HOW POLARIZED IS AMERICA?
A poll released Monday indicated that the most admired man and woman in the United States are President Bush and Senator Hillary Clinton.
It's a testament to how polarized the United States is that the two most divisive political figures of the last decade are the country's two most admired people.
Are there any non-abrasive people Americans can look up to? I mean, President Bush was most admired by 29%, Sen. Clinton was named by 16%, the Pope only got 4%.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Monday, December 29, 2003
HE WHO LIVES BY THE MESSIAH COMPLEX...
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been under fire the last few days. Heck, he's been under fire ever since he joined President Bush's campaign to conquer Iraq. But he's taken a particular amount of heat recently.
First, he was criticized by two senior leaders of the Church of England. The archbishop of York warned that the prime minister would have to answer before God for collaborating in the Iraq invasion. The bishop of Durham compared the American and British leaders to "a bunch of white vigilantes" while noting "This is not to deny there's a problem to be sorted, just that they are not credible people to deal with it."
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have pursued the Iraq conquest with a troubling messianic certainty. The kind that surpasses mere self-confidence or decisiveness and approaches fanaticism. Self-assured people have the confidence to listen to others. Leaders LEAD, not pull, drag, bully, coerce, threaten or slander. It's good that these religious leaders spoke out against these two heads of government who lace their language so liberally with religious references and justifications. Pro-war people don't have a monopoly on wisdom or morality.
The Independent also noted another setback for Mr. Blair, who critics diagnose as being afflicted with Bush's Syndrome (primary sympton: playing fast and loose with the truth). The prime minister had claimed "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories" had already been uncovered in Iraq.
But this was countered by Iraq viceroy Paul Bremer. "I don't know where those words come from, but that is not what David Kay [head of the Iraq Survey Group] has said. I have read his reports, so I don't know who said that.. It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down."
The paper then noted Mr Bremer was forced to backtrack after being told that Mr Blair had made the claim, in a Christmas broadcast to British troops in Iraq.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been under fire the last few days. Heck, he's been under fire ever since he joined President Bush's campaign to conquer Iraq. But he's taken a particular amount of heat recently.
First, he was criticized by two senior leaders of the Church of England. The archbishop of York warned that the prime minister would have to answer before God for collaborating in the Iraq invasion. The bishop of Durham compared the American and British leaders to "a bunch of white vigilantes" while noting "This is not to deny there's a problem to be sorted, just that they are not credible people to deal with it."
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have pursued the Iraq conquest with a troubling messianic certainty. The kind that surpasses mere self-confidence or decisiveness and approaches fanaticism. Self-assured people have the confidence to listen to others. Leaders LEAD, not pull, drag, bully, coerce, threaten or slander. It's good that these religious leaders spoke out against these two heads of government who lace their language so liberally with religious references and justifications. Pro-war people don't have a monopoly on wisdom or morality.
The Independent also noted another setback for Mr. Blair, who critics diagnose as being afflicted with Bush's Syndrome (primary sympton: playing fast and loose with the truth). The prime minister had claimed "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories" had already been uncovered in Iraq.
But this was countered by Iraq viceroy Paul Bremer. "I don't know where those words come from, but that is not what David Kay [head of the Iraq Survey Group] has said. I have read his reports, so I don't know who said that.. It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down."
The paper then noted Mr Bremer was forced to backtrack after being told that Mr Blair had made the claim, in a Christmas broadcast to British troops in Iraq.
SOME DEBTS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
The Bush administration is now asking Japan and China to reduce Iraq's debt, insisting that such reductions are essential to re-starting the Iraqi economy. Years of activism in favor of reducing or cancelling the debt of African and Latin American countries to help them economically has made little headway. Perhaps the only way debt relief for developing countries can get on the agenda is if Washington invades the entire Southern Hemisphere?
The Bush administration is now asking Japan and China to reduce Iraq's debt, insisting that such reductions are essential to re-starting the Iraqi economy. Years of activism in favor of reducing or cancelling the debt of African and Latin American countries to help them economically has made little headway. Perhaps the only way debt relief for developing countries can get on the agenda is if Washington invades the entire Southern Hemisphere?
Monday, December 22, 2003
THE CANONIZATION OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS
I was reading a newspaper article which included a great quote. The quote inspired this entry that I've been meaning to write for a long time.
