« Mental Illness: The Not-so-silent Killer | Main | A Test of Cognitive Dissonance »
The Tao of Politics, Chapter Four
In this next installment of The Tao of Politics, I intend to use the arrival of Earth Day (on April 22) as an opportunity to apply Lao Tse's wisdom to one of the critical issues of our time. That issue is the urgent need for the development of environmentally friendly, renewable sources of energy.
In the Fourth Chapter of the Tao Te Ching, the sage invites his reader to contemplate a cosmos of infinite possibilities.
The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.
It is hidden but always present.
I don’t know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.
In contrast, Petroleum is a diminishing resource. In response to skyrocketing demand in China and India, the cost of a gallon of gasoline is expected to exceed $3.00 in the United States this summer. That may not amount to much by European standards, or even an inflation adjusted yardstick for the American market; but in comparison to prices during the Clinton years, it represents a dramatic increase.
Our nation’s continuing addiction to petroleum dictates its stance towards tyrannical states like Saudi Arabia – which despite the Royal Family’s largely friendly demeanor, and ties to the Bush clan, remains a breeding ground for the toxic ideology that inspired the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and much of the terrorism elsewhere in the world.
Some argue that bringing Iraq’s vast oil reserves online sans Saddam Hussein was a primary motivation behind the neo-conservatives’ obsession with invading that country. And Congress recently voted to authorize drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – even though no one believes that the new capacity that these fields add will make much of a dent in our long-term supply and demand imbalance.
Even if the demand for petroleum were stable, and the price of gasoline low, the environmental impact of our reliance on current technologies – including other dirty fuels such as coal and nuclear fission – is dire.
In time, as population growth, industrialization, and demand increase, the poisonous environmental impact of these technologies may well present a threat to the survival of humanity. Only a species bent on self-destruction – or perhaps expecting it – would continue along this path, putting off until tomorrow the kinds of initiatives that if begun today might ameliorate tremendous suffering and death in the years to come.
America fancies itself the global leader. If this nation could launch a Manhattan Project, and build a weapon of amazing destructive power in a few years, why couldn’t it launch a similar initiative to make America energy independent within the next decade?
Why hasn’t it chosen to lead the planet back on the road to energy and environmental salvation? Three reasons strike me as self-evident: greed, the elevation of private interests over the common good, and the far right’s embrace of a veritable culture of death.
Consider the primary thrust of Bush Administration economic policy - across-the-board tax cuts. This approach led to the disbursement of a substantial percentage of the Federal Government’s available economic resources. I'd argue that these resources were expended in a fashion that, in comparison, makes a circa 1962 gas-guzzling automobile seem positively energy efficient.
Economists had long predicted that the business cycle, aided by the FED’s lowering of interest rates, would turn up its own by late 2002-early 2003. Democrats and prudent Republicans had argued that, at most, a modest stimulus package might have been in order.
Instead, the Bush Administration pushed through a series of "faith-based" tax cuts that were never likely to generate anything close to the kind of revenue that would be required to justify their creation.
Now, imagine if some significant percentage of the near trillion dollars that have already been sacrificed to the god of voodoo economics had instead been redirected towards creating meaningful incentives for businesses willing to dramatically accelerate research and development on technologies for clean, renewable energy.
Imagine if, in the wake of 9/11, President Bush saw this kind of bold initiative as a vital component of America’s long-term national security.
Imagine if he had embraced the Kyoto Protocol, instead of walking away from it.
Imagine if Bush had decided to make America the unassailable leader in environmentally friendly energy technology – fuel that is “used but never used up”, and "hidden but always present" – like solar and wind, and other renewable technologies.
Imagine if Congress had stipulated that every company enjoying these generous tax incentives were required to hire Americans in order to retain them – as opposed to current tax provisions that reward companies that outsource jobs.
Imagine what the long-term implications of energy self-sufficiency, and the establishment of a robust renewable energy industry would be on the nation's hemorrhaging trade deficit.
Of course, to even consider that type of strategy, you have to first be courageous enough to put the needs of both nation and planet front and center, and not be a captive to the myopic thinking of cronies in the oil patch – or worry about how their interests might suffer once America began to travel this bold new course.
You have to be able to imagine a future of “infinite possibilities” – as opposed to one of scarcity, of inevitable winners and losers (where the winners somehow imagine themselves as being among "God's elect").
