the courts reason to overrule this attempt to abrogate their jurisdiction? It's an interesting question, but not one I want to see litigated.
Compare and Contrast
Q: When faced with a crisis, how should a national leader respond?
Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic of France:
Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic of France:
Faced with the uncertainties of the times and of the world, with a sense of impotence, of being at times in the grip of confusion, everyone is seeking more personal, more immediate points of reference: family, neighbourhood solidarities, community associations. And this aspiration is natural. It is even an asset. It shows the capacity of Frenchmen and women to mobilize, act and give free rein to their energies and their initiatives.George W. Bush, President of the United States:
Yet this movement must find its limits in the upholding of respect for common values. The danger lies in the release of centrifugal forces, the exalting of divisive particularisms; in wanting to see rules governing sections of our society take priority over national law. The danger lies in divisiveness, discrimination and confrontation.
Let us look at what is happening elsewhere. Societies structured around communities are frequently victims of unacceptable inequalities.
Splitting society into communities cannot be the choice for France. It would be contrary to our history, traditions and culture. It would be contrary to our humanist principles, our faith in social advancement solely on the strength of ability and merit, and to our commitment to equality and fraternity among all French people.
This is why I refuse to commit France to that path. It would sacrifice her heritage; it would compromise her future; it would result in the loss of her soul.
That is also why we have a compelling duty to act. The way to reinvent a new common destiny is not through immobilism or nostalgia; it is through being clear-sighted, imaginative and remaining true to what we are. (...) [sic]
All the children of France, whatever their background, whatever their origin, whatever their beliefs, are daughters and sons of the Republic. They must be recognized as such, in law, but above all in fact. By respecting this requirement, overhauling our policy of integration and our ability to ensure equal opportunities at the practical level, we will restore full vitality to our nation's cohesion.
Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.Which is more important: the state of the nation, or the political status of the President?
Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." Another senior Democrat leader said, "The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Here's another quote from a senior Democrat leader: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now.
The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world -- and that person was Saddam Hussein. In early 2004, when weapons inspector David Kay testified that he had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he also testified that, "Iraq was in clear material violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal."
Eight months later, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer issued a report that found, "Saddam Hussein so dominated the Iraqi regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when the sanctions were lifted."
Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible.
As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
And this is a good thing because...?
From the Washington Post:
Might be worthwhile to remind them of that.
A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise yesterday that would dramatically alter U.S. policy for treating captured terrorist suspects by granting them a final recourse to the federal courts but stripping them of some key legal rights.Aside from the obvious reasons to oppose it (like, habeas corpus is so fundamental to our legal system it's in the Constitution), there's this reason:
The compromise links legislation written by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), which would deny detainees broad access to federal courts, with a new measure authored by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) that would grant detainees the right to appeal the verdict of a military tribunal to a federal appeals court. The deal will come to a vote today, and the authors say they are confident it will pass
The Justice and Defense departments have expressed strong support for legislation that would curtail a flurry of civil litigation coming out of the military's detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to some senators involved in the negotiation. "The truth is, this is something the administration would dearly like," Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said of the language curtailing detainee access to the courts.And here's the problem (aside from the fact Kevin Drum likes it because Kevin never met a compromise he didn't like, apparently):
Levin's language would grant any detainee sentenced to death or at least 10 years of prison by a military trial an automatic appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court would review guilt or innocence and could also determine the constitutionality of the entire process case by case, Graham said. Those sentenced to less than 10 years could petition the appeals court for review.Atrios even thinks it might be a step in the right direction, but I respectfully disagree. This is the "Great Writ" we're talking about. On this issue, we cannot compromise.
The Graham measure approved last week grants an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, but under that provision the court may examine only whether a military tribunal followed its own standards and procedures
Might be worthwhile to remind them of that.
Monday, November 14, 2005
"The Poor Will Give Up And Go Away"
The New York Times had the perfect statement of the Bush Administration's attitude toward the marginalized and the dispossesed:
An object lesson in repentance: sooner of later, you have to acknowledge you were wrong.
...and here is a direct statement of the political cost:
Public outrage is clearly growing over the federal government's woefully inadequate program for housing the hundreds of thousands of people displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Last week a group of survivors filed the first of what are likely to be several lawsuits alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has failed to live up to its responsibilities. The recovery effort has been subject to blistering criticism from conservative, nonpartisan and liberal groups alike.This Administration really refuses to learn from its mistakes, and so will go on making them repeatedly and relentlessly.