Many people, notably libertarians and strict constitutionalists, will inject to nearly any debate: "So-and-so is bad because the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted it." They almost inevitably cite passages from the Federalist Papers, written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, to justify inertia. If it was good enough for the people of 1788, it should be good enough from here to eternity.
To these folks, the Constitution is not something that should reflect the evolution of society. It is something akin to the Ten Commandments, something written in stone. I think the Founding Fathers (I think Joseph Ellis' phrase Founding Brothers is more accurate but that's another debate) were a bunch of fairly intelligent and very wise men who deftly negotiated a document to address the particular problems facing the country in the late 18th century. But the strict constitutionalists think the Founding Fathers [FFs] were a group of secular saints, whose every word shall be revered and taken as Gospel now and forever more. Preachers may quote from the book of Luke, strict constitutionalists from the book of Madison.
Yet this canonization of the FFs is dangerous. It prevents the Constitution from evolving. Now, the document shouldn't be changed willy nilly to incorporate every fad du jour. But the document is designed to be extremely hard to change. It seems like we should be able to debate certain things on their merits. But some people simply invoke the words of an FF as though merely mentioning a name is enough to trump the argument. Saint Jefferson wanted it, therefore it is so. The end.
For example, I've long argued for the elimination of the Electoral College [EC]. I believe is archaic and un-democratic. But the FFs knew it was un-democratic when they designed it. THAT was the point. To be a check on the democratic will off the population. It may have served a useful purpose in 1788, but is it still relevant today? The trouble is that canonization of the FFs makes it so we can't even ask the question! No one would ask if Jesus' Good Samaritan tale was still relevant today because, after all, he was Jesus. No one (save a few people deemed 'sore losers of the 2000 election') questions the continuing validity of the EC.
I believe the EC promotes divisive regionalism. I doubt it even accomplishes its primary (original) goal of getting attention for small states. Yet some people won't even engage in a debate of this nature. If it was good enough for Jefferson and Madison, it is good enough for them. That the EC was a last minute compromise to save the Constitutional Convention, many of these people probably aren't aware of and probably wouldn't care if they were.
The point of the Constitution, our Constitution, is to serve the country and its people. It was designed in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Nothing was said about it being the final draft. They weren't trying a perfect union, but a MORE perfect union. The FFs were wise enough to know they didn't know everything. They were wise enough to know that their solutions were the best they could do for current problems but they trusted their children and grandchildren to be able to deal with future problems as they arose. They knew the Constitution needed the flexibility to adapt to a changing America; that's why they gave it provisions for amendment.
And I leave you with the following words:
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them . . . too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment . . . [As] manners and opinions change with the change of circumstance, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilised society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
--Thomas Jefferson.
I was reading a newspaper article which included a great quote. The quote inspired this entry that I've been meaning to write for a long time.
Many people, notably libertarians and strict constitutionalists, will inject to nearly any debate: "So-and-so is bad because the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted it." They almost inevitably cite passages from the Federalist Papers, written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, to justify inertia. If it was good enough for the people of 1788, it should be good enough from here to eternity.
To these folks, the Constitution is not something that should reflect the evolution of society. It is something akin to the Ten Commandments, something written in stone. I think the Founding Fathers (I think Joseph Ellis' phrase Founding Brothers is more accurate but that's another debate) were a bunch of fairly intelligent and very wise men who deftly negotiated a document to address the particular problems facing the country in the late 18th century. But the strict constitutionalists think the Founding Fathers [FFs] were a group of secular saints, whose every word shall be revered and taken as Gospel now and forever more. Preachers may quote from the book of Luke, strict constitutionalists from the book of Madison.
Yet this canonization of the FFs is dangerous. It prevents the Constitution from evolving. Now, the document shouldn't be changed willy nilly to incorporate every fad du jour. But the document is designed to be extremely hard to change. It seems like we should be able to debate certain things on their merits. But some people simply invoke the words of an FF as though merely mentioning a name is enough to trump the argument. Saint Jefferson wanted it, therefore it is so. The end.