You can’t share the mindset of advisors and supporters who evidently spend much of their time meditating on the Book of Revelation and doomsday scenarios – and surmise that Jesus’ long awaited return will magically cure whatever ails us.
Ultimately, before adopting this kind of strategy, you have to understand that embracing a “culture of life” means embracing life itself, and preserving its “infinite possibilities”, in all its biological manifestations and permutations – and has little, if anything, to do with curtailing reproductive freedom, or a pathological fear of human sexuality divorced from procreation.
You have to understand that while protection of the environment is every nation’s duty, it must be a paramount concern of the global leader. As many of us were taught, to those to whom more is given, more is also expected. You have to understand that, in the end, each and every one of us is necessarily a custodian of the future – of all the generations of humanity that will follow in our footsteps on this planet.
These strike me as the signatures of an authentic “culture of life”, and authentic twenty-first century spirituality – in contrast to the ravings of the apocalyptic death cults in Islam and Christianity that have commanded so much of the world’s attention in recent years.
The time to begin a massive push for the development of cheap, renewable, environmentally friendly sources of energy was yesterday. But better a day late than not at all.
The earth may not last forever. An act of God may someday bring sentient life on this planet to an end. But if life is to end, let it be God's doing, not ours. Let it not be a result of our refusal to embrace the “infinite possibilities” implicit in an authentic "culture of life".
*****
This translation of the Tao Te Ching is by Stephen Mitchell, copyright 1988. It is available in paperback editions from Harper Perennial Classics (ISBN: 0060812451) and Harper Perennial Persona (ISBN: 0060812451).
It is a beautiful resonant day here in DC. I hope that the world is equally aglow in your part of the world. In church this morning (Luther Place, Logan Circle, DC), the Rev. Bob led us in singing and moving, as he also addressed the notion of Jesus as shepherd, leading his flock. He pointed out that those who try to climb over the gate are thieves.
The notion of stewardship is deeply reflected in Matt's piece, above.
"The earth will not last forever. An act of God may someday bring sentient life on this planet to an end. But if life is to end, let it be God's doing, not ours."
As the week leading up to Earth Day unfolds, I hope to take the notion of personal responsibility and leadership with me. The weather is supposed to be gorgeous this week. While we are indulging in the longed-for sunshine and warmth, let's pick up the garbage, take walks rather than cars, recycle, and slow down to smell the flowers.
And then let's come back here and work like the dickens to get democracy back.
Shepherds, all of us...
Well said Matt, as always. (From one reader of the Tao to another.) :-) Thank you.
Picked up the revised "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: the fate of the world and what we can do before it's too late" by Thom Hartmann a few months ago. It was written for people like me, who need story told to explain the complexities of anything that resembles 'science.'
The good news is: even here in red territory, inroads into alternative energy (via plants) are being explored and developed, despite dug-in heels and resistance. A chance to define "progress" in a positive, earth-friendly light, for a change. I'm thrilled to say my mate is involved, up to his neck, in the process, too. :-) (There is some good to come from living here.)
ps. Matt, what I especially love about your Tao pieces is your linking... to take Mitchell's translation of #4 and link it to renewable energy, genius. :-)
"Existence, by nothing bred, breeds everything. Parent of the universe, it smooths rough edges, unties hard knots, tempers the sharp sun, lays blowing dust, its image in the wellspring never fails. But how was it conceived?-- this image of no other sire." Witter Bynner's translation of #4, given your piece above, brings to mind the word "responsiblity" to me. The ability to respond to the voice within, and my own sense of accountability to it.
Thank you again.
pss.
voice within = another source of renewable energy.
:-) Okay, quiet now.
from the non tv watcher - I'm promoting a tv show once again (for my friend) - & speaking of Saudi Arabia ..
Subject: FRONTLINE - Death of a Princess - Tuesday, Apr. 19 http://www.pbs.org/frontline
DEATH OF A PRINCESS
Twenty five years ago, in the spring of 1980, PBS broadcast perhaps the most controversial film in its history. "Death of a Princess," the investigation of the execution of a Saudi Arabian princess for the crime of adultery enraged the Saudi royal family which threatened economic and political sanctions against Great Britain and the U.S.
