Why We Must be First Amendment Patriots. Fortunately We Still Have Some Choice (and a Duty)

An Impossible Scenario?

Imagine that you're abducted and gang-raped--the court agrees and convicts the rapists--but you also get punished for this crime by a six-month prison sentence and 200 lashes! Your punishment is for "meeting with an unrelated male" (who also gets raped by the way). Where in the world did that happen, you may ask. You could assume that no civilized country would do this today. But you'd be wrong. That's the reality in the many Muslim countries where there's no separation of state & religion. This case in point took place in Saudi Arabia this month!*

One of the best things we did early on was the separation of church & state. The Founders knew of the bloody religious civil wars in Europe and elsewhere. They knew about the Inquisition, they knew that the tyranny of the majority could pose threats to individual liberty--after all, liberalism was about freedom, individual freedom. Our Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment in particular, see to this. Freedom of expression and beliefs, now that's a novel concept!

Now, why would intelligent people--especially those who've studied law, the constitution, and maybe some American history--argue for bringing a theocracy to the US? Good question. Maybe we couldn't thoroughly examine their motives, but their actions are based on wishful thinking, ignorance (willful?), and specific political objectives.

This past few days, the Federalist Society had its 25th anniversary with president Bush delivering the keynote address. Members like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, John "torture-is-OK" Yoo, and several others got their chance to "shine" under the presidencies of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43. These people are the most conservative judges & lawyers that seek to "restore the law" as intended--not by the Founders and framers of our constitution, by of a ..higher authority. This is another example, among the many in recent history, that the lunatic fringe is not marginal in this country.

Unfortunately today, secular America hangs on a very thin margin in the Supreme Court. It's not too early in the election cycle to point out that there is a huge difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in jurisprudence and intent on keeping our country secular--and by secular I don't mean non-religious, but a separation of church & state. We knew about this very important difference in the last 2 elections. Bush 43 has had a big impact on SCOTUS by appointing very conservative justices to the hight court; one more and the balance will tip to the other side.

The fact is that the Framers of the constitution (and most of the Founding Fathers) were explicit in maintaining this wall of separation. Here's a brief history:

• Jefferson and Madison, opposed state support of the churches. 1786: Drafted the Virginia statutes for religion freedom. Shielded minority (explicitly including non-believers) from majority's religious views. "To protect every infidel of every denomination."
  

• 1787: Drafting of the US Constitution. No "god" in it. Article 6, sec. 3: no religious test for any public office. Madison drafted the First Amendment and defended it in the Federalist Papers. Protecting individual conscience was paramount.

• 1789: Congress rejected arguments that the First Amendment only meant to protect one religion over another and not the non-believers.

• 1796: The US signed the Treaty of Tripoli which declared that the US is not a "Christian nation."
  

• 1802: Jefferson reiterated that the 1st Amend. was indeed a "wall of separation" between church-state.

• 1868: The 14th Amendment abolished slavery but also said that the Bill of Rights must apply to all states! [make of note of this Judge Thomas]

• 1947: The Supreme Court decided that no branch of government could favor one religion over another or over non-believers.

There's a great body of legal precedence and jurisprudence that supports this separation, which, in turn, protects individual freedoms. Yet, Americans have failed to grasp the importance of electing extreme conservatives [note: not all Republicans are like that] to the Senate and the White House. Elections have consequences. A majority of FIVE can change the conditions of freedom we expect from living in a liberal democracy!

We Have to Make the Connection: Guilty by Association

The Republican Party today does not want to safeguard this separation of church-state and observe the tradition established by law. Unlike the Goldwater Republicans, the current crowd is state authoritarians who want to impose on others their religious dogma, intolerance of dissent, and that Scripture is without error! It's no surprise they're anti-science [abortion, evolution, stem-cell research, etc] and anti freedom of conscience!

Sure, we have great differences with those conservatives. These differences need to brought into the light. I understand that our politics is to a great extend about personality and not substance, but we can't afford to have another folksy president whose policies can be disastrous. It's too costly and we can't afford it right now!


Why shouldn't we press the point that the conservatives hold crazy views? Justice Scalia has said that the First Amendment does not protect the non-believer! He does not accept the concept of freedom of conscience! His pal on the Supreme Court Thomas has said that the "establishment clause" does not apply to the states! And, that every state can establish its own state church!!

Surely, you can find someone guilty by association too! I'm not talking about casual association, but about building alliances, bridges of support, and forming public policy. Mr. Giuliani has to be held accountable for accepting the support of Pat Robertson. The label reverend can be easily obtained but this should not deflect criticism, nor should it bestow any more legitimacy on anyone.

The reverend Falwell wanted to see an America without public schools, where the churches would take them over. He also said this: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen." Robertson concurred. Take that Rudy. God punished your city. God was behind the attacks on 9/11. Now, if this isn't lunacy, religious bigotry, ignorance, superstition, I don't know what it is.