For example, I've long argued for the elimination of the Electoral College [EC]. I believe is archaic and un-democratic. But the FFs knew it was un-democratic when they designed it. THAT was the point. To be a check on the democratic will off the population. It may have served a useful purpose in 1788, but is it still relevant today? The trouble is that canonization of the FFs makes it so we can't even ask the question! No one would ask if Jesus' Good Samaritan tale was still relevant today because, after all, he was Jesus. No one (save a few people deemed 'sore losers of the 2000 election') questions the continuing validity of the EC.
I believe the EC promotes divisive regionalism. I doubt it even accomplishes its primary (original) goal of getting attention for small states. Yet some people won't even engage in a debate of this nature. If it was good enough for Jefferson and Madison, it is good enough for them. That the EC was a last minute compromise to save the Constitutional Convention, many of these people probably aren't aware of and probably wouldn't care if they were.
The point of the Constitution, our Constitution, is to serve the country and its people. It was designed in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Nothing was said about it being the final draft. They weren't trying a perfect union, but a MORE perfect union. The FFs were wise enough to know they didn't know everything. They were wise enough to know that their solutions were the best they could do for current problems but they trusted their children and grandchildren to be able to deal with future problems as they arose. They knew the Constitution needed the flexibility to adapt to a changing America; that's why they gave it provisions for amendment.
And I leave you with the following words:
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them . . . too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment . . . [As] manners and opinions change with the change of circumstance, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilised society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
--Thomas Jefferson.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
TWO VICTORIES FOR THE RULE OF LAW
...and defeats for the Bush administration.
First, a federal appeals court ruled that authorities do not have the power to detain an American citizen arrested on US soil as an "enemy combattant." The panel added that the administration was free to transfer him to civilian courts.
We are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaeda poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation, noted the US Second Court of Appeals. But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum. [emphasis mine]
Later in the day, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay should have access to lawyers and the US court system. 660 people are being held indefinitely and without charge at the base as "enemy combattants."
The court declared, Even in times of national emergency... it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike.
Hopefully, neither of these verdicts will be overturned by the US Supreme Court.
...and defeats for the Bush administration.
First, a federal appeals court ruled that authorities do not have the power to detain an American citizen arrested on US soil as an "enemy combattant." The panel added that the administration was free to transfer him to civilian courts.
We are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaeda poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation, noted the US Second Court of Appeals. But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum. [emphasis mine]
Later in the day, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay should have access to lawyers and the US court system. 660 people are being held indefinitely and without charge at the base as "enemy combattants."
The court declared, Even in times of national emergency... it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike.
Hopefully, neither of these verdicts will be overturned by the US Supreme Court.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
SECULARISM DOESN'T MEAN ERADICATING RELIGION ALTOGETHER
In the United States, there are regular battles on the fine line between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The generally accepted line is that the state is not supposed to actively promote one religion or even religion in general but that individuals are free to express their religious beliefs. Agents of the state are free to express their religious beliefs outside their job but are severely restricted in the workplace.
In France, they are going much further: any religious expression in a state-sponsored institution, even by those who aren't state agents, is about to be outlawed.
The French government is about to pass a law banning 'conspicuous religious signs in schools'. Although skullcaps and large crosses are also affected, the primary target of the bill is the headscarf worn by many girls and women of France's large Muslim population. 'Discreet' medaillons would be allowed.
French society is much more vehemently secular than American society. A French politician leading regular prayer breakfasts would be denounced. American polticians. The last French prime minister, Lionel Jospin, was an avowed atheist, something that no high-ranking American elected official would ever admit. The 1904 French law enshrining the separation of church and state was the fruit of a century-long bitter struggle to diminish the political influence of the Catholic Church in that country.
As a result, secularism means something different in the US than it does in France. Here, separation of church and state simply means the state should be neutral, that it shouldn't take sides. In France, separation of church and state means the state should actively promote secularism and discourage overt displays of religiosity, even by individuals.
But the looming French ban on headscarfs, supported by more than 2/3 of the population, is too much. Naturally, it's perceived as being a slap in the face to the French Muslim community; no public furors have erupted from skullcaps or crosses being worn to school. More fundamentally, it is against the spirit of a liberal, democratic society.
I also wonder how the ban squares with European and international law.