The film, a docu-drama based on the reporting of British journalist Antony Thomas, was broadcast on the PBS series WORLD, the precursor to FRONTLINE, and marked an important moment in the political history of the then relatively young public television system. Both Mobil Oil, then a major financial supporter of public television, and the U.S. State Department, under acting Secretary of State Warren Christopher, publicly pressured PBS executives not to air the program.
Despite the furor and the pressure, executives at PBS and WGBH Boston, which produced the program, stood firm and the film was broadcast on May 12, 1980 to enormous public attention. (To this day, it remains the highest rated public affairs program in PBS history.)
"It was a bald question: would the journalistic enterprise be defended against the powerful political and economic opposition?" recalled Peter McGhee, the former head of national production at WGBH. "If we hadn't stood fast, we would have had nothing. We would have been reduced to a morning children's service. So we had no alternative but to either prevail or be destroyed. And in the end...[the decision to broadcast the film] put a chock behind the back wheel of public television."
After its initial controversial broadcast in 1980, "Death of a Princess" disappeared from view and hasn't been seen in the U.S. in 25 years. FRONTLINE decided to re-issue an updated edition of this landmark film because, even today, it remains an intriguing story that is startlingly relevant to the restricted lives of women in contemporary Saudi Arabia.
We have re-mastered the original film and created an extended epilogue that includes interviews with the filmmakers and an examination of what has changed, and not changed, in Saudi Arabia in the last 25 years.
We hope you enjoy "Death of a Princess" as much as we enjoyed resurrecting it from the archives. And afterward, visit our web site for an extended interview with Antony Thomas, more background on the film and the controversy, and take the opportunity to express your opinion online at http://www.pbs.org/frontline/shows/princess/
Just for fun:
Robert Crumb http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4603350 (including music link)
UK Jib Jab - best internet political animation ever http://www.gbjab.com
Matt --
Excellent piece, as usual.
Thanks for another good post, Matt! It brings to mind something else . . .
Imagine
John Lennon
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Within You Without You
We were talking
about the space between us all
And the people
who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion
Never glimpse the truth
then it's far too late
when they pass away.
We were talking
about the love we all could share
when we find it
To try our best
to hold it there
With our love
With our love
we could save the world
if they only knew
Try to realise
it's all within yourself
No one else can make you change
And to see you're really only very small
And life flows
within you and without you
We were talking
about the love that's gone so cold
and the people
Who gain the world
and lose their soul
They don't know
they can't see
are you one of them?
When you've seen beyond yourself
then you may find
peace of mind
Is waiting there
And the time will come
when you see we're all one
and life flows on
within you and without you.
George Harrison
Definitely not on the subject of the tao: Katherine Harris. I received a blatant push-polling call from her organization down here in Florida yesterday. The pollster at first asked me about which Democratic candidate I would support in the Gubanatorial race next year (Scott Maddox, probably, because I've met him and I like him), then asked me my opinion of Sen. Bill Nelson (which is only semi-positive at this point)- just as though it were a poll of my Democratic views on the upcoming elections. She then began to ask me my opinion of a Maddox- Harris matchup, or of a Nelson- Harris matchup. I'm wondering if she's trying to decide whether she could get more support from Democrats for a race for Governor or a race for Senator. It was a very odd call, really. After telling her that I would vote for Harris for any office just as soon as I could go ice skating in hell, she started the push-polling. Since she already had decided I had democratic views, she began by asking me questions like "if you knew that Harris had stood up to Washington against oil drilling off the coast of Florida would you be more or less likely to vote for her." I answered all the democratically leaning questions that I'd certainly be more likely to vote for her if that were the truth, but that the ice skating in hell rule still applied. Whatever. I'm wondering though if she's planning a serious run for a statewide office in Florida. An editorial in my paper today pointed out that Harris on any statewide ballot in Florida (for either Governor or Senator) would almost assure a Democratic victory for the slot, and also help out considerably with a Democratic victory for the other slot as well. And, that a Democratic Florida governor would go a long way towards boosting our Presidential hopes for 2008. So, maybe I should have answered my questions differently, and tried to encourage her to continue with her delusion. But I just couldn't. Not even if she goes down to hell and prepares that ice skating rink for me herself. Ms Cruella has a lot of friends down there, and I'm sure they'd never let her come back.