The same basic question is this: Why did the Bush administration focus on trailer parks built by FEMA - which is actually not a housing agency - instead of giving the lead role to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has so much experience on this issue?
Many, including the Brookings Institution and the conservative Heritage Foundation, urged the administration to switch on HUD's famously successful Section 8 program, which gives families government vouchers to find decent housing in the private real estate market. That program worked well after the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California. But the White House - which seems less interested in conservative philosophy about how to make government programs work than with simply cutting the amount of money that gets spent on poor people - has been working feverishly to cripple HUD and destroy the Section 8 voucher program for years.
So the administration rigged up a hastily thought out program that is less flexible and less helpful than Section 8 - and confusing in the bargain. Still focused on tax cuts for the wealthy, the administration is apparently hoping that people who need housing will be frustrated by the difficult process of applying for federal relief dollars and simply give up and go away.
An object lesson in repentance: sooner of later, you have to acknowledge you were wrong.
...and here is a direct statement of the political cost:
With Hurricane Katrina already costing the federal government tens of billions of dollars, more than 8 in 10 Americans are very or somewhat concerned that the $5 billion being spent each month on the war in Iraq is draining away money that could be used in the United States, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.This doesn't help the people on the Gulf Coast directly, but it's a much better indicator of American concerns than Bush's speech in Alaska was today.
....
"We've spent too much time and effort over there," said Jean Stubbs, 53, of Kentucky, who agreed to be interviewed after taking part in the poll and who identified herself as an independent. "We need to get out of there. There are just too many other things going on here at home. The biggest thing right now is the people who were hit by Katrina."
Joshua Rose, 25, an independent from Arcanum, Ohio, echoed those concerns. "I don't know what he's going to do to deal with Katrina," he said, referring to President Bush. "Where is the money coming from? I hope he cuts back on Iraq. I hope he's worrying about us in the U.S. today."
The Great Writ and the Meager Congress
I have leant the tiny voice of this blog to this fight, and I'm almost glad (who can be "glad" under such circumstances, about such a topic) to see the issue finally going mainstream (you can follow that trail of bread crumbs beginning here).
From the Denver Post:
Let your representatives know what you think.
From the Denver Post:
We recently returned from visiting with several prisoners in Guantánamo Bay's military prison, where there are still hundreds of faceless, uncharged prisoners who have been held for nearly four years without ever seeing an attorney.Why "good"? Because it proves there is decency and respect for the rule of law in the world, for what John Mortimer's "Bailey hack" Horace Rumpole called the "golden thread" that runs through our jurisprudence from across the pond and out of the deep mists of English history:
When many of these prisoners arrived in American custody, they were initially relieved to be in the control of a country that valued justice and due process.
Four years later, many just want to die. They starve themselves for long periods of time and attempt bloody suicides. The government responds by forcing tubes down their throats. People are trying to kill themselves to get out of custody, because they have no legal recourse. "They won't let us live, but they won't let us die," one of our clients explained.
These men believe they are being kept as scapegoats by an administration afraid to admit it has made a mistake. Many of them have been held for years with no charges, "in a grave," as Aziz calls it.The Graham amendment is wrong, because habeas corpus is at the heart of what makes us a republic, and a free people. But don't take my word for it; ask Alexander Hamilton:
In representing these prisoners, we have joined a growing volunteer force of outraged attorneys who come from small and large firms across America. The group includes death penalty and amnesty lawyers, plaintiff and defense lawyers, bankruptcy and corporate lawyers. It even includes advocates for retired generals and admirals, all working for free.
As Joseph Margulies, who was lead counsel in the Rasul case, has written, "Sometimes called the Great Writ, habeas has been part of our law for more than 200 years and is one of the only protections of individual liberty enshrined in the Constitution (as opposed to the protections subsequently added in the Bill of Rights)."This is a right that must be preserved, not removed as a matter of "jurisdiction." This is not "tampering" with the Constitution; this is eviscerating it.
...
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton extolled the writ of habeas corpus, along with the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, as among the "great securities to liberty and republicanism."
Let your representatives know what you think.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
There is no "neutral" gear in politics...
To put it bluntly: if Ed Young is politically "neutral," I'm a Bible-thumpin' Baptist:
Dr. Ed Young is the Pastor of Second Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. Second (as it likes to call itself) is, bar none, the largest church in Houston. It currently lists 5 "campuses" around the Houston area. Houston is, bar none, the largest city in Texas. Houston is virtually a separate planet in the Texas political system; it creates it's own political "gravity". And within Houston, Second Baptist creates its own political gravity, like Houston, just by it sheer size. But it goes beyond that.