This bigotry reveals itself in the overt effort to oppress homosexuals [insert any "deviancy" here]. In 2003, SCOTUS [Texas v. Lawrence] decriminalized private sexual conduct--as it should have. No state can punish consenting adults for what they do to each other. But, only a few years later, this view hangs on a 5-4 margin! In his dissent, Scalia [with Thomas concurring] said that people should be able to use the sense of tradition to criminalize all sexual behavior they deem offensive!!!! [and he's not talking only about homosexuality; NYU student questions Scalia]

We have the federal government mandating the teaching of religious dogma instead of science--i.e., birth control is bad, masturbation can lead to pregnancy, etc. President Bush asked the Pope to direct American Catholic priests to be more political in cases like same-sex marriage and abortion (rights). Religious charities have been funded by Bush and they spread misinformation. Contraception, family planning, the "morning after" pill [not an abortion], sex education, etc, have all been contorted to fit a particular religious dogma. And, in ..supermarket fashion, they pick what they like (or being told) while disregarding other passages from their holy book. Protect life from the moment two cells meet until birth, but after that, you're on your own!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus (allegedly?) said, "there's no justice if people have no shelter," and "there's no justice if people are hungry"? Did he add any qualifiers to this statement? I wonder...

The conservatives talk about limited government but their most popular leaders want to use the government to tell us how to live our own private lives. The next president must support the wall of separation. No Republican presidential candidate is for this! The Supreme Court's future depends on our decision in 2008. The next president should not be a religious preacher. The control of the US Senate is at stake too. Judge Bork had said that the 1st Amendment only applies to political speech (campaigns), and that we should "get over" our objection to school prayer. It was the widespread opposition and a Democratic Senate that prevented this extremist from serving on SCOTUS.

Both parties and all their candidates appeal to religious groups for support. Yet, they differ on what kind of judges we get on the federal courts. This, to me, is a clear choice--among the many that keep liberals and conservatives apart. You have to be partisan today if you want to have a realistic chance of maintaining a secular society where individual freedom of conscience is protected.

We have to be First Amendment patriots!


Footnote
* From Think Progress: The woman, who had been appealing her original sentence of 90 lashes, was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes after her appeal. The Saudi judges more than doubled the punishment for the victim because of “her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.” The Saudi Justice Ministry confirmed that the stiffer sentence handed out on appeal stemmed from the fact that the victim had gone to the media with her story. “Media may have adverse effects on the other parties involved in the case,” a statement said.

Editor's note 11/21: The victim met with a male friend (he was the "unrelated" male) when they were abducted by 7 men. Both were raped; she was 14 times. For her "crime" she was originally sentenced to 90 lashes! But, she had the audacity to challenge this punishment, appealed, spoke to the media, and that was offensive to the theocratic regime that keeps the country firmly in the 12th century. Horrors.

What a Commander-in-Chief Could Say to the Veterans and those Serving in our Armed Forces

As president Bush is making the rounds of Veteran hospitals and speaking about the meaning of Veteran's Day (11/11), I'm re-posting excerpts of a "speech" I drafted for a president who could speak honestly and would face reality--if he had the guts.

I see before me young men and women who represent the armed forces of this nation, and who have, in essence, pledged their lives to defend our country. I stand here as your Commander-in-Chief, yet I do understand that this title bestows me with a huge responsibility, not only toward you but also toward the United States of America. I have to make difficult decisions, but I will never commit our most precious resources, our blood, sweat and tears, without our country being in grave danger and before I carefully weigh the consequences of such an action. I will never lie to you and I will never ask you to make any sacrifice that I, myself, wouldn't be willing to make.

When our country must sacrifice, I will do my best to see that this burden is widely shared and not placed on the shoulders of the least privileged of our society. I will not allow such a situation to become a way to transfer more wealth to the few, especially when this would result in mortgaging the future of the many. If sacrifice we must, then the pain must be more equitably distributed. It's only fair. Patriotism isn't defined by big talk & long speeches, waving of the flag, and saluting the veterans.

I know that many of you chose a military career because of the benefits offered by the military: the professional training & the skills, the health care benefits, the signing bonuses, etc. I realize that for many of you the military offers opportunities not available to you otherwise. I'm not trying to devalue your commitment to and your love for the country. On the contrary! You all have families, friends, neighbors, our democracy, and our way of life to defend. We are very much indebted to you. I have instructed our recruiters never to lie to you, no false pretenses and promises. And, when you sign up, you should know that your country will never let you down.

Without you, the rest of us wouldn't be able to survive in a hostile world. So, again, we thank you for your commitment, and I promise you to do whatever I can to give you all the necessary means to perform your job. I won't send you into combat without the proper equipment and training. I won't lie to you about our objectives and the reasons for placing you in harm's way. There will be casualties--that's a dire consequence of war. But, I will make sure that all of our injured personnel will get the best medical treatment and their health benefits will never be reduced. The same goes for the families of those killed in action. It's the least we can do for the ultimate sacrifice that so many fighting men & women have done for us.