Linda
Orange suit would look good on her too.
(for ice skating in hell)
Matt, Your post brought to mind an editorial from Scientific American that I posted several weeks ago:
Okay, We Give Up
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.
Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either—so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
Okay, We Give Up
MATT COLLINS
THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com
COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
On Sunday Talk shows, Delay is the hot topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/politics/17cnd-delay.html?hp&ex=1113796800&en=5bc703d8bb06e95b&ei=5094&partner=homepage
DiAnne- I don't know about the other parts of Florida, but my county actually requires female inmates to wear the old Black and White horizontal stripe prisoner outfits. The men still get to wear the orange suits.
I think that's sexism at it's worst, and that forcing horizontal stripes on a woman should be considered cruel and unusual punishment under our constitution.
That's just my opinion though. The stripes look lovely on Cruella DeVille.
"would look lovely" is what I meant to say. Don't ya think?
Linda
That's awful - it's stripes then - horizontal stripes. I'm visualizing it. Ball & chain & hard labor. Not sure an orange jumpsuit is too flattering either!
Chuck in Porland (ex-Baku) for DiAnne/Linda:
I thought horizontal stripes tended to make a person look heavier -- for some that might be bad for a healthy self-image. Maybe a choice between horizontal and vertical would be more humane. And then allow for choice of stripe colors to include orange! Anyway, I think any of them would suit a number of folks behind our current regime. I shouldn't say that. My bad.
And to All:
On a more on-topic note, I think the concept of energy self-sufficiency and sustainability ought to become on of the signature issues for progressives in this decade and ought to be part and parcel of an integrated economic and environmental posture for our nation -- and our world. I wonder what it would take to put an issue like that on the national political radar? It just doesn't seem to excite folks even though it addresses so many issues of great concern, including our military commitments.
Chuck in Portland
Chuck in Portland
I don't think people want to acknowledge that they may have to cut back on their lifestyle.
No coincidence that so many huge new trucks with one driver and nothing in the back sport Bush/Cheney stickers. I also think it's painful to realize that soldiers & civilians are both dying so we can continue to drive gas hogs, or that our leaders collude with dictators who support this pattern or that we use most of the resources on the planet & produce most of the waste. It's easier to remain in denial.
You would think that people would at least notice that gas prices are up & the stock market is down since the election.
Yeah, the Sunday talk shows were quite something today... it was the official kickoff of the "Save Tom DeLay Publicity Tour."
What a joke. These guys can pretend that Democrats are responsible for DeLay's abuses of power, but it just ain't reality.
Next stop, The Looking Glass
Oh wow - here is a wonderful story of the Billionaires for Pawlenty crashing the Republican MN taxpayer's rally- state capital, St Paul!
Hey Folks:
Here's my report from crashing the Republican "Taxpayers" rally this morningat 8 a.m. at the State Capital Rotunda. A friend heard me being brieflyinterviewed (in my Mrs. Thurston Howell, III persona), on Nick Coleman'sAir America show and I sent him this account in response to his e-mail. I heard Buffy Blaine-Trumpington on the radio this morning. You wereradiant. Did you air-kiss Senator Bachman? >From Lynnell Mickelsen:
Oooooooh, I'm glad you caught us on the radio. We had so much fun. Therewere eight of us, all women in furs, tiaras, gowns, etc., carrying signs and champagne glasses. We arrived by limo and left by limo.This was the perfect event for this sort of thing. Every time the Republicans called for no new taxes, we screamed like teenage girls at a Beatles concert. When we first walked in, they were passing out all these truly fabulous "Thank you, Tim!" and "No New Taxes!." So we covered our furs and gowns with those stickers and we put them all over the signs. So we now had signs saying, Govt' Child-care? Hire an aupair!" "Privatize everything!" "Wealth care, not health care!" and "Pave Your Own Roads!" "Let Them Eat Cake!" "Widen the Income Gap" "Billionaires for Pawlenty" ---- all festooned their" Thank you, Tim!" and "No New Taxes stickers."
At some point, the rally organizers actually hauled out a birthday cake to use as some stunt . Which is when we started waving our "Let Them Eat Cake" sign--festooned with "Thank you, Tim!" stickers and chanted "Let Them Eat Cat! Let Them Eat Cat!" At another point, Jason Lewis was yelling about public schools taking money from "My Kids" and giving it to "Their Kids." So two of us began chanting "My Kids, Not their Kids!"
