« I Don't Know Who You Are, But I Thank You. | Main | DeLay and De Law »
Judicial Fundamentalism
President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers ignited a firestorm on the right this week. Fearful that another Supreme Court nominee of a Republican President might eventually be transformed - though exposure to "elite opinion" from more liberal colleagues - into a voice of moderation and reason, many conservative pundits and politicians were uncharacteristically blunt about their lack of enthusiasm for Miers. Some were even calling for her nomination to be rescinded.
What these unhappy conservatives are seeking is an established judicial fundamentalist or, to use the term that Bush has often used, strict constructionist. What would a judge who adhered to strict constructionist judicial philosophy believe?
According to Wikipeida:
Strict constructionism is a philosophy of judicial interpretation and legal philosophy that limits judicial interpretation to the meanings of the actual words and phrases used in law, and not on other sources or inferences. Adherents look strictly at the text in question rather than relying either on legislative intent (as gleaned from contemporaneous commentaries or legislative debate) or on metaphysical ideas such as natural law.
The underlying argument behind strict constructionism is that if a legislature truly wants to enact a particular law, they are capable of writing it down in plain English and passing it, and it is not the job of the judiciary to reconstruct what the legislature's intent could have been. Thus, for example, Justice Scalia refuses to look at committee reports that often accompany bills to the House or Senate floor.
The White House may have anticipated the tepid conservative reaction to Miers. Her acceptance statement included the phrase “ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution". These words were evidently intended as a coded message to conservatives that Miers was one of them.
Miers also spoke on Monday of her opposition to alleged judicial activism.
"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society."
To my way of thinking, the ethos of the strict constructionist judge is a mirror image of that of the religious fundamentalist. For this kind of believer, every word of the Koran or the Bible reflects the inerrant word of God. The events described in scriptures must be treated as having literally happened as described, not as parables. Broad interpolation for time, place or culture is discouraged; and any suggestion that a precept might no longer be relevant in the modern era is heresy. As I’ve noted in earlier columns, this mindset would have been incomprehensible to the Founding Generation, all of who were products of the American Enlightenment.
As an illustration, consider an incendiary passage that I’ve cited in previous columns from Thomas Jefferson’s August 1820 letter to William Short:
My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor.
The objects of Jefferson’s scorn in this passage are none other than the New Testament authors themselves! And before you dismiss Jefferson's approach as anti-Christian, let me remind that this is the same Jefferson who lauds “the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct and sublime than those of the ancient philosophers.” I submit that if Jefferson had few reservations about deconstructing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in his time, it’s a safe bet that he wouldn’t have come down on the strict constructionist side of the fence in our time.
Here's another illustration, from John Adams, as expressed in a July 13, 1815 letter to F.A. van der Kemp:
The question before mankind is - how shall I state it? It is, whether authority is from nature and reason, or from miraculous revelation; from the revelation from God, by the human understanding, or from the revelation to Moses and to Constantine, and the council of Nice. Whether it resides in men or in offices. Whether offices, spiritual and temporal, are instituted by men, or whether they are self-created and instituted themselves. Whether they were or were not brought down from Heaven in a phial of holy oil, sent by the Holy Ghost, by an angel incarnated in a dove, to anoint the head of Clovis, a more cruel tyrant than Frederic or Napoleon. Are the original principles of authority in human nature, or in stars, garters, crosses, golden fleeces, crowns, scepters, and thrones? These profound and important questions have been agitated and discussed, before that vast democratical congregation, mankind, for more than five hundred years...
Thou are responsible to thy Maker and to thyself for an impartial verdict and judgment.
All the evidence that I’ve uncovered in my study of the Founders & Framers points to one inescapable conclusion. These men were, above all, broad-minded critical thinkers - and anything but literalists. It follows logically that they would expect posterity to interpret their handiwork in a similar fashion.
Moreover, by evoking the spirit of "a more perfect union" in the Constitution's Preamble, the Framers were committing the nation to a robust pursuit of justice, and of those ideals set forth in the Declaration - specifically, "that all men are created equal", and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
In contrast, adherents to a strict constructionist approach would likely argue that fidelity to the letter of the law is sufficient for justice to be done. If a specific right is not enumerated in the text, like the right to privacy that Robert Bork denied, then that right may not be protected. When new situations emerge, it is the role of Congress to address these through statute or amendment. In fact, there have been fifteen such amendments to the United States Constitution since the original Bill of Rights. However, this is not always possible or feasible.
Consider the conflict over slavery. In a nation as divided along regional lines as America was in the 1850s, a constitutional amendment either limiting slavery’s spread, or abolishing it outright, was impossible. Only the fighting of a bloody civil war, and afterwards, the forced passage of the Thirteenth Amendment as part of the process of Reconstruction, brought an end to slavery, and temporary relief to its victims.
In contrast, the decision of the Warren Court to act decisively in Brown v. Board of Education was instrumental in creating momentum for the civil rights movement, which would later bring the promise of America to the descendents of former slaves then suffering under the burden of segregation. Clearly, at that moment in history, both the legislature of the State of Arkansas and the United States Congress were either unable or unwilling to do the right thing – nearly ninety years after Appomattox. While Earl Warren has become the boogeyman for opponents of alleged judicial activism, the reasonable man or woman must insist Warren's critics answer this question: when cowardly or unjust legislators refuse to act, who but the Courts are left to champion the still unrealized ideals upon which this nation was founded?
Justice delayed is often justice denied; the human lifespan is simply too brief. And justice shouldn't always have to wait for political hacks and knaves on the wrong side of history to finally find God on his or her road to Damascus. Years later, after society has long passed them by, they almost always admit their error - while continuing to rail against the "philosophy" of the judge or Court who made them look foolish, but, in truth, better understood that someone had to act if liberty and justice were to be available, not just for a privileged few or even a majority, but truly for all.
Shocked to see this when I woke up.
Asian Quake Death Toll at Least 20,000
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100905Z.shtml
This is on the scale of the tsunami for number of deaths (dwarfing the hurricanes, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 9/11, London & Madrid & both Bali bombings etc).
I live in earthquake territory and this is probably a greater danger than war, terrorism or bird flu - for us here.
And now (so far), 1500 dead in Guatemala (from hurricane)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-slide9oct09,0,283190.story?coll=la-story-footer&track=morenews
Many of Bush's Old Boys are Not-so-old Girls
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/354052p-301648c.html
It insulates him from "white boy" criticism.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton joins Women's Hall of Fame.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1197273
Karl Rove and the Case of the Missing E-Mail
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9630676/site/newsweek/
more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002547473_miller08.html
FOCUS | Rove and Miller Called Back to Grand Jury
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100905Y.shtml
Frog March!!
White House Computers Get FBI Scrutiiny
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9616199/
Another scandal? Watch the down-played story about the FBI and
the guy from the Philipines
I've been contempating writing an essay on the impact of the 1759 Lisbon earthquake, and Voltaire's reaction to it, on the Enlightenment, and by extension, the Founders & Framers.
That project is a long way from being realized; but I thought that Voltaire's famous (and long) poem on the subject might make interesting reading this morning. I've posted it in the forum for anyone interested.
http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=894
By the way, nice article, Matt!