A former minsterial colleague of mine told me of his experience with "Second." A member of his church was a Houston policeman, killed in the line of duty. The city, of course, paid for the funeral service and burial. But the service had to be at Second, and it had to be conducted by their pastoral staff. He, the family pastor, was effectively shut out. The family could, of course, have another service; but the choice of denying the service at Second was almost non-existent (who wants to fight City Hall under such circumstances? And this "connection" between city and church is not officially acknowledged. The City "just happens" to hold all such funerals there.)
Now, the Houston Mayor is usually a Democrat (the race is officially non-political, no one runs on party that is, but you know how these things are). So Ed is "neutral." But Ed leads the largest church in the largest city in Texas.
In no way is that position "neutral" in Texas politics. Did Cornyn "need" Ed's support for 2002? Well, if Cornyn didn't think so, he'd be one king-fool of a politician. And having been Attorney General of Texas and on the Supreme Court of Texas (both elected offices), Cornyn is no fool about politics in Texas.
Does this mean Reed is telling the truth? No. But Cornyn has something to lose acknowledging this story is true, and Young leaves his church open to a very serious IRS investigation (how could they turn that opportunity down?) if he doesn't deny Cornyn "needed his support in 2002."
So take their denials with a grain of salt. Sort of like you would if Ed were to say: "I'm just a little ol' country pastor...."
Young said he met Cornyn for the first time at a pastors' meeting in late November 2001, where Cornyn spoke to about 15 to 20 pastors. Young also said he did not remember any exchange of letters occurring at the meeting as Reed said in the e-mail.Let me explain:
Cornyn "told us the situation. He was filing affidavits. We said we support you" because of the pastors' concerns about gambling, Young said.
Young dismissed Reed's suggestion that Cornyn needed him for support in the 2002 Senate race. He said he stays neutral because his church attracts Democrats and Republicans.
Dr. Ed Young is the Pastor of Second Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. Second (as it likes to call itself) is, bar none, the largest church in Houston. It currently lists 5 "campuses" around the Houston area. Houston is, bar none, the largest city in Texas. Houston is virtually a separate planet in the Texas political system; it creates it's own political "gravity". And within Houston, Second Baptist creates its own political gravity, like Houston, just by it sheer size. But it goes beyond that.
A former minsterial colleague of mine told me of his experience with "Second." A member of his church was a Houston policeman, killed in the line of duty. The city, of course, paid for the funeral service and burial. But the service had to be at Second, and it had to be conducted by their pastoral staff. He, the family pastor, was effectively shut out. The family could, of course, have another service; but the choice of denying the service at Second was almost non-existent (who wants to fight City Hall under such circumstances? And this "connection" between city and church is not officially acknowledged. The City "just happens" to hold all such funerals there.)
Now, the Houston Mayor is usually a Democrat (the race is officially non-political, no one runs on party that is, but you know how these things are). So Ed is "neutral." But Ed leads the largest church in the largest city in Texas.
In no way is that position "neutral" in Texas politics. Did Cornyn "need" Ed's support for 2002? Well, if Cornyn didn't think so, he'd be one king-fool of a politician. And having been Attorney General of Texas and on the Supreme Court of Texas (both elected offices), Cornyn is no fool about politics in Texas.
Does this mean Reed is telling the truth? No. But Cornyn has something to lose acknowledging this story is true, and Young leaves his church open to a very serious IRS investigation (how could they turn that opportunity down?) if he doesn't deny Cornyn "needed his support in 2002."
So take their denials with a grain of salt. Sort of like you would if Ed were to say: "I'm just a little ol' country pastor...."
The Lectionary for November 13, 2005
Zephaniah 1:7, 12-18
1:7 Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is at hand; the LORD has prepared a sacrifice, he has consecrated his guests.
1:12 At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and I will punish the people who rest complacently on their dregs, those who say in their hearts, "The LORD will not do good, nor will he do harm."
1:13 Their wealth shall be plundered, and their houses laid waste. Though they build houses, they shall not inhabit them; though they plant vineyards, they shall not drink wine from them.
1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast; the sound of the day of the LORD is bitter, the warrior cries aloud there.