We got jostled around on the floor a bit by rally attendees who tried to block our signs. A few men said nasty things. But then I just went into high gear and blew kisses. When one extremely fat and furious guy told me where I could kiss him, I squealed with delight and said, "Well, I'm just not that kind of girl, You Naughty, Naughty, Naughty boy!" Then I started slapping him playfully," So Naughty, Naughty, Naughty!" At which point, he moved away from me and left me alone.
When the guy next to me kept yelling, "Liberal Fascists, Go Home!" I'd yell, "Yes, Yes, Liberals go Home!" When one blond woman came up to me, angrily waving Michael Savage's new book, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions" and told me to say hi to George Soros, I said, "Darling, we don't see him at all. He isn't our type. Now who's doing your hair? Something's not quite right. I know this great gal at the spa........."
The other women were fearless too. The rally organizers didn't seem to know what do to with us. A few attendees (mostly elderly guys) seemed to miss the irony and think we were truly there to support the GOP. Other attendees knew we were protesters, but still wanted to pose with us for photos. So the response was this odd mix of fury and good-humor. It was actually easier for me to be there in character as a Billionaire for Pawlenty than a more straight forward DFL counter-protester, because we got to take all the crowd's energy and use it for our side. It felt like one long karate move.
When the governor mounted the podium for the first time, I was able to scream like a banshee, "We love you, Tim!' and wave my "Govt Childcare? Hire an Au Pair!" briefly at him before Republicans leaped up to block my sign. But I think I saw him taking a quick glance at me and frankly, he looked a little worried. By the way, this GOP "Taxpayers" Rally was pretty badly attended, considering that GOP really pushed for their people to go and the Taxpayers League offered free busing to the Capital from Rainbow and Cub Food stores all across the metro area. There were maybe 300 or 400 people maximum.
Still plenty of room in the Rotunda. A few people told us we stole the show. Alas, we probably didn't steal it. But we were visible, vocal and we had a lot of fun.
Bottom line: great use of a morning. Next time, I'll skip the limousine because that was our biggest expense. On the other hand, WCCO-TV did film us descending down the capital steps and interviewed us briefly before we drove away in the big, black stretch, with our "Pave Your Own Roads!" sign hanging out the window. Cheers!
Lynnell (AKA Mrs. Thurston (Lovey) Howell, III, formerly of Gilligan's Island, now in Minnesota) and The Gals.
Get Tom DeLay to the Church on Time
By FRANK RICH (from Today's Times)
A scandal is like any other melodrama: It can't be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plot. That's why Monica Lewinsky trumped Whitewater, and that's why of all the story lines ensnaring Tom DeLay, the one with legs is the one with the craps tables. It's not just easy to follow, but it also has a combustive cultural element that makes it as representative of its political era as Monicagate was of the Clinton years. As the lies and subterfuge of the go-go 1990's coalesced around sex, so the scandal of our new "moral values" decade comes cloaked in religion. The hair shirt is the new thong.
This time the plot begins with money. Two K Street fixers, a lobbyist named Jack Abramoff and a flack named Michael Scanlon, managed to snooker six American Indian tribes into handing over $82 million in exchange for furthering their casino interests. According to The Washington Post, some of their tribal takings, cycled through a nonprofit center for "public policy research," helped send Mr. DeLay golfing in Scotland. The pious congressman, a gambling foe, says he had no idea of his trip's sinful provenance. Never mind that Mr. DeLay was joined abroad by Mr. Abramoff, whom he has described as one of his "closest and dearest friends," or that Mr. Scanlon had once been his spokesman. Mr. DeLay was as innocent of the goings-on around him as a piano player in a brothel.
Beltway cronyism, dubious junkets, loophole-laden denials are all, of course, time-honored Washington fare. The few on the right backing away from Mr. DeLay, from The Wall Street Journal's editorial page to Newt Gingrich, make a point of reminding us of that. As they see it, more in sorrow than in anger, the Gingrich revolutionaries who vowed to end the corruption practiced by Congressional Democrats have now been infected by the same Washington virus as their opponents. That's true, but this critique of Mr. DeLay and company by their own camp all too conveniently sidesteps the distinguishing feature of this scandal. Democratic malefactors like Jim Wright and L.B.J.'s old fixer Bobby Baker didn't wear the Bible on their sleeves.