I see the parallel between strict constructionism and the constitution and literal interpretation of the Bible. All of this speaks to concreteness and lack of ability to interpret, abstract and generalize - altogether a very dim type of cognitive level, usually seen in severe cases of mental retardation, head injury or certain cases of right hemisphere stroke. I realize Ronald Reagan got by with help, as a President with Alzheimers and thought Bush I said alot of strange and confusing things - til his hereditary offspring Bush II got in there!! I don't think we now need the highest Court of our land full of concrete, literal people!!
We all saw the devastation in N.O. recently and the arrival of Rita, all covered live on TV. Give some thought to the people of India and Pakistan,
who aren't getting the same degree of coverage following their earthquake
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4323008.stm
Pakistan says more than 19,000 have been killed by Saturday's huge earthquake, and it is feared the death toll could climb much further.
More than 42,000 people are believed to be injured, said the interior minister.
The death toll in Indian-administered Kashmir has risen to more than 550, after the bodies of 250 people were found in one town alone.
Thanks for the lesson, Matt. I am still making my way through it.
In the meantime, anyone looking for a job?
Are you looking for a high paying position in the Bush Administration?
"Apply" now to secure a lucrative career both decrying and luxuriating in the spoils of Big Government! No experience necessary! Don't miss your chance to suckle greedily at America's soon-to-be-bankrupt bureaucracy teat!
Apply here:
http://www.cronyjobs.com/
Let us pray for the people of Pakistan, afghanistan and India. What horror. Truely tragic.
And let us comfort ourselves with the thought that osama bin laden was crushed like a bug by the hand of God, Himself.
Excellent Matt, I might be using some of your points in a letter to the editor.
I have been thinking a lot about the conversation I was having with others on this blog this past week. I expressed my dissatisfaction with Harry Reid and the Senate "leaders" and their approach to Bush's nomination of Miers. It has occurred to me was that I was not as direct in my criticism with Harry Reid as I should have been. Why oh why, did he come out and say she was a good candidate when she clearly isn't? If that was a political ploy, I am ashamed by the deception. As a "leader" he has a responisibility to voice his concerns and opposition (if he is opposed) to a totally unqualified candidate.
To me, this is one of the reasons that the opposition party can't gain any traction with the public that has grown frustrated and angry with Bushco. People rightly see a "politics as usual" approach to the serious problems facing this country. He has not shown leadership qualities. To play this as a political game is not in the best interest of this country and I think most Americans know it and are increasingly frustrated with the Democrats. 2006 elections are not that far away, and people need clarity of position in order to vote for a candidate/policy they can support. That is not happening.
Let us pray for the people of Pakistan, afghanistan and India. What horror. Truely tragic.
And let us comfort ourselves with the thought that osama bin laden was crushed like a bug by the hand of God, Himself.
Posted by: Christy at October 9, 2005 12:29 PM
Christy,
How right you are.
If Katrina was Gods payback for fornicating sin
Then what just happened in Pakistan is payback for NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION curtosey of Allah
Hey I kinda like this putting Gods spin things. It is a multipurpose argument and leaves me looking all knowing.
Hot Damn...
the Washington Post Attacks..hehe
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701700.html
After watching Pat Robertson on CNN a few minutes ago, I wonder if there's another term that we who really want to worship Jesus could use other than "Christians." I hate being a part of any club that Pat Robertson is a member of, and I'm not sure that the term "Christians" was ever used in the Bible anyway. I think I'll put some thought into a new name.
Robertson, by the way, just said that he has it from "reliable sources" that Chavez gave 1.2 mil to Osama bin Laden. Now, not just Jesus is speaking to Pat, but eveidently Osama too. I really do want to distance myself as far as possible from anyone who knows the personal financial dealings of Osama.
Cristy
I think most of the damage in Pakistan is in the southern part, the disputed part with India, and the Bin Laden hideout more in the north. can't be sure.
These tragedies affect people living in regions of all religions, and religions are made by man not God, so I don't know what good praying to a particular religous "God" will do. As far as sending out loving nondenominational spiritual energy, maybe collectively that would lead us in a better direction.
Alot of this is in the region where Muslims and Hindhus are frequently destroying each others' places of worship, none of which speaks well of peace or "God."
If there is a Supreme Being, it is beyond human comprehension and mere prayers seem to have a kind of arrogance. If there is a true prayer, it is to me something like when Yoko Ono created performance art where she had a ladder where when you crawled to the top, you saw the word "yes." And I have a refridgerator magnet from her retrospective that says "WAR IS OVER (if you want it)"
PS Equal rights for Buddhists
Linda,
I know how you feel. I get so mad at Pat Robertson, I personally think he should just mind his own business.
Does he have any flippin' idea how "dangerous" his accusations, surmisings, and directives are?
I never felt a certain "jolt" while watching him, except he reminds me of a meddling mother-in-law.
He has an enormous following, and I have been told that if "Pat Robertson discerns it, it is the right way to go." I don't know if the guy is getting high on the power, or what. It ticks me off.
DiAnne, there are several prayers that work for me, but perhaps one of the simplest and best suited to our time is one that I suspect many of us have sung at different times, in different settings:
Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me
Let There Be Peace on Earth
The peace that was meant to be
With God as our Father
Brothers all are we
Let me walk with my brother
In perfect harmony.
Let peace begin with me
Let this be the moment now.
With ev'ry step I take
Let this be my solemn vow;
To take each moment
and live each moment in peace eternally
Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me
Here's a copy of the Voting Reform ad that ran in the NY Times on 10-7-2005 courtesy of Velvet Revolution:
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/VoterFraud_9.28_656_Final.pdf
Yes Matt, I like things like that and I do say th Serenity Prayer to myself when I need to!
What I absorbed from my Methodist upbringing:
God is Love
the Golden Rule
Thou Shalt Not Kill
& most of my antiwar & feminist ideas started at Lake Poinsett Methodist Church Camp in South Dakota. We had a different topic each day with social content - capital punishment, war, civil rights, etc.
In 1997 I became a follow of Kwan Yin and I've had two trips to Thailand and also Myanmar and Japan. Compassion is the prime force and Kwan Yin would not go to heaven until every living creature goes first. Kwan Yin helps me in my medical work when it gets draining and challenging.
I also had spiritual consciousness raising experiences in my 20s and 30s that taught me that what is important is feeding people, being kind, putting oneself in the other person's place and that all of us on the planet are family.
I find bits and pieces of good in Christianity and I don't believe most who profess it are following the teachings of Jesus at all. & there is alot that it doesn't answer for me.
If we're going to end up talking religion each Sunday, then religion it will be - but with diversity.
DiAnne, why not write a piece for us on the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path?
Truth- I don't know if you saw the interview or not, but he also said that Venezuela is trying to get nuclear weapons from Iran, and he used almost identical rhetoric to what the Bush administration used in conning Americans into going to war in Iraq.
It was almost like he had a teleprompter in the background with talking points written directly by Rove.
And when Blitzer asked him about his "sources," he just said they were reliable.
His followers will believe him.
Jesus never said a word about politics. There really needs to be a new name for His followers. The name Christian has been thoroughly defamed.
Interesting article/transcript here on MSNBC, titled:
Bork calls Miers nomination a 'disaster'
~snip~
TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC HOST: Are you impressed by the president’s choice of Harriet Miers?
JUDGE ROBERT BORK, FORMER SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Not a bit. I think it’s a disaster on every level.
~snip~
read more here...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9623345/
Dianne,
I made my peace with God the day I realized He honestly don't give a damn what we THINK or FEEL.