Title 1, Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states:
Section 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
And Article 18 of The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Imposing a state religion or religion in general on a diverse populace is wrong. But attacking the right of individuals to quietly express their faith is also wrong. Secularism means preventing religion from dominating politics. It doesn't mean eradicating religion altogether.
In the United States, there are regular battles on the fine line between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The generally accepted line is that the state is not supposed to actively promote one religion or even religion in general but that individuals are free to express their religious beliefs. Agents of the state are free to express their religious beliefs outside their job but are severely restricted in the workplace.
In France, they are going much further: any religious expression in a state-sponsored institution, even by those who aren't state agents, is about to be outlawed.
The French government is about to pass a law banning 'conspicuous religious signs in schools'. Although skullcaps and large crosses are also affected, the primary target of the bill is the headscarf worn by many girls and women of France's large Muslim population. 'Discreet' medaillons would be allowed.
French society is much more vehemently secular than American society. A French politician leading regular prayer breakfasts would be denounced. American polticians. The last French prime minister, Lionel Jospin, was an avowed atheist, something that no high-ranking American elected official would ever admit. The 1904 French law enshrining the separation of church and state was the fruit of a century-long bitter struggle to diminish the political influence of the Catholic Church in that country.
As a result, secularism means something different in the US than it does in France. Here, separation of church and state simply means the state should be neutral, that it shouldn't take sides. In France, separation of church and state means the state should actively promote secularism and discourage overt displays of religiosity, even by individuals.
But the looming French ban on headscarfs, supported by more than 2/3 of the population, is too much. Naturally, it's perceived as being a slap in the face to the French Muslim community; no public furors have erupted from skullcaps or crosses being worn to school. More fundamentally, it is against the spirit of a liberal, democratic society.
I also wonder how the ban squares with European and international law.
Title 1, Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states:
Section 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
And Article 18 of The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Imposing a state religion or religion in general on a diverse populace is wrong. But attacking the right of individuals to quietly express their faith is also wrong. Secularism means preventing religion from dominating politics. It doesn't mean eradicating religion altogether.
BAKER AGREES WITH BONO AND THE POPE?
I was reading an article on presidential envoy and former cabinet secretary James Baker's visit to Paris. During the trip, he tried to persuade the French government, so smeared by the administration this year, to reduce Iraq's debt. The "cheese eating surrender monkeys," whose paratroopers rescued hundreds of Americans in the Ivory Coast a few months ago, agreed to the reduction.
Baker justified the appeal by stating "The French and the U.S. government want to reduce the debt burden on Iraq so that its people can enjoy freedom and prosperity."
Perhaps the US, France and other western countries can also write of the crushing debts of African and Latin American countries as well so that they too "can enjoy freedom and prosperity."
I was reading an article on presidential envoy and former cabinet secretary James Baker's visit to Paris. During the trip, he tried to persuade the French government, so smeared by the administration this year, to reduce Iraq's debt. The "cheese eating surrender monkeys," whose paratroopers rescued hundreds of Americans in the Ivory Coast a few months ago, agreed to the reduction.
Baker justified the appeal by stating "The French and the U.S. government want to reduce the debt burden on Iraq so that its people can enjoy freedom and prosperity."
Perhaps the US, France and other western countries can also write of the crushing debts of African and Latin American countries as well so that they too "can enjoy freedom and prosperity."
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
HEY DICTATOR LOVING SURRENDER MONKEYS, CAN YOU PLEASE HELP US OUT HERE?
I see President Bush's envoy, former cabinet secretary James Baker, is in Paris asking the French to write off Iraqi debt. The visit occurs only days after the administration announced that France, among other countries, could not bid on reconstruction contracts for Iraq.
Translation of the administration's message: "You're a bunch of craven dictator-appeasing idiots, now could please give us a hand here?"
Still further evidence that they just don't get it. I don't know if they could be more obtuse if they were actively trying to anger the rest of the world.
I see President Bush's envoy, former cabinet secretary James Baker, is in Paris asking the French to write off Iraqi debt. The visit occurs only days after the administration announced that France, among other countries, could not bid on reconstruction contracts for Iraq.
Translation of the administration's message: "You're a bunch of craven dictator-appeasing idiots, now could please give us a hand here?"
Still further evidence that they just don't get it. I don't know if they could be more obtuse if they were actively trying to anger the rest of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)