Yet, a war should be the last resort. We are a powerful country but our strength hasn't relied only on the might of our armed forces. Our strength derives from the strength of the American character, our freedom & tolerance, our diversity, our technology, our culture, our scientific progress, and our democratic way of life. The American experience and the reality of the frontier, even the violent struggles for civil rights, the many peoples who came to our shores to pursue their dreams of a better life... All these, I believe, made us good people, not perfect but always improving. That's progress. We can't turn back! We've endured many trials and tribulations, but like the Revolutionary soldiers at Valley Forge, we marched ahead and blazed our own trails... and we became the envy of the world. We made mistakes aplenty, like every other nation. We accept the responsibility with the promise to look forward with the urgency to keep building a better world for us, and for our children. We should remain the leaders not by military power alone but because we command respect for our worthwhile achievements and the values for which we stand.



My original post and the complete "speech" here
Photos by Associated Press; WaPo front page, Feb. 18, 2007

The Health of a Nation

Impressions often matter more than the facts, and the mistake many progressives make is not to take seriously the conservatives' ridiculous arguments. My advice has been to respond immediately and forcefully. "I won't dignify this remark with a response" is not a good strategy. Even if someone says the earth is flat, we should take the opportunity to inform the public on the facts, but also--and most importantly--to illustrate the connection of the flat-earth believers to ignorance.

Many people don't have the time, energy, or the skills to connect the dots. The so-called "independent voters"--defined as those without strong party ID--are less informed, and can have wild voting patterns. They often decide close elections. Don't they? Haven't we seen Democrats going down in defeat because they underestimated the Willie Horton ads, the swift-boaters, etc.? The impressions created by the campaigns and the failure to provide a prompt response is what carries the day, and, unfortunately, the election.

There is this saying, where there's smoke, there's a fire! Don't respond (or, respond smartly) and you let your opponent frame the issue, including the choice of language. Your opponent defines you. Then it's an uphill battle to change the public's perceptions. There's also a perverse element here: most people don't want to be changing their minds too often; they don't have the constitution to re-evaluating issues and revising their views; they want also to appear consistent!

There's an issue very important to me, that of health care coverage for all Americans. I can't accept that the wealthiest country in the world cannot insure all of its people whereas so many other countries do. This is an issue that a Democratic president will deal with. And, yes, we liberals have to be partisan today in order to see progressive politics in our country. For goodness' sake, we're still debating what science is in this 21st America, because the lunatic fringe is not marginal here!

So, when Mitt Romney describes universal health care as "socialized medicine" and when Giulliani says he had much better chance of surviving prostate cancer in the US than in Britain, we have to respond with the facts and connect those persons to either ignorance or deception!

It's not hard to make comparisons. Indeed it's our obligation to destroy the misconceptions and the misleading advertising that will certainly follow any attempt to reform the health care system. We're talking about human lives here. We have to show that people who have access to health care are (duh) healthier! Prevention and early detection save lives. It should be easy to draw a comparison between the foreign enemies that want to kill Americans [and have already] and the causes that claim far more lives here at home. Many of those lost lives can be saved.

I believe that most Americans do care about their fellow human beings and would be willing to re-allocate our resources to create a better society. Of course we have to start being smarter about our politics too! Elections do have consequences! Similarly, when any leader makes unqualified arguments, he shouldn't be left unchallenged. When, for example, Bush vetoes the S-CHIP [health care coverage for middle class children--those in families earning more than the poverty level but not enough to purchase health insurance] because as he said "it's too expensive", we have to remind him that we spend as much as 6 weeks in Iraq!

Same for the GOP's front-runner and his argument about having better chances of survival here that in GB. Not so! Paul Krugman (NY Times 11/2/07) calls his bluff. You know what? We should ask our pompous leaders and those aspiring presidents: How can you enjoy the best health care coverage and treatment when 46 million of Americans don't and may die prematurely because of this?!!
You, Mr. President, got your colon examined and a pre-cancerous condition detected. You, Mr. Giulliani, were cured because you had the access key. But, how about the rest of us? Which terror is more threating? Really...

The American Cancer Society recently launched a campaign to push for early detection [and for universal access to such health services] because many cancer deaths can be reduced by 50%. That's reducing the death rate by half! Now, this is a sensible approach.

I understand that it's hard to show people something unpleasant. It feels good to be special & superior. But, some illusions are dangerous if they perpetuate a bad reality. Assuming we have the best medicine in the world, does this translate in better health care for most Americans? Lower infant mortality rate? Better cure & survival rates for the sick? Less pain & suffering?... And, all this while we're spending more than any other country!