It is a comforting thought to me. In my faith I am sure I am free to think and feel as He made me too.
I do not think God is vengeful, but I think hes got quite a funky sense of humor.
Personally I can't wait to meet Him. I have a few questions I'm not sure who else to ask.
What has happened in Pakistan is truely disturbing. I do not believe God is vengeful but I am more than sure in my heart He DOES get angry.
Anything that can feel love is also capable of anger. I can not help but think God is very upset with us all.
I only ask for mercy when I pray. And strength. Not sure either will come through though.
from Andrew Sullivan this morning; a particularly interesting take on what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Supreme Court Nomination process with a lengthy quote from Hamilton:
HAMILTON AND GEORGE W. BUSH: Here's a spectacularly relevant quote from the Federalist Papers, where Hamilton argues for the Senate's important role in vetting presidential appointments to bodies such as the Supreme Court. Someone should cite it at the Miers' hearings:
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
[...]
Sullivan: There are two reasons to vote against Harriet Miers. Someone who needs a "crash course" on constitutional law should not be selected to be a Supreme Court Justice required to make decisions, if confirmed, in a short period of time. The second reason is simply that this president has abused his power by picking someone who "worships" him, whose fundamental qualification is that she is an indentured servant to him, and whose fundamental loyalty has long been to a political dynasty, rather than a serious, settled judicial philosophy. I'm still waiting for the hearings to give her a fair shot. But in some ways, this nomination tells us little about Miers, and a lot about Bush. From the Federalist papers, no. 76.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_09_dish_archive.html#112887671364197224
"He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
The founding fathers did not imagine a president with no shame. That's where the entire argument falls apart.
They assume that a president would have some small degree of integrity. This one does not.
The Founders never anticipated Americans electing a man as nutty as George III.
Everybody see the film, "The Madness of King George"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110428/
Linda,
I just came across an article on bible prophecy, and it refers to the Old Testament when Daniel refused to bow down to the idol when ordered to by the King.
The point is that if the government is corrupt, doing the "patriotic" thing and going along with that government's leader is not the *"godly" thing to do (*-as perceived by members of the Christian faith).
An excerpt -
"Today, people from all nations are taught to be proud and patriotic to their country. In the United States, children are taught from very young ages to stand up for the “pledge of allegiance†and sing the national anthem. At sporting and major public events, the national anthem is played; people rise and sing with tears in their eyes and a hand over their heart. To not stand up for the national anthem is perceived as an embarrassment and disgrace to your country! Such glory and pomp brings us to a major event that happened while Daniel was in captivity.
In captivity, Daniel and his friends were committed to serving Almighty GOD, instead of King Nebuchadnezzar. The King had a tricky way to introduce them to nationalism. When the music began to play, the people of his Babylonian Empire were to bow down to his sculpture. The king wanted everyone to obey this command. However, Daniel and his friends refused."
more....
http://www.bible-research.org/daniel/daniel.htm
DiAnne, Matt, and all.....
I post this here because I see it as being very pertinent to the title and subject of today's article.
There are far too many fundamentalist Christians,
mainstream Christians, people of other religions, agnostics, and athiests who are feeling the pressure to conform today to the very *UNgodly leadings of a few quacks. At the very least their teachings are very questionable, and their
"you're either with us or your against us" rhetoric and position is dangerous.
If there are any fundamentalist or mainstream Christians out there who are feeling the pressure to conform, but are wondering if it is their *"Godly duty" to do so on one hand, or to speak out for truth and righteousness on the other, this article might help you make a bit more of an informed decision. I personally don't think members of the Christian religion are duty bound by *God to agree with, and do, every darned thing our leaders tell us, especially if it goes against our conscience.
**And** - I'm not pushing Christianity here, but the pressure around all of us to conform to this brand of "christianity - psuedo-christianity" is
obviously part of today's topic.
*God as perceived by people of the Christian religion.
Truth, America would be a much better place if people were pushing Jesus' actual philosophy instead of Pat Robertson's, Ralph Reed's, or that of the old men in Rome.
George W Bush was able to overcome the "shame" of assuming an office that half of the people in the country knew he did not win.
He immediately began to act as though he had a mandate to rule- the early months of his presidency were a lot like the past few months have been. Bush showed his true colors by immediately ruling on stem cell research and in beginning to pass tax cuts for the wealthy.
Even today, with the shame of knowing that he lied about firing anyone who was involved in the Plame affair, with the shame of knowing he lied about WMD and caused the deaths of nearly 2000 Americans in Iraq, with the shame of knowing he hasn't seriously pursued Osama Bin Laden- he's still pursuing his right wing agenda and attempting to govern.
He just has no shame.
It's a terrifying thing to know we live in a world today that the founders could not even imagine.
Maybe they did have sociopaths back in the 1700's, but they must have been few and far between.
And they couln't even dream of a future in which a society would elect one to the highest office in the land.
Maybe there are parts of the Constitution that are outdated after all. Maybe we need penalties added for activities that couldn't even have been perceived back then- because the founding fathers were too honorable to even imagine them.
It's truly sickening to even think about.
Informative diary on kos about what's going on with Hackett and Brown on the OH Senate seat race...
http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2005/10/9/125632/960/displaystory//
needs some "recommends" too
Miers is not there just to get bush off on treason charges
She has been appointed so little Jenna, barbera, and tiny prescott bush dont actually have to 'win' an election either.
It is about DYNASTY
Truth- I agree with you completely. We had a discussion awhile back in my family about the tortures that took place at Abu Gharib, and whether it was the fault of officers who ordered them, or of the enlisted people who carried them out.
I maintain that it's the fault of both- that the enlisted people could have, and should have simply said "No." They'd have been demoted or punished in some way, but they would have been true to their conscience and to their God. This government is neither "of God, nor above God." It's a creation of men. I would not have engaged in the activities that Lynde England did, and that's why I won't say that it's her superiors that are to blame for her behavior. Yes, they are to blame as much as she is, and they should also be punished. But she's as guilty as they are.
The President is guilty because he made excuses for the action, Rummy is guilty, and so are all the generals, colonels, Captains, and corporals who knew about the activities and didn't complain or report them to the news media.
I would not engage in any activity required by my government that would violate my own conscience. I know that's a topic that could be debated forever, but that's the way I feel.
When called to federal jury duty a few years ago, after finding out that it was a marijuana case, I informed the judge that if I was seated as a juror, I would not convict the defendant even if I felt the evidence warranted it. Since I don't believe that marijuana use should be illegal, I couldn't of good conscience engage in an activity that might send someone to jail for using it. I heard later that the young man was convicted, but at least I wasn't part of that. Individual citizens should have a right to say No in certain instances. Governments are made by men, and they aren't perfect.
Especially when the emperor is a socio-path.
"George W Bush was able to overcome the "shame" of assuming an office that half of the people in the country knew he did not win."
Linda, this is one of my pet peaves with this guy. He came in knowing that he lost the popular vote, then acted as if he had a mandate, then used a national tragedy to demonize his opponents, and win a second term.
He had an obligation to be a consensus President in that first term, but he allowed his tendency towards magical thinking to justify his reckless policies.
I've yet to see a single example of adult spiritual behavior from this guy.
George Bush is the David Koresh of American Presidents.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at October 9, 2005 02:02 PM
Yup. This is a new one, alright.
Who ever woulda guessed.