In the DeLay story almost every player has ostentatious religious trappings, starting with the House majority leader himself. His efforts to play God with Terri Schiavo were preceded by crusades like blaming the teaching of evolution for school shootings and raising money for the Traditional Values Coalition's campaign to save America from the "war on Christianity." Mr. DeLay's chief of staff was his pastor, and, according to Time magazine, organized daily prayer sessions in their office. Today this holy man, Ed Buckham, is a lobbyist implicated in another DeLay junket to South Korea.
But it's not merely Christian denominations that figure in the religious plumage of this crowd. Mr. Abramoff, who is now being investigated by nearly as many federal agencies as there are nights of Passover, is an Orthodox Jew who in his salad days wore a yarmulke to press interviews. In Washington, he opened not one but two kosher restaurants (I hear the deli was passable by D.C. standards) and started a yeshiva. His uncompromising piety drove him to condemn the one Orthodox Jew in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, for securing "the tortuous death of millions" by supporting abortion rights. Mr. Abramoff's own moral constellation can be found in e-mail messages in which he referred to his Indian clients as "idiots" and "monkeys" even as he squeezed them for every last million. A previous client was Zaire's dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, who, unlike Senator Lieberman, actually was a practitioner of torture and mass murder.
Another Abramoff crony is the political operative Ralph Reed, whom Mr. Abramoff hired for his College Republicans operation in the early 1980's. Mr. Reed, who has called gambling "a cancer on the body politic" and is running for lieutenant governor in Georgia, is now busily explaining that he, like Mr. DeLay, had no idea that some of his consulting firm's Abramoff-Scanlon paydays ($4.2 million worth) were indirect transfers of casino dough. Mr. Reed, of course, is best known for his stint as the public altar boy's face of Pat Robertson's political machine, the Christian Coalition.
It was at a Christian Coalition convention in Washington in 1994 that I first encountered yet another religious figure who pops up in this tale, the South African-born Rabbi Daniel Lapin. He was regaling the crowd with scriptural passages proving that high taxes are "immoral." Now the show rabbi of the Christian right, Rabbi Lapin has moved on to bigger broadcast pulpits. When he's not preaching the virtues of "The Passion of the Christ," he is chastising "Meet the Fockers" for promoting "vile notions of Jews" that "are not too different from those used by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels." He apparently didn't like the idea that Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman played characters who enjoy sex.
Rabbi Lapin, according to Slate, is the networker who jump-started the mutually beneficial business relationship of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay by introducing them in the early 90's. That was some mitzvah. As Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian Coalition lobbyist who later jumped to the Democratic Leadership Council, told me recently, "We now see the meaning of Judeo-Christian values."
The values alleged so far in this scandal - greed, hypocrisy, favor-selling, dissembling - belong to no creed except the ruthless pursuit of power. They are not exclusive to either political party. But the religious trappings add a note that distinguishes these Beltway creeps from those who have come before: a supreme righteousness that often spirals into anger and fire-and-brimstone zealotry that can do far more damage to America than ill-begotten golf junkets.
It's not for nothing that Mr. DeLay's nickname is the Hammer. Or that early in his Christian Coalition career, Ralph Reed famously told a Knight-Ridder reporter that he wanted to see his opponents in a "body bag." The current manifestation of this brand of religious politics can be found in the far right's anti-judiciary campaign, of which Mr. DeLay is the patron saint. As he flew off to the pope's funeral in Rome, the congressman left behind a rabble-rousing video for a Washington conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" staged by a new outfit called The Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. Another speaker, a lawyer named Edwin Vieira, twice invoked a Stalin dictum whose unexpurgated version goes, "Death solves all problems; no man, no problem." The reporter who covered the event for The Washington Post, Dana Milbank, suggested in print that one prime target of the vitriol, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, might want to get "a few more bodyguards." It wasn't necessarily a joke.