1:15 That day will be a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
1:16 a day of trumpet blast and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the lofty battlements.
1:17 I will bring such distress upon people that they shall walk like the blind; because they have sinned against the LORD, their blood shall be poured out like dust, and their flesh like dung.
1:18 Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the Lord's wrath; in the fire of his passion the whole earth shall be consumed; for a full, a terrible end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth.
Psalm 90:1-8, (9-11), 12
90:1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations.
90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
90:3 You turn us back to dust, and say, "Turn back, you mortals."
90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like a watch in the night.
90:5 You sweep them away; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning;
90:6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers.
90:7 For we are consumed by your anger; by your wrath we are overwhelmed.
90:8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your countenance.
90:9 For all our days pass away under your wrath; our years come to an end like a sigh.
90:10 The days of our life are seventy years, or perhaps eighty, if we are strong; even then their span is only toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away.
90:11 Who considers the power of your anger? Your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you.
90:12 So teach us to count our days that we may gain a wise heart.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11
5:1 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anything written to you.
5:2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
5:3 When they say, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!
5:4 But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief;
5:5 for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness.
5:6 So then let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober;
5:7 for those who sleep sleep at night, and those who are drunk get drunk at night.
5:8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.
5:9 For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
5:10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him.
5:11 Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, as indeed you are doing.
Matthew 25:14-30
25:14 "For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them;
25:15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.
25:16 The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents.
25:17 In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents.
25:18 But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
25:19 After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.
25:20 Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.'
25:21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
25:22 And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.'
25:23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
25:24 Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed;
25:25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.'
25:26 But his master replied, 'You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter?
25:27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest.
25:28 So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents.
25:29 For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
25:30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
Sometimes the scriptures are just like a shot of raw corn whiskey, and you need a sermon as a whisk broom,butto brush the sawdust off of you after you're able to get up off the floor.
(I blame my glasses, which don't work as well as they did a year ago.)
1:7 Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is at hand; the LORD has prepared a sacrifice, he has consecrated his guests.
1:12 At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and I will punish the people who rest complacently on their dregs, those who say in their hearts, "The LORD will not do good, nor will he do harm."
1:13 Their wealth shall be plundered, and their houses laid waste. Though they build houses, they shall not inhabit them; though they plant vineyards, they shall not drink wine from them.
1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast; the sound of the day of the LORD is bitter, the warrior cries aloud there.
1:15 That day will be a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
1:16 a day of trumpet blast and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the lofty battlements.
1:17 I will bring such distress upon people that they shall walk like the blind; because they have sinned against the LORD, their blood shall be poured out like dust, and their flesh like dung.
1:18 Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the Lord's wrath; in the fire of his passion the whole earth shall be consumed; for a full, a terrible end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth.
Psalm 90:1-8, (9-11), 12
90:1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations.
90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
90:3 You turn us back to dust, and say, "Turn back, you mortals."
90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like a watch in the night.
90:5 You sweep them away; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning;
90:6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers.
90:7 For we are consumed by your anger; by your wrath we are overwhelmed.
90:8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your countenance.
90:9 For all our days pass away under your wrath; our years come to an end like a sigh.
90:10 The days of our life are seventy years, or perhaps eighty, if we are strong; even then their span is only toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away.
90:11 Who considers the power of your anger? Your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you.
90:12 So teach us to count our days that we may gain a wise heart.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11
5:1 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anything written to you.
5:2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
5:3 When they say, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!
5:4 But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief;
5:5 for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness.
5:6 So then let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober;
5:7 for those who sleep sleep at night, and those who are drunk get drunk at night.
5:8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.
5:9 For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
5:10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him.
5:11 Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, as indeed you are doing.
Matthew 25:14-30
25:14 "For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them;
25:15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.
25:16 The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents.
25:17 In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents.
25:18 But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
25:19 After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.
25:20 Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.'
25:21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
25:22 And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.'
25:23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
25:24 Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed;
25:25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.'
25:26 But his master replied, 'You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter?
25:27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest.
25:28 So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents.
25:29 For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
25:30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
Sometimes the scriptures are just like a shot of raw corn whiskey, and you need a sermon as a whisk broom,
(I blame my glasses, which don't work as well as they did a year ago.)
Compare and Contrast
Pat Robertson:
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city."Romans 8:35-39
"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there."
Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress,or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written,
'For you sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.'
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Can Torture Be Justified II--Who Would Jesus Torture?