Matt,
At the risk of being redundant this article from Truthout.org that Fe posted a couple of threads back told me alot about the formation of the Rovian Empire with Reed and Robertson. So I post the link again, just in case someone missed it who might otherwise be interested in how this little empire grew....
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100705K.shtml
And, Matt,
You're right, and I think DiAnne says it best when she says: Follow the Golden Rule, period.
And, having met DiAnne myself, I am not being flattering when I say what stood out about her the most was her kind spirit.
Linda,
I really think any minute now the maniac is going to be declaring strikes on Iran and Venezuela.
Maybe it's because my tin foil hat is getting such big vibes that it's all twisted up and flipping cartwheels.
Dwahzon,
Thanks for the Andrew Sullivan info. Looks like an interesting read. I'll attack it next.
""The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750," reports the Washington Post, "while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent."
Truth- thanks for that link. And can you just imagine how much influence over 34 thousand lobbyists must have over only, what is it, 435 reps and 100 senators?
That's almost 65 lobbyists per legislator. If the lobbyists are all out there doing their jobs, no wonder we have no real access to our individual representatives. Let's see, 65 phone calls per day, one from each lobbyist, would be 8 phone calls per hour. Assuming no meetings, not attending sessions of congress, no power lunches, that's a phone call every 7.5 minutes.
Ok, I guess I need to apologize to my Republican legislator, Jeff Miller. He obviously didn't have time to respond personally to my e-mails.
And of course, he had to take some time out of his day to write the press releases explaining why he didn't intend to give Tom DeLay back that 10K that he received from the fund a couple of years ago.
That probably took about 30 minutes out of his day.
Poor Jeff. It's no wonder these guys govern the way they do. They're just too stressed out from all the phone calls.
Returning to the computer - I've read it all.
Thanks for the interesting comments, everybody.
I take a little from each person - can see the thought and life experience that go into the beliefs of each person and also that people are bothering to step back & get some perspective and are also tolerant. I can see that there is an awareness of the danger of nationalism, of false teachings, and of the use of religion to manipulate and that is good.
After 9/11, a Muslim person wrote in the prayer book at my hospital that she believed we all pray to the same god. She wrote more and I wish I could remember how she phrased it, and it was signed "anonymous," but it was very moving and comforting. I think that she felt the divisions are made by humans and that the essence is something all are grasping at but it's beyond.
I also had a Psychology professor at University of South Dakota who said it was possible to be a completely moral person and have no religion at all. I think that this is true, if a person really reaches within themselves as a human being and is able to feel compassion with others and yes, they will end up practising the "Golden Rule." I think that's what it all boils down to and I don't see very much of it going around in our government.
George Bush is the David Koresh of American Presidents.
Posted by: Cyrano at October 9, 2005 02:21 PM
LOL!!!!
"And, having met DiAnne myself, I am not being flattering when I say what stood out about her the most was her kind spirit."
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at October 9, 2005 02:24 PM
Ummm, what I meant to say was: I am not saying this to flatter DiAnne. When I met her the number one thing that stood out about her is her kind spirit.
and....the woman is kind to the bone. What she writes above about her studies and how they led her into healing and caring professions shows she is kind to the core. And she has old, wise eyes.
That's not a bad thing. You know how they say when a cute kid has wise eyes older than his age?
DiAnne does. And the day she met me, she had no idea what to think, but she was jolly well up for the experience, and she even wore her "Leave my Social Security Alone" t-shirt. She may have thought I would be a little older than I appear, but, she was up for the game. I appreciated and enjoyed getting to meet her.
And Cyrano, the articles and info we have shared about Dominionism are similar to the article Fe posted yesterday, too, but Fe's article took it to a more personal level about the men involved, I would say.
Okay, all, I am going to be quiet now. I am going to get something tantalizing for lunch, then come back and read and study Matt's article, and Dwahzon's Andrew Sullivan article.
Y'all keep us learning, and boy am I grateful for that!
Adios until later......
No, one more thing before I go be quiet:
I would LOVE to see articles and teachings here explaining lobbying and how that works, from the ground up. Starting at the abc's of it. I admit I am a newbie to politics, while many/most of the people here at the DCP are not newbies.
I would really like to learn and be able to understand about the lobby system and how it works.......
Now I will be quiet...
This is VERY VERY interesting
"I had not been prevented from asking any of my questions. The only topics I had been warned away from were the Bush daughters Jenna and Barbara, regular fodder for the tabloids, and Michael Moore — neither of which was on my list. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2766-1817008_2,00.html
Truth Shall Prevail
Thanks for the kind words and I did so much enjoy meeting you, and also having you meet my mother, who has gone through about as many changes as a person can and shows no sign of stopping! Remember when your car was mysteriously leaking fluid and those guys were so nice to figure it out for free?
It's always interesting to meet another blogger. It may be kind of new way for some of us - to connect in print and later in person, but young people have told me it's not at all unusual in their generation now.
It's made things possible that have never been before and we have only begun to tap the potential. The reverse can happen too. I met such wonderful people locally during the Kerry campaign but now we communicate more by email, I'd say - firing things back and forth.
Going to Boston as a blogger was a thrill - meeting people for the lst time, seeing some of them later. Then when I went to NYC to meet my French friends who were doing an apartment swap, we saw Marjorie G again and walked across the Brooklyn Bridge with her. I always look forward to hooking up with Karen when she's in town for business, & hope that Fe can have another Turkey Day here.
I hope to continue making a long layover in Mpls when I visit my mom and next time, if Truth Shall Prevai is in Linton, I'll take a turn at driving over for a reunion! Or perhaps we'll meet elsewhere - at a Victory Party, perhaps!
Some of us had such big plans for the Inauguration, premature perhaps, but I'll always believe the exit polls were right. I felt sad to miss the DC rally but was glad to know we had people on the scene - covering it & getting to know each other.
I finally have my photos on the computer with the pictures from meeting Andree in Paris, and having dinner with her and Amy from WA. How fine to tip the glasses upward!
Chuck in Houston tyring to be on-topic:
I think Matthew's post for this thread is very timely. I have often thought that these so-called judicial philosophies based on a strict literal reading of law contain several fundamental flaws, most of which stem from a mental inability to deal with informed choices: (1) a desire for dogmatic, black and white, unambiguous answers to difficult questions, and (2) a desire to elevate some historic figure or figures to infalibility.
Also, I think that the psychological issue that underlies this rigid mentality is a fear of the unknown or a fear that some things are unknowable. Due to this fear, adherents of dogma or cabals or fetishes of various sorts are inhibited from looking inside themselves for answers and looking at other people (and I mean live ones, and indeed live ones a person actually interacts with) for insights.
I am not a practicing Christian but I come from a Christian background on both sides going back, I suppose, some fifteen-hundred years (off-and-on, I do not doubt), so insofar as I am familiar with particular religious ideas it is mostly New Testament ideas. One of my favorite parts of the New Testament has to do with the moral content of received truth and dogma (and law). Someone asks Jesus something like "and which, in particular, of the old commandments should we pay most attention to?" And he anwers something like "I've got two for you, and if you can't get them straight, forget about the others." The two were something like "love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." I read this as him advising us to search for the spiritual in ourselves, and, if we get a glimpse of it, appreciate it in others. That is the way I like to think of it anyway.