You can see why Dick Cheney and President Bush in rapid succession distanced themselves from Mr. DeLay's threats of retribution against judges who presided in the Schiavo case. If an Eric Rudolph murders a judge in close chronological proximity to that kind of rhetoric, they've got a political Armageddon on their hands. Mr. DeLay got the message, sort of. At his Wednesday news conference, he tried to dial back some of his words, if only as a way of changing the subject from Indians and his own potential outings in a court of law. Unlike Bill Frist, he has yet to sign on to next Sunday's national Christian right telecast bashing what its organizer, the Family Research Council, calls "out-of-control courts."
Many believe that Mr. DeLay's legal fate is tied to that of Mr. Abramoff, whom the congressman has now downsized into one of "hundreds of relationships I have in Washington, D.C." Mr. Abramoff, intriguingly enough, hasn't always been a creature of the capital. He was raised in Beverly Hills, the town that is supposed to be anathema to every value that Republican theocrats stand for. And he returned there for a time in the late 1980's, when he produced an anti-Communist action film called "Red Scorpion." Once it was reported that extras and military equipment had been supplied by South Africa's racist government, Arthur Ashe's Artists and Athletes Against Apartheid condemned the film, and no major studio would touch it. But it opened nationwide nonetheless, to few customers and many protesters.
In 1992 Mr. Abramoff, eager to prove that he was unlike secular show-business Democrats, told The Hollywood Reporter that he was starting a Committee for Traditional Jewish Values in Entertainment to emulate Christian anti-indecency campaigns. (He didn't.) But "Red Scorpion," on which Mr. Abramoff shares the writing credit, has many more four-letter words than "Meet the Fockers," as well as violence, bloodied beefcake (Dolph Lundgren's) and crucifixion imagery anticipating "The Passion of the Christ."
Though Mr. Abramoff has closed his yeshiva and is now being sued for back wages by its former employees, his cinematic creation survives on DVD. "Red Scorpion" is seriously Godawful, but, unlike the Ten Commandments displayed in Tom DeLay's office, it may yet endure as a permanent monument to what these people are about.
Posted by: DiAnne at April 17, 2005 06:05 PM
DiAnne,
ROTFLMAO
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at April 17, 2005 03:54 PM
Linda,
That's interesting, I didn't realize if she ran it would probably ensure a Democratic victory! A Democratic governor of Florida would be wonderful...
and nice answers with the ice skating in hell ;-)
Yeah - I was at a fundraiser for Senator Maria Cantwell & people had already donated. At the end they made a play for more contributions though, as it was the last opportunity for this tax year. People weren't too responsive until the speaker said, "Think of Senator Vance" (he's the Repub party head & a jerk), "Think of Senator Rossi" (he's the guy trying to oust Governor Gregoire). It was really funny because people immediately started writing checks out!!
We need good candidates, but with the extreme jerks they're finding in the opposing party, the Anybody-But.. factor could be helpful too!
We need good candidates, but with the extreme jerks they're finding in the opposing party, the Anybody-But.. factor could be helpful too!
Posted by: DiAnne at April 17, 2005 07:53 PM
DiAnne,
I have no intention of rehashing the campaign and election (and I think you will agree), but the sentence should read: We need good candidates. Period.
Many of us know that the "anybody but Bush" strategy carried us only so far. We can't rely on the "Anybody but..." attack strategy as the Republicans are sure to slander, libel and try to steal the next election. We have to have candidates that people feel so strongly supporting, that the slogan is, "Nobody else but...."
Kj,
Nice to see you here again. :)
Sparrow,
I second that.
Sparrow
We need good candidates but I was making the point that when really disgusting opposition candidates were suggested as over the horizon, that's what got these local people to actually get out their wallets - again.
& even though I have worked for and voted for excellent candidates in my time, I can't remember a time that I have also not deperately wanted to stop the opposition candidate.
Just the way it's been!
DiAnne,
I think you were directing your comments to me. I agree with you, that these despicable candidates probably will help beef up contributions and volunteers for our cause. Still we have to have candidates that are considered indispensable for a functioning government that represents all Americans.
The fact that JK can continue to sit through White House events without horking when Shrub's making comments like the one below, is a testament to his character:
Bush Welcomes Patriots to White House
Wed Apr 13, 6:01 PM ET
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
"Recalling last year's team visit to the White House, Bush told the team: "I think I said last time there's a chance you'll be back. I wasn't sure about me." As the audience laughed and Bush winked at Kerry, the president added: "I'm confident I'll be back next year. And the way you've been playing, there's a good chance you will be, too."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/fbn_bush_patriots
Posted by: florida dem at April 17, 2005 10:52 PM
That guy is a disgusting man. One day JK will have the last say.