If we have to talk about torture from a purely practical point of view (we don't, of course; it is inhumane and immoral, and lowers us as the torturers to a level below that of, well, the beasts. But then, so does war...), well, then:
Oh, and if you still want to argue that the torture victim would be proven right by the bomb being found in that silly hypothetical, Mr. Johnson describes his experience with torture in his CIA training:
But that scenario is so far removed from reality that, well, you torture logic even to propose it.
What does torture do? Create enemies. Dehumanize the torturer. Debase us as moral actors. As Mr. Johnson says: "We should never use our fear of being attacked as justification for dehumanizing ourselves or others."
Mr. Johnson praises Sen. Graham for his stand against torture. Of course, leaving prisoners imprisoned with no hope of release or appeal, is another kind of torture , so I cannot join Mr. Johnson in his encomium.
Torture is not only dehumanizing, it is unjust. And without justice, as Creon learned, we are doomed.
If you inflict enough pain on someone, they will give you information, but what they tell you may not be true. You will have to corroborate it, which will take time. And, unless you kill every suspect you brutalize, you will make enemies of them, their families, maybe their entire villages. What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust - even with a terrorist, even if it's time-consuming - than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets, who believed that national security always trumped human rights.So much for the "ticking bomb" scenario. And yes, he is saying that torture makes us no better than the Nazis we still like to remember defeating, or the Soviet Union we were so afraid of in my childhood. That which you most oppose, you most come to resemble, which is the whole problem with relying on power to solve your problems. But I digress.
Oh, and if you still want to argue that the torture victim would be proven right by the bomb being found in that silly hypothetical, Mr. Johnson describes his experience with torture in his CIA training:
At one point we were "captured" by faux terrorists. After being stripped naked and given baggy military uniforms, we entered a CIA version of Gitmo. We were deprived of sleep for 36 hours, given limited rice and water and forced to stand in place. Our interrogators - all U.S. military personnel - coaxed and harangued us by turns. Those of us who declined to cooperate were stuffed into punishment boxes - miniature coffins that induced claustrophobia.So, maybe if your "ticking time bomb" is running really slow, and you manage finally to "break" the suspect through various torture techniques, yeah, you might finally get the information you need.
After 30 hours, one of my classmates gave me up in exchange for a grape soda and a ham sandwich.
But that scenario is so far removed from reality that, well, you torture logic even to propose it.
What does torture do? Create enemies. Dehumanize the torturer. Debase us as moral actors. As Mr. Johnson says: "We should never use our fear of being attacked as justification for dehumanizing ourselves or others."
Mr. Johnson praises Sen. Graham for his stand against torture. Of course, leaving prisoners imprisoned with no hope of release or appeal, is another kind of torture , so I cannot join Mr. Johnson in his encomium.
Torture is not only dehumanizing, it is unjust. And without justice, as Creon learned, we are doomed.
Escape from the Planet of WWJD?
When my blog grows up, it's going to have categories for stories like this. For now, the series continues, and you can follow the trail of bread crumbs like I have to.
I found this version of the LA Times article about All Saint's Episcopal Church in Los Angeles, which includes some information at the end which makes it sound like the situation may yet end well. But this sentence caught my eye for the first time:
As I said before, the clear effect here is a "chilling" one. Whether it's meant to be that way is irrelevant. It's what you do, not what you mean to do, that counts.
I found this version of the LA Times article about All Saint's Episcopal Church in Los Angeles, which includes some information at the end which makes it sound like the situation may yet end well. But this sentence caught my eye for the first time:
The letter went on to say that "our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article."Now, to put that in context, here is a bit of new information from the church's tax attorney:
The IRS cited The Times story's description of the sermon as a "searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq" and noted that the sermon described "tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus."
"I doubt it's politically motivated," Owens said. ""I think it is more a case of senior management at IRS not paying attention to what the rules are."Now, just think about it. The IRS is threatening a church's tax-exempt status on the basis of a newspaper article, and how that article described a sermon. This is how the sermon is described in the linked (not the original) article:
According to Owens, six years ago the IRS used to send about 20 such letters to churches a year. That number has increased sharply because of the agency's recent delegation of audit authority to agents on the front lines, he said.