So, in a sense, these grand, scholarly-sounding "judicial philosophies" seem to me to do great damaged by obscuring that which ought to be made plain by placing form over substance, which, by analogy, seems to me to be the point Jesus was trying to make to the Pharisees in the New Testament.
Chuck in Houston
Chuck
Agreed
Slightly other topic:
1400 Mayan Indians killed now & they'll be interred in a mass grave
"I really think any minute now the maniac is going to be declaring strikes on Iran and Venezuela."
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at October 9, 2005 02:24 PM
Ever notice how our "enemies" all have oil? If they feel the need for nuclear weapons, it's undoubtedly to deter the US from attacking them. Every independent country with oil is an endangered species with America on the loose.
Posted by: Chuck at October 9, 2005 03:47 PM
Beautifully put, Chuck. I tried to repost my favorite bit, but it's all so wise that I couldn't pick a favorite section. Still, I think these are words for today:
"I think that the psychological issue that underlies this rigid mentality is a fear of the unknown or a fear that some things are unknowable. Due to this fear, adherents of dogma or cabals or fetishes of various sorts are inhibited from looking inside themselves for answers...."
Amen.
A life lived in fear is a life half-lived.
Chuck in Houston for Amy:
Thank you! And, going back to a theme on a prior thread, "It's better to have loved and lost than to never love at all." Isn't that in a Frank Sinatra song?
Chuck in Houston
These scandals are getting so convoluted!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001263179
More on the missing Judith Miller stuff
Yes, our enemies all have oil.
A recent 2nd attack on Bali but Bush says almost nothing ..
Liberate the oil fields! The oil fields are getting anew Constitution!
Chuck in Houston for Fe and Oncall:
By the way, reading over the past few threads and cleaning up my mailboxes, I became aware of something right here in the DCP that I think address a lot of what we were talking around, which is the prominent "Progressive Pledge for America" (so prominently placed on the website I missed it until the email newsletter). My bad.
I can't stress too much how stongly I believe that what is needed is a movement based on clear principles, rather than "leaders" per se (I realize that that can be seen in a chicken-and-egg light, but I always knew as a positive fact that the egg came first, and in the same way I don't trust "leaders" the way I trust a movement based on clear principles -- all politics is local and all politics is personal).
This "first principles first" approach reminds me of a management tool used in a couple of companies I worked for. Every month, the management team would get together and go over "goals, strategies and tactics." "Goals" were sort of the business plan, or what the company promised to deliver to shareholders. "Strategies" were the long-term projects being carried out to meet those goals, and "Tactics" were the current do-lists of the managers at an operations level to carry out the strategies. Like any such paradigm, this one can be abused if top-management does not keep it interesting and relevant (i.e., it turns into a CYA-attempt by each manager to justify their position), but it still has a strong inherent value. I think a statement of principles like this is a great starting point around which a political movement could be built - honing the "principles" then fleshing them out with policy strategies and then breaking out the policy strategies into manageable tasks -- which would then be the "do-list" or "campaign promises" of candidates adhereing to the program. I guess it kind of takes a page from the old days when political parties or movements or factions had these "manifestos" of various kinds. I suppose the idea seems dated but there are just so many advantages to such an approach I hesitate to even start listing them.
Good job Karen Bradley! Is there a Forum thread on this? Much as I prefer the blog format (I get lost in the Forum), I for one would be tempted to try and follow such a topic closely in a Forum-format.
Chuck in Houston
Chuck- now you've got a Sinatra lover here trying to think of where that would have come from in any Sinatra Song.
All I can think of is "Hello, Young Lovers," - the line that says:
"Don't cry, young lovers, whatever you do.
Don't cry because I'm alone.
All my memories are happy tonight,
I've had a love of my own.
I've had a love of my own like yours,
I've had a love of my own."
Could that be what you're thinking of?
Or could it be from "Nature Boy" (also a Nat King Cole song, by the way)
where he sings:
" The Greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return."
I don't know whether Sinatra or Nat King Cole sung that one first- probably Sinatra though.
Anyway- I don't remember the exact song you're talking about, and I'll be trying to think of it all night long now.
Shame on you for doing that to me :-)
Chuck in Houston for Linda:
Sorry Linda (although there are worse things to obsess on than song lyrics)! Maybe it is just an urban-legend attribution to old Blue Eyes. Heck maybe it was even Dean Martin that said it. I know I heard it somewhere.
Chuck in Houston
Chuck, those lyrics don't strike a bell in that specific form, but the theme is prevelant throughout Sinatra.
I can think of Cole Porter's Just One of Those Things, for instance (from memory)
If we thought of it, bout the end of it,
When we started painting the town,
We'd have been aware, that our love affair,
Was too hot to cool down.
So goodbye, dear, amen
Here's hoping we meet now and then.
It was great fun, but it was just one of those things.
Matt (who thinks the Capitol Years were the highlight of Sinatra's career)
Chuck- I guess I'll forgive you, but being an OCD type person, I'll probably still think about it all night long :-)
Maybe it'll keep my mind off Karl Rove awhile anyway.
My favorite ol'Blue Eyes song will always be "Time after Time."
I liked him a lot better in his early years when he was supporting Kennedy and consorting with the mafia than in his later years when he became a parody of himself and jumped on the Reagan bandwagon. I always attributed that change to senility.
I had to give him some excuse for becoming a Republican hack bore. Because he sang too damned good not to give him an excuse.
Matt- the Capitol years WERE Sinatra's greatest ever- but his early years before Capitol were pretty spectacular too.
Nature Boy came from the early years, and if you've never heard Sinatra's version, you really ought to get it.
It's hypnotic.
Guess this IS a political blog though, isn't it.
So I'd better shut up.
My problems with the Columbia years were the arrangements - too many backup singers, etc. That and the dog on "Momma Will Bark".
The Columbia "Old Man River" is a classic, however, and an example of extraordinary breath control.
And "Time After Time" is a great song. I think it was from a movie with Kathyrn Grayson - "It Happened in Brooklyn".
Posted by: DiAnne at October 9, 2005 03:23 PM
DiAnne, I want pictures! Did I give you my new email address?
Chuck in the Oilp-Patch for Amy and DiAnne on the Oil Enemies Thing:
Just wanted to throw in my two-bits on the issue of how our national insecurity policy relates to the fact that the world economy uses fossil fuels as the main source of energy.
Speaking as a person that has worked in the international upstream (exploration and development)oil and gas industry for the better part of two decades, I think it is a mistake to conflate the strategy of our current administration regarding the politics of how to maintain the global economy's current levels of access to oil and gas reserves by with the way energy corporation management would prefer to work (not that either of you did or did not suggest such a conflation).
I don't think the international community of managers and other stewards of large economic interests (and this includes Amercian companies and actors more than anyone else and of course includes the oilfield majors) are at all comfortable with the belligerent and provocative course taken by our current administration in this area. International business managers tend to prefer quiet, local arrangements and evolutionary (or manageable) change, in my experience. I think that is so because it tends to make the annual stockholder meetings easier to manage (sort of a natural conservatism, in the Burkean sense, of people representing powerful interests).
Only people vested in the projection of military power want to see the game of securing energy reserves turned over to military administrations. That in fact turns the economic managers into supplicants for favors at the military court (court in the old aristocratic sense, not the judicial). And that not how they usually see themselves and it is not what they are good at and it is not what(in most cases) they have made a career doing.