On Call
You're right - I read too fast.
JK can have the satisfaction of knowing that he is taller, better looking, multilingual, well read, well travelled, can put together a logical sentence without help, has an intelligent family & relatives, etc etc etc. - oh & respect in the world, not to mention most of the US.
That other guy .. I'm not sure what happened. I was actually quite shocked when he made it through the primaries in 2000.
We just had a house guest who insists that there will soon be a change for NPR - that every story now will have to have a "fair and balanced" quality whereby a more right wing perspective will always be there. He says the people that do Voice of America & Reader's Digest are somehow involved in this. Anyone have the scoop? If this is true, there will be nothing left except cruising the internet.
Also, I found this on the Kerry 2008 Yahoo site -
not only was Kerry snubbed by Time magazine & not included as one of the "100 Most Influential People of the Year" but Anne Coulter is going to be on the cover of Time magazine. I don't think this is a satire.
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=740
I'm going to look at jobs in Canada right now.
Oncall:
I think the thing that is confusing over the , "what plan do the democrats have" and they have to offer an alternative, is that it's difficult to articulate, STOP WRECKING WHAT WE ALREADY DID TO FIX THINGS.
See, all I want is things back the way they were. What was wrong with that?
Can anybody think of one thing or program or anything that you think is better since they took office five long years ago? Really, I am serious, anyone, anything?
See, Oncall, this is the problem I am having. The oppo says, "Fix Social Security" I say, it ain't broke. Put back the trillion that you are draining from it for aboloshing the estate tax and the money you stole for the war, and it's fine. Medicare is the problem, but they haven't
touched that.
Education. Well, the results are in. On a worldwide basis, we learn that US kids are on par with China, India and Japan until 9th grade. Then, the longer they stay in school the worse they do. Also, teaching to the NCLB standards isn't working. Next?
I mean, seriously, can the democrats really run a campaign on a slogan of "Vote for me and I will make sure they put back the money they stole and un**** the program they messed up"? "Or, we'll repair the government they destroyed"?
I don't think so.
I don't have a very good feeling about the stock market tomorrow.
Just sayin'
Chuck in Portland to All:
On the Democratic plan thing, it seems pretty clear to me that the Democratic Party offers a clear alternative in a number of critical areas:
>>making sustainable energy development a national priority
>>providing for a first-class educational and scientific and technological program
>>formulating a national health policy to insure delivery of reasonable health care to all citizens
>>restructuring the military to deal with assymetrical threats and using the military only as a last resort.
>>appointing federal judges that will continue to foster the growth of democratic governance while protecting fundamental individual rights
>>reforming the electoral system to provide uniform standards
>>Ensuring that the legal framework of our country continues to hold economic actors accountable for actions affecting public health and welfare
>>etc. etc.
That's what I came up with in a minute or two off the cuff. The difference is clear to me. Why would anyone contend that the Democrats don't have a plan?
Chuck in Portland
Chuck in Portland again:
>>working to improve our environment in an economically and socially fair and sustainable way
>>maintaining a progressive taxation regime and acting responsibly in the area of fiscal policy
Just had to add those two.
Chuck in Portland
I mean, seriously, can the democrats really run a campaign on a slogan of "Vote for me and I will make sure they put back the money they stole and un**** the program they messed up"? "Or, we'll repair the government they destroyed"?
I don't think so.
Posted by: spinnaker at April 18, 2005 01:00 AM
IMHO, I disagree with you.
Of course the Democrats and others have plans to "fix" what has been broken by Bu$hco, but running a campaign as "anybody but...." wont resonate with voters. When candidates can articulate how they would repair the damage, then people will listen.
I'm going to look at jobs in Canada right now.
Posted by: DiAnne at April 18, 2005 12:25 AM
Count me in as well. Or, I'll build a business and move it straight into Canada. Canada does want American entrepreneurs badly. Besides I won't have to worry about arranging healthcare for my employees anyway - it's already done for me.
I never thought www.cic.gc.ca (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) would become one of my favorite websites - but it is.
Reader's Digest is a hideous publication, I remember it to be as anti-Clinton and anti-Gore as any publication could possibly be.