Regas' 2004 sermon imagined how Jesus would admonish Bush and Kerry if he debated them. Regas never urged parishioners to vote for one candidate over the other, but he did say that he believes Jesus would oppose the war in Iraq, and that Jesus would be saddened by Bush's positions on the use and testing of nuclear weapons.You might call that "searing." I don't. Maybe urging people to "vote your deepest values" is "searing" in the current political context, but I doubt that kind of subtle irony was what the original journalist had in mind. And still, the question is, should the IRS investigate because that kind of description gets into a newspaper article? Is that all it takes to trigger IRS scrutiny of a church? Since the IRS can't tell us who they investigate, or why, how do we find out?
In the sermon, Regas said, " President Bush has led us into war with Iraq as a response to terrorism. Yet I believe Jesus would say to Bush and Kerry: 'War is itself the most extreme form of terrorism. President Bush, you have not made dramatically clear what have been the human consequences of the war in Iraq.' "
Later, he had Jesus confront both Kerry and Bush: "I will tell you what I think of your war: The sin at the heart of this war against Iraq is your belief that an American life is of more value than an Iraqi life. That an American child is more precious than an Iraqi baby. God loathes war."
If Jesus debated Bush and Kerry, Regas said, he would say to them, "Why is so little mentioned about the poor?''
In his own voice, Regas said: ''The religious right has drowned out everyone else. Now the faith of Jesus has come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war and pro-American…. I'm not pro-abortion, but pro-choice. There is something vicious and violent about coercing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child."
When you go into the voting booth, Regas told the congregation, "take with you all that you know about Jesus, the peacemaker. Take all that Jesus means to you. Then vote your deepest values."
As I said before, the clear effect here is a "chilling" one. Whether it's meant to be that way is irrelevant. It's what you do, not what you mean to do, that counts.
Friday, November 11, 2005
A voice says "Cry!," and I say "What shall I cry?"
I find, not surprisingly, that Molly Ivins says it for me.
I mention it only to praise it. Every word. Precisely what I wish I'd said.
She references John McCain, and the Israelis. Here is what they said:
Why do we still allow these people to be in charge of our government? Not a one of them is any more competent than Michael Brown.
I mention it only to praise it. Every word. Precisely what I wish I'd said.
She references John McCain, and the Israelis. Here is what they said:
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Torture does not work. The Israeli Supreme Court in 1999 said that the Israelis could not torture or practice cruel or inhumane people on the people they take prisoner. The Israeli defense officials who I have discussed this with say that it doesn't work and they use psychological techniques, and so, (1) it doesn't work, (2) it's so damaging to us in an image fashion, and (3) the next conflict we're in this government will use that same rationale to inflict serious injury to Americans who may become captive.The story of one man who died in our custody is at that link, too. The lawyer investigating that death says this:
I have to believe that Vice President Cheney thinks torture works and that these methods work somehow, and they also think – and the other thing that is under-girding this fight is the White House at this point believes that the President needs to have completely unfettered executive power to wage the war in any way he sees fit, and that none of the international laws or any of the constraints that might have been imposed by Congress are constitutional, as far as they're concerned. So this is really a lot about a theory of executive power that is, you know, imperial power practically.And do members of this Administration think torture "works"? Absolutely:
I spoke last night with John Yoo, who used to be a lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, who wrote many of the guidelines on what can and can't be done. And he was speaking here in Washington and I talked to him for a little bit, and he said, “You know, torture works.” He said that we have a lot of information that we've gotten from terrorists by using these kinds of techniques. You know, what's interesting is almost every other expert that I've ever interviewed, people from the C.I.A., people from the F.B.I., they say you get unreliable information out of torture, and it doesn't work. In addition to the moral questions, it's not practical. But that's not what John Yoo thinks, and John Yoo was a very important member of the administration on this, so I think that is really what is beneath all of this.The same people who told us Iraq had WMD, to fear the mushroom cloud, and that we would be greeted as "liberators."
Why do we still allow these people to be in charge of our government? Not a one of them is any more competent than Michael Brown.
Winston Churchill to the U.S. Senate
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."The Senate has effectively voted to remove habeas corpus jurisdiction from the federal courts, the better to protect whatever is going on in Guantanamo. This is not the seemingly limited ruling mentioned by the New York Times ("the principal legal tool given to [detainess] last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.") It's much broader than that, as, indeed, it would have to be:
Senator Graham of North Carolina stated his intention to introduce an amendment today to the defense appropriations bill that would strip the federal courts of habeas jurisdiction and prohibit courts from reviewing challenges to indefinite detention not only from Guantánamo detainees, but from any non-citizens who have the misfortune of finding themselves at any U.S.-run facility within or without our Nation’s borders. It would create a thousand points of darkness around the world where U.S. officials would be free to ignore the crucial role of the courts as a check against unfettered Executive power, a judicial role enshrined in our Constitution. The Graham amendment would formalize the lawless policies of the Bush Administration and result in the continued torture of prisoners held in U.S. custody.That's the amendment that was passed. We have just told all non-U.S. citizens in the world: we can do what we want with you, and no one can stop us.