That is my considered view on it anyhow. By the way, that's one reason I love those principles the DCP put forth as per my prior post: I'm for ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IN AN ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE WORLD ECONOMY THAT DELIVERS JOBS WITH DECENT WAGES TO ANYONE THAT CAN WORK AND WANTS TO WORK AND PROVIDES A DECENT LIVING TO ANYONE WHO CANNOT WORK. Now who could be against that as an economic policy goal? Not sure how we get there from here but to my mind it is the right thing to strive for in our world economy. And I am almost positive that the current approach -- both in terms of our national "energy enemies" insecurity establishment and our national "find more, refine more, burn more at all costs!" energy policy is moving us in the exactly opposite direction.
Chuck in Houston
PS: I hope that didn't sound strident. Also, I used the CAPS not to yell but in lieu of bullet-point-type memo formatting (that's corky-dots to any Exxon folks out there).
Happy Birthday John Lennon 9-Oct-40 ( & Sean 9-Oct-75)
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
"Will the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? And the rest of you, if you'll just rattle your jewelry."
"Newspaper people have a habit of putting you in the front pages to sell their papers, and then after they've sold their papers and got big circulation's, they say, 'Look at what we've done for you.'"
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/john_lennon/
This started from a spam Chris got that included this qualifier:
"There are some frauds so well conducted that it would be stupidity not to be deceived by them."
He looked it up and found this site and likes the URL name "ThinkExist.com"
--Truth Shall Prevail--
Email me using your new email & I'll send 'em
Matt- Amen on the Columbia years- too much music, not enough voice.
I actually have "Mamma will Bark" in my collection which is Huge.
I even have the "V discs," which were sent out free overseas to the soldiers and the armed services radio stations during WWII.
Guess I'm more of a fanatic than a fan.
But I like all kinds of music. Now I really will shut up.
Chuck in Houston:
My favorite Sinatra disk is this one called "Swinging Sessions" which was all recorded almost live, I think, on one set of sessions in 1961, I think. I lost my liner notes so I can't be sure.
Chuck in Houston
PS: Linda, you have to have music on political blogs! Otherwise you loose a sense of timing and harmony, you can't get into a groove, or even hit the right notes....
PPS: It is a great tragedy that the BC04 blog didn't allow for an open dialog. I, and most probably future sociologists, psychologists and social historians, would be VERY curious as the the musical proclivities that would have evince themselves there! Oh, the lost golden opporunities for increased awareness and insight...
My mom has an autographed photo of Sinatra from the 1940s. She's from the bobbysoxer generation. Her brother Alan knew Sinatra, and also sang with some big bands in the 30s and 40s.
I have the complete Capitol set here, and most of the Reprise, and the best of the Columbia.
The mannerism became more pronounced the older he became - the doobie, doobie, doo stuff.
Who knows if he would have changed his political stripes if JFK had stayed at his house instead of Bing Crosby's. Sinatra took that as an unbelievable betrayal.
If Sinatra had mafia ties, who was Joe Kennedy's son to have a problem with that...
Matthew- you know, I'm sure, that one of the conspiracy theories on JFK's death was that the mafia had JFK killed because, after being convinced by Sinatra to support him, Bobby turned coat and went against the mob.
I don't believe that theory, but it's just one of the interesting ones to contemplate.
I'm a Beatles generation person myself, but I loved Sinatra even before I loved the "fab four."
Yes, the Kennedy's money came from mafia connections, just as the money of a lot of very powerful political families incomes did.
I mean, the Bush family got money from the Nazis.
Just goes to show you that ill gotten gain can be used for either good or evil.
Money is just money. It's the way it's spent that's evil, not the paper it's printed on.
Except for Tom DeLay's money, which is evil incarnate itself :-) J.K.
Liberate the oil fields! The oil fields are getting anew Constitution!
Posted by: DiAnne at October 9, 2005 04:41 PM
Freedom and Democracy for the oil fields....they need a different Theocracy.
Chuck, you still here?
Here is a report with some oil stats on it? What do you think?
http://www.oilcrisis.com/debate/udall/joyride.htm
Matthew, and lest we forget the words of the ages:
To do is to be. Socrates
To be is to do. Jean-Paul Sartre
To be or not to be. William Shakespeare
Do-be-do-be-do. Frank Sinatra
Sorry
And Jeb has come out for drilling in the Eastern Gulf - which could devastate the Western coast of Florida's tourist industry if there were a huge spill from a (surprise!) hurricane.
He campaigned against it the last election cycle, but I guess he's changed his mind now.
The answer to a devastating natural disaster that has depleted our oil supplies is to look for more oil in an area that could just as easily be destroyed by a devastating natural disaster.
Not to conserve energy.
Never that.
You know, it's kinda like the problem we had with the French and Russians in the run up to this war.
On the one hand, the French and Russians had those unsavory economic interests in Iraq; on the other, we had those unsavory economic interests in Saudi Arabia, whose clerics, lest we forget, were the spiritual inspiration for al Queda.
Who was the Bush Administration to be pointing fingers at anyone, much less the Russian and French business deals? Whose money really had the most blood on it?
Nat King Cole ~
Darling, Je Vous Aime Beaucoup..............
Here are some excerpts from a kos diary on Election Reform that may be of great interest to some at DCP:
from kos poster Jennifer Clare
Sat Oct 8th, 2005 at 11:07:30 PDT
To summarize:
Earlier this week, hundreds of you dedicated Kosmopolitans took the time to contact your Congressional Representatives asking them to support and pass HR 550, The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act.
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) has now introduced an alternative bill, HR 3910, that will further muck up our ability to have a verified vote, all the while conveniently allowing for Republican cover for vote tally manipulation, voter disenfranchisement and fraud. HR 3910 is cynical, flawed legislation that will lead to further voter disenfranchisement, and do nothing to increase the accountability of our elections. It has a neat little "RealID" requirement tucked away in it as well. Sweet, huh.
LET'S NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.
HR 3910 does nothing to address the biggest issue of e-voting: The fact that anyone, regardless of party, can currently hack the vote if they have a wireless Internet connection and Access Database software. HR 550 does address this concern. Even given no possibility of fraud, the fact is that the DRE machines many of us, like it or not, will be using to vote in upcoming elections CAN AND DO FAIL. This is as non-partisan an issue as you can get.
An excellent website by fellow Kosmopolitan ms in la has some of the best research you can find on the subject of e-voting: http://www.whoscounting.net/
What you can do:
Contact members of the Admin committee who will be reviewing HR 3910 (especially if you are from their district) and let them know that you are not buying it. Demand that they put HR 550 out to the wider Congress, AS WRITTEN, for a vote. Member and contact info is below.
Contact your own Congressional Rep and ask them to sign on as a co-sponsor of HR 550; 157 Representatives, including 8 Republicans, already have.
Sign the petition put out by Vote Trust USA that will be delivered to Committee members demanding that they take HR 3910 off the table and do the people's business by acting on HR 550. Link to new petition is here: http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=1
We need to put the pressure on while the issue of a verified vote is still in committee. Rush Holt, original sponsor of HR 550, has crafted the legislation. Now we need to get it out there and voted on. And PASSED, so that we can run as many corrupt Reps out in 2006 as possible. I don't see us ever gaining a majority again if this issue is not resolved.