We are laying the cornerstones for totalitarianism. There is no other way to understand it than that.
Yes, Virginia, there is a "War on Christmas"
But it didn't start with "liberals" and the U.S. Supreme Court:
That's from William Prynne's Histriomastrix (1633), quoted in Penne L. Restad, Christmas in America (New York: Oxford 1995, p. 7). Prynne, as you might imagine, was a Puritan, in England, in the 17th century. Their issue was the issue of my grandparent's Primitive Baptist lay preacher: "whether there should even be an observance of the day." Maybe the "liberals" have more in common with the Puritans than we realized, eh, Bill O'Reilly?
In fact, it started with those "Pilgrims" whose landing on Plymouth Rock we'll be celebrating in a few weeks. As Restad puts it:
The Christmas Dickens tried to re-create actually arose about this time, interestingly enough. Shanges in social life actually transformed Christmas "into 'a symbol for hospitality towards the poor, and understanding between the different levels of society, and happier and more prosperous times in now neglected villages.' King Charles I went so far as to direct his noblemen and gentry to return to their landed estates in midwinter in order to keep up their old style of Christmas generosity."
I mentioned the Pilgrims. They "arrived at Plymouth in December 1620, [and] spent Christmas building 'the first house for commone use to receive them and their goods.' " And, in words that I could find on the Internet today, Increase Mather wrote in 1687:
But let's come forward a little bit. By 1832, surely Christmas was being observed in America. No, not according to the English actress Fanny Kemble:
According to Restad's history, this didn't change until about the middle of the 19th century. Which means O'Reilly is right: "The Founding Fathers didn't want all mention of Christmas stricken from the public arena." It wasn't there in 1776, anyway. Or at anytime in the 18th, into the mid-19th, century. Whether or not it should be "stricken from the public arena" was never a question for them.
Christmas became an official national holiday on June 26, 1870. (Restad, p. 104) And then the second "war on Christmas" started: the war on what it should be about. Clement Clark Moore did more to change that than Ebenezer Scrooge did, actually. Moore's poem "The Night Before Christmas," another historian has argued (and my inability to find that book this morning has caused great consternation in the household), turned the home invader (which some of the rowdier Christmas revels turned into) into a kindly old peddler who meant no harm, and only brought beneficence, not drunkenness and mayhem. And from then on, the "war" was over what commercialism was doing to the "Christian holiday."
(The book is The Battle for Christmas, by Stephen Nissenbaum. Finally remembered that much.)
Which culiminated, I guess we could say, with Charlie Brown.
So Mr. Gibson's "war" is just the newest front in this on-going battle. And he and FoxNews are just bringing the forces of commercialism to bear, once again, in defense of Christmas, for the purposes of....commercialism.
Really brings Christmas close to a person, doesn't it, Charlie Brown?
[UPDATE: Found my copy of Nissenbaum's book, finally. I'll try to post some of his more interesting insights as the holiday nears. He has a great deal of information about the "traditional" celebrations of Christmas, and how and why it became such a commercial holiday in America, as well as how tightly it has ever been connected to more somber religious observances.]
"Into what stupendous height of more than pagan impiety...have we not now degenerated! [Christmas out to be] rather a day of mourning than rejoicing, [not a time spent in] amorous mixt, voluptuous, unchristian, that I say not pagan, dancing, to God's, to Christ's dishonour, religion's scandal, charities' shipwracke and sinne's advantage."You want to hear someone rail against Christmas, John Gibson? You could learn a thing or two from this guy.
That's from William Prynne's Histriomastrix (1633), quoted in Penne L. Restad, Christmas in America (New York: Oxford 1995, p. 7). Prynne, as you might imagine, was a Puritan, in England, in the 17th century. Their issue was the issue of my grandparent's Primitive Baptist lay preacher: "whether there should even be an observance of the day." Maybe the "liberals" have more in common with the Puritans than we realized, eh, Bill O'Reilly?
O'REILLY: By the way, if Alito is confirmed, that will be a good thing for conservatives. That's the bottom line. Because Alito will take a more traditional view than a [Supreme Court justices Stephen G.] Breyer or a [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. OK? He'll look at things, and he'll say, "You know, the Founding Fathers didn't want partial-birth abortion. The Founding Fathers didn't want all mention of Christmas stricken from the public arena." That's what Alito will do. He's a traditionalist. He's going to rule that way.Now, "Founding Fathers" obviously would have to be stretched a bit, here, but since the Founding Fathers included Puritan New England, we should start the question of the "War on Christmas" by asking: when did this start? And it turns out it started long before the nation was founded.
In fact, it started with those "Pilgrims" whose landing on Plymouth Rock we'll be celebrating in a few weeks. As Restad puts it:
It fell to Puritan reformers to put a stop to the unholy merriment [of the English Christmas celebration, which had little to do with giving gifts and much to do with getting drunk] and to bend arguments over the proper keeping of Christmas into an older and more basic one--whether there should even be an observance of the day. Defying the decisions of the Anglican Convocation of 1562 to maintain the church calendar, the Puritans struck Christmas, along with all saint's days [no Hallowe'en!], from their own list of holy days. The Bible, they held, expressly commanded keeping only the Sabbath. That would be their practice as well.Restad, p. 7
The Christmas Dickens tried to re-create actually arose about this time, interestingly enough. Shanges in social life actually transformed Christmas "into 'a symbol for hospitality towards the poor, and understanding between the different levels of society, and happier and more prosperous times in now neglected villages.' King Charles I went so far as to direct his noblemen and gentry to return to their landed estates in midwinter in order to keep up their old style of Christmas generosity."
I mentioned the Pilgrims. They "arrived at Plymouth in December 1620, [and] spent Christmas building 'the first house for commone use to receive them and their goods.' " And, in words that I could find on the Internet today, Increase Mather wrote in 1687:
In the Apostolical times the Feast of the Nativity was not observed....It can never be proved t that Christ was born on December 25....The New Testament allows of no stated Holy-Day but the Lords-day...It was in compliance with the Pagan saturnalia that Christmas Holy-dayes were first invented. The manner of Christmas-keeping, as generally observed, is highly dishonorable to the name of Christ." (Restad, p. 14)Because, as I said, people drank a lot, and got rowdy. Dishonoring the name of Christ in the name of commercialism came after Clement Moore's "Night Before Christmas." (This according to Which, of couse, is the Christmas Mr. Gibson and Mr. O'Reilly want to preserve. And they defend it so they can make money off of it.
But let's come forward a little bit. By 1832, surely Christmas was being observed in America. No, not according to the English actress Fanny Kemble:
Christmas day is no religious day and hardly a holiday with them: New-year's day is perhaps a little, but only a little more so. For Twelfth-day, it is unknown; and the household private festivals of birthdays are almost universally passed by unsevered from the rest of the toilsome days devoted to the curse of labor."Restad, p. 17. Other 19th century Americans remember only Thanksgiving and the 4th of July as holidays; Christmas was not celebrated.
According to Restad's history, this didn't change until about the middle of the 19th century. Which means O'Reilly is right: "The Founding Fathers didn't want all mention of Christmas stricken from the public arena." It wasn't there in 1776, anyway. Or at anytime in the 18th, into the mid-19th, century. Whether or not it should be "stricken from the public arena" was never a question for them.
Christmas became an official national holiday on June 26, 1870. (Restad, p. 104) And then the second "war on Christmas" started: the war on what it should be about. Clement Clark Moore did more to change that than Ebenezer Scrooge did, actually. Moore's poem "The Night Before Christmas," another historian has argued (
(The book is The Battle for Christmas, by Stephen Nissenbaum. Finally remembered that much.)
Which culiminated, I guess we could say, with Charlie Brown.
So Mr. Gibson's "war" is just the newest front in this on-going battle. And he and FoxNews are just bringing the forces of commercialism to bear, once again, in defense of Christmas, for the purposes of....commercialism.
Really brings Christmas close to a person, doesn't it, Charlie Brown?
[UPDATE: Found my copy of Nissenbaum's book, finally. I'll try to post some of his more interesting insights as the holiday nears. He has a great deal of information about the "traditional" celebrations of Christmas, and how and why it became such a commercial holiday in America, as well as how tightly it has ever been connected to more somber religious observances.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)