Thanks for your help! Admin Committee members and contact info:
~snip~
go here to see list of members...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/8/14730/7214
"The intelligence community has been able to determine that there are very serious doubts about the credibility of this specific threat"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051009/ap_on_re_us/nyc_subway
Hmmmm- and the subway "threat" happened on the day that Karl Rove's lawyer said he had to testify again, right?
Wonder what that could be about?????????
Chuck in Houston for Truth:
I read the article (quickly) and it seems to be a fair representation of conventional wisdom (except a lot of people would not characterize the Caspian Sea as Russian!). There is considerable debate in geological and petroleum engineering circles about when the "peak" or production will occur, but my sense is that most experts see it happening in the next few decades (most of the difference is probably from assumption about new technologies making it economical to get more out of old feilds and to exploint the deep water stuff). Other people see the peak further off but they seem to rely on oil-shale type production, which will always probably be in a different economic leauge (i.e., expensive). At the same time, as the "developing" world develops and as standards of living and population rise, consumption continues to grow. So, at some point in a decade or so, from a pure microeconomics point of view, the tipping point will occur to where investments in alternatives will become economically competitive. However, at the same time, as if often pointed out, the ecological aspects of our current pattern of fossil fuel consumption as well as the geo-political aspects make another, and more urgent, case besides the simple microeconomic model to begin as a society a serious exploration of alternatives. Hope that helped (it was sort of stream-of-consciousness writing on my part).
Chuck in Houston
Very worth your time.. Cindy Sheehan's new diary at daily kos
I Have Arrived. I am Home.
by CindySheehan
Sun Oct 9th, 2005 at 15:37:22 PDT
I was honored and humbled to be in the presence of holy man, Thich Nhat Hanh, today at MacArthur Park in a very Hispanic neighborhood in Los Angeles.
Tha^y, (teacher) as he is known, is a Buddhist monk who was active during the Vietnam War years bringing peace and reconciliation to the countries of North and South Vietnam. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Martin Luther King, Jr. He walks with an aura of peace and acceptance radiating from him.
Every day we do things, we are things that have to do with peace. If we are aware of our life..., our way of looking at things, we will know how to make peace right in the moment, we are alive. Thich Nhat Hanh. In a speech I delivered at the Riverside Church in NYC on the one year anniversary of Casey's death, which was also the 37th anniversary of MLK, Jr's death, I said: We must all do one thing for peace each day. I now know that is not enough. We must live peace and embody peace if we want peace on earth. Our entire lives must be for peace. Not just one activity a day.
Every step is peace. That was the theme for today's walk in Mac Arthur Park. Tha^y reminded us to be in the "present" and take every step in peace and know that we are walking on the earth in peace. He lovingly admonished the hundreds of people who came to hear his witness to do everything in peace: eat, walk, talk, breathe, sleep, work, play, etc. No yelling, no angry words, no harsh statements. This admonishment struck me to the bone because I have been so "strident" in my criticism of the Bushies in their quest for power, greed, and destruction. There must be a better way now if we truly want our country to live in eternal peace and not eternal war.
read more...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/9/183722/187
Chuck in Houston for Truth:
Also, while I'm thinking of it, the whole way we use energy needs to be examined as well as how we produce it. This involves urban planning and transportation and building design, in particular (and probably agriculture as well). Also, to my mind, the more that electricity is used as the final source of energy, the easier it will be in the future to "switch over" the mode of primary energy generation without having to make substantial, and expensive, and disruptive changes to civil infrastructure (i.e., simply plug-and-play generators that operate on alternative princilples to generating electricity by burning fossil fuels). Finally, natural gas reserves are much more plentiful than crude on a barrel-equivalent or BTU basis (I think), plus it burns much more cleanly. However, the Americas are no where near as well endowed with natural gas as Eurasia, and, pending LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) transportation improvements, the problem for us Americans (N. and S.) with respect to gas has long been getting it from the huge Eurasian fields to the American markets (again, with LNG, this is changing). Overall, it is a complex picture but my sense of it is that we can't afford to wait for some combination of economic or ecological or geo-political crisis to begin dealing in earnest with the issue of ecologically sustainable energy independance.
Chuck in Houston
from a response to a comment on Cindy's diary encouraging her to take Camp Casey on the road:
great idea (4.00 / 4)
we are taking camp casey on the road and planning more civil disobedience at federal buildings and the white house.
non-violent cd...naturally!!
we are planning on going ot Camp Casey, Crawford for Thanksgiving. We are going to invite George and Laura...she just needs to bring the pie =)
by CindySheehan on Sun Oct 9th, 2005 at 16:11:51 PDT
dw - count on Chimpy MCsecret Mission to bring a plastic turkey - as long as he can get a photo op out of it
Chuck in Houston with one more black-gold speechification:
Also, to kind of bring it full circle (and back to Iraq and other foreign policy and insecurity issues -- especially as regards the Middle East), one thing about producing oil and gas (as with any extractive industry) is that you have to go where it is. You can build a nuclear plant most anywhere and you can dam about any piece of free-flowing river to generate electricity but to produce oil or gas nowadays you have to go to placs like remote Arabian deserts or artic tundras or into ever-deeper international waters or into the Siberian swamp or Southeast Asian jungle. Many of these places are fairly remote from the centers of power in this worlds, so the indigenous folks, and especially the ruling elements of those folks, have a very slim chance of making their claim to sovereignty over these subsurface resources stick without employing outside protection in some form or other. So almost by definition in order to exploit the extreme riches that such sovereignty promises, they have to act in some sense or other as a proxy of a protector. This, of course, exposes the local notables to extreme internal competition, and will make other potential protectors tend to meddle in that local political dynamic. And it will mean that the local notables that find themselves on the top during a windfall will use that windfall to try and solidify their local preeminence, by means fair and foul, and by sanctions positive and negative. Overall, it is a recipe for instability and conflict in an economic sector that is too important to leave to chance.
Chuck in Houston
Chuck in Houston,
Did you used to be Baku Chuck back in the day?
Chuck in Houston for cali dem:
Hey cali dem -- yep back in the day you used to be Calif_Dem if I recall! I'm in Houston now but working month-on-month of in Doha now (Qater, Persian Gulf) and still feel like an expatriate Portlander (Oregon) and still listening to Bob Marley. Lot's of us are here. I even saw a post from Florida_Dem a couple threads back but never have seen Wild_Salmon here or my co-Portlander Marcia. Call me crazy but I miss the occasional troll and the caustic Mark in Iowa and the rest of that cast of characters (I also miss the immediacy of a chance to change the political situation directly and demonstrably, but there you have it -- and we'll get them next time).
Chuck in Houston
Chuck in Houston,
Nice to see you again. Yep, I simplified and dropped the "f."
I miss Chuck in Illinois from the campaign blog.
I was just in Texas for the first time ever. Not Houston, though. I recall you as the only one to pick up on an obscure ref to a Mojo Nixon tune (the one with the anti-Elvis).
Also I wonder what ever happened to sc_kitty -- she's the one who pointed me to the DCP in the first place.
Chuck in Houston
PS: I like the geography-specific handles in this blogging world because it's neat to think of all the places around the world where people can be and still communicate in real time in a public forum. Sort of like a travelling without all the airport hassles.
Yeah -- I posted here a few days back that Bush Jr. is the "anti-Lincoln" in the sense that Bush Sr. is the "anti-Elvis." He was just too prudent, I guess. Linda Enterkin was in on that too (she's a regular here too, as well as a bunch of others of course). I recall that I said that Nixon, according to Mojo, at least had a little Elvis in him and I got the expected fire and Linda jumped in on my side. And me and Mojo did specify a LITTLE Elvis (emphasis on the adverb or whatever).
Chuck in Houston
Clarification: I meant Linda was part of that old blog Mojo/Elvis/Nixon conversation.
Chuck in Houston (ex-Chuck in Baku and occasionally Chuck in Portland)
Oh, the nostalgia -- and if Matthew catches this I vote for a thread of a Sunday exploring the issue of "A little Elvis, a lot of Elvis, or the Anti-Elvis -- what does Today's America Need and What (if anything) would Mojo Say?" Or maybe that's more a Poly Sigh thing.
Chuck in Houston
Yeah, I remember Linda's remark that Nixon had some Elvis in him. I almost suffered a spit out. I can't remember now who I was all adamant about being the anti-Elvis...Clinton has some Elvis. Nixon did not. hehe Sheep go to heaven & goats go to hell.
Mojo (not Mojo Nixon) in general suffered a setback when Charles Gatemouth Brown passed away...
calidem- No, no, I don't remember saying Nixon had any Elvis in him- if I had, it would not have been a compliment anyway.
I never was fond of Elvis.
I think I mentioned that there was a picture of Nixon and Elvis together in the White House, and that Elvis was a big admirer of Nixon.
That's all.
HOwever- Nixon was a good pianist- that's pretty well known.
And, on a deeper level, what is Elvis? How does one acquire it? Can one acquire it or is it dead? Should one acquire it? What is more important, an Elvis or a Studio or song-writers?
"You may go to college, you may go to school, you may drive a pink Cadillac but don't you be nobody's fool..."
Chuck in Houston
PS: I am stealing this precious blogging time by letting my six-year-old watch cartoons. I feel guilty about that. How would Elvis feel?
Chuck in Houston for Linda:
I am sorry I mis-remembered that. So is it the pre-Army Elvis or the post-Army Elvis you aren't fond of? Both?! Please say it ain't so! Just a little? Also -- thanks for the info -- I did not know Nixon played piano. I wonder what kind of music he liked. I always had the sense that Nixon was a very complicated person.
And cali -- who is Charles Gatemouth Brown?
Off the the porch to strum a bit....
Chuck in Houston
And, as a matter of fact, a guy named Kenneth O'Reilly wrote a book called "Nixon's Piano" about racism in the White house, and only Presidents Lincoln and Johnson came off looking very tolerant among all the American presidents in our history.
The title comes from an incident when Nixon played "Dixie" at a White House reception. It was considered a major faux-pas. The book examined the private comments of all the American presidents up to the time of it's publication, and revealed almost all of them to be closet bigots of some sort. Like I said, only Johnson and Lincoln came off as not being biased.
It's interesting though that Nixon liked Jazz- I wouln't have thought that to have been likely in a Republican president.
Our current president knows nothing at all about music, from what I've heard. But then, he knows nothing at all about a lot of things.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029236851/qid=1128909560/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5927026-0346246?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Thanks Linda
C in H,
Here's a quick piece about Charles GAtemouth Brown:
http://niteswimming.blogspot.com/2005/09/rl-burnside-and-clarence-gatemouth.html
I think one of his recent big songs was called "Got My Mojo Working" or something like that.
Linda, sorry I misunderstood your take on Nixon and his mojo status. I didn't know he played the piano either. Can you imagine Nixon playing some boogie-woogie? ha!
Chuck- I hate to lower myself in your eyes- but I really didn't care for either of the Elvis personas.
Like I said- I loved the Beatles, I loved Sinatra, and I loved Waylon and Willie. Along with Ella and Duke Ellington. So I'm pretty wide in my music tastes. I have to admit that the biggest reason I didn't like Elvis was that I just didn't like his looks. I don't like my men with sultry long lashes and thick voluptuous lips- and men in Spandex white suits really, really turn me off.
He had a great voice though- I'll admit that, but Dean Martin's voice was just as good (almost the same, in fact) and Dino looked like a guy.
OMG- Now I know I've made more people mad on here than I even did when I said Nixon wasn't such a bad guy- I'll never live down not liking Elvis. I'll be a pariah forever.
But tonight is the night for truth-telling. No matter the consequences :-)
I do love Bill Clinton though, no matter how much people compare him with Elvis.
Well I have a refridgerator magnet which has Nixon and Elvis shaking hands. I also have one with Nancy Sinatra in boots.
& I have one of W that says "making the world safe for frat boys everywhere"
DiAnne- what a strange assortment of fridge magnets- what do you think about when you look at the one of Nixon and Elvis?
My fridge isn't very thought provoking- I just have one magnet that says "Women don't sweat, belch, snore or fart....therefore, they must bitch, or they would blow up."
Linda - my Linda is from Memphis but I was never a giant Elvis fan like she was. I liked Dino but my favorite crooner was Frankie - and not just because he was from Joisey. And, I never bought in to the Mafia thing either - Sinatra had his voice and he had plenty of class. I knew folks that were in touch with the Mafia in Philly - some of the best folks I have ever known.
Maybe I've confused things by doing this:
mojo = Elvis
Sick if Pat "two sandwiches shy of a pinic" Robertson? You all, especially Linda E, will be happy to read this.....
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=93369&ran=72372
Once powerful Christian Coalition teeters on insolvency
Pat Robertson, left, and Ralph Reed.
By BILL SIZEMORE, The Virginian-Pilot
© October 8, 2005
The Christian Coalition, the onetime powerhouse of the religious right founded by Pat Robertson, is struggling to stay afloat.
The group’s annual revenue has shrunk to one- twentieth of what it was a decade ago – from a peak of $26 million in 1996 to $1.3 million in 2004 – and it has left a trail of unpaid bills from Texas to Virginia. Among the creditors who have sued the coalition for nonpayment are landlords, direct-mail companies, lawyers and at least one former employee seeking back pay.
----------
Of course the eventual erasure of Robertson's influence will only bring more attention to Dobson of Focus on the Family (aka Focus on the Fetus) who's just waiting in the wings for Robertson to die. So the demise of one right wing wacko will mean the rise of another, but at least Robertson's reign is close to over. Someone asked why the other big money right wingers aren't trying to help the Christian Colation out financially. That's a no brainer imo. It's because Dobson and his bretheren want desperately to be the next lead wacko. These folks aren't the lambs they portray on tv. They are more power hungry and blood thirsty than most CEOs and heads of state.
Linda, I not mad about your *professed* feelings about Elvis at all stages. Although it does seem as if there could be some denial in play. ;)
How much does sexual attraction play in who we like/admire as muscians? Not directed to you, Linda. Just wondering. I have a cyber friend who says popular gay bloggers have popular blogs because of their sexual appeal, not due to their writing or other attributes of blogging.
abq- I was never too sure about the mafia thing either. It always seemed to me that, if someone were REALLY in the mafia, you wouldn't know it.
It does seem that a lot of urban legends grow up around people after they're gone, and also that we could do without a lot of them.
I didn't need to find out what Luther Vandross's sexual orientation was the same night that I heard that he nearly died- it just didn't matter to me. The man had one of the most beautiful voices in the history of music- that's all I needed to know about him. The MSM is so into the tabloid business today- I guess it keeps them from having to report the news that is really important