How about education? Consumer protection? Or, is the role of the government to bail out big business and to re-allocate our national wealth to the top tier? What do we really want our government to do?

These are some questions that we need to provide answers to, but before we do this, we must raise these questions. We have better arguments, I believe, and most Americans do hold "liberal values" regarding the role of government. We cannot allow our national dialog to sink to the lowest possible common denominator. We'd be doing a disservice to our country. But, this doesn't mean we should shy away from exposing hypocrisy, ignorance, and deception. Don't fall for the trap, "avoid negative politics!" The Republicans have played this game brilliantly.

So what if the truth has a ..liberal bias?!!

The Torturous Position of the Attorney General-Nominee

Why should we care about a bunch of terrorists and enemy combatants?

Well, how could Michael Mukasey answer to the senators' questions whether water boarding is torture? The United States prosecuted several Japanese interrogators in WWII for employing such a method on our own troops. Rather recently, we did the same to prison guards in Texas.

Thus, water boarding is torture by any reasonable (legal or non) definition. I place emphasis on reasonable, because there are those like John Woo and his mentor, Alberto Gonzales, who tried to re-define torture as actions that can lead to death or major organ failure. In other words, water boarding, pulling one's fingernails (or cutting fingers off), etc., is not torture.

If Mukasey agrees that water boarding is indeed torture then what should he do when he becomes the country's Attorney General?.... [suggestion: go after those who broke the law!]

On PBS, Bill Moyers Journal, there was an interesting discussion recently. Check it out here.

Meanwhile, the Bush government has refused to answer unequivocally whether this method has been used, several officials, including the CIA chief, have said that water boarding has been used--and it's not a bad thing, they say, when it's used against bad people during times of crisis.... Hmmm

"Waterboarding is torture. Torture is unacceptable. Period.
If Michael Mukasey won't stand up to President Bush and tell him that, then he doesn't deserve to be Attorney General."

Senator E. Kennedy, opposing Mukasey's confirmation. [read the senator's statement here]

From a State of Nature to an Enlightened Society: Democracy Won't Survive if the People Aren't Involved. Let's Put our Ideas into Good Use!

part 2/2

Ideas are very powerful because they help form beliefs and motivate people to action. So, it's not a fruitless exercise to think, re-think, revise, and learn by observation. It's good and necessary! However, this activity takes a bit of courage since it may uncover truths that could make you uncomfortable. Once I asked myself whether my need to know is greater than my fears. The answer was, if there's something I should know, then I do want to know. Granted, we often don't have all the facts, but that's life. We make decisions using the best available data and by employing logic. How good our data and our logic are impacts the outcome. But that's why it's very important to keep the dialogue going. A strong theory is one that leaves room for amendment. Closed, de-facto, divine, or absolute theories are just baseless opinions, and not theories in the scientific sense.

Our world is a complex one, fast-moving, and ever-changing. Change for the sake of change is a foolish thing, but progressive change is necessary. A true conservative is a traditionalist who prefers the "true & tried" to the unknown. The resistance to the pace of modernity may be due to his inability to make sense of the new quickly enough. The sense of identity rooted in the past is being challenged by modernity and, yes, cosmopolitanism. Being "special" means to have some kind of exclusivity, and thus humans have shun others--especially those who believe in other gods, dress, speak, behave differently. Traditional culture to a great extend is repetition. Nationalism is similar to providing exclusivity and special status. An offshoot of this is nativism--which has been present as long as immigration to this country.

Liberals tend to be persons who welcome and can cope with change. They're more likely to be risk-takers, more tolerant, inquisitive, to explore what's beyond the horizon, and use a rational approach. Progressives always looks to improve society. We accept the scientific inquiry and the scientific method. Most of us like the ideas of Locke, Kant, Mill, et al, but we don't accept dogma and absolutism. In present-day US politics, we have to be partisan as the Republican party with its neo-cons, prudes, religious fanatics, authoritarians, anti-science (and proud of) views, power-grabbers, and non-democrats, is beyond hope.

A liberal democracy offers the best chance for the individual to reach self-fulfillment because of the rights it confers upon every person and for the opportunities if affords. Democracy cannot exist without the demos (the people) and without opportunity! Regrettably, we are in danger of losing our grasp on the political system that has made our country great. When others were struggling with authoritarian, backward systems, the US was pushing ahead. We had the best of the three Tees! Technology, Talent, and Tolerance. We're not as good as we used to be, at least not in relative terms vis-a-vi the rest of the world.

The Gilded Age has return and the income (wealth) inequality is as great as it was some 100 years ago. The stock market is going up but real wages have stagnated since the 1970s. We have to ask, what's the benefit of having such a huge economy that produces so much wealth if the distribution of wealth is absurd! Wealth is being accumulated by the very tiny elite at the very top. I think this is not healthy for a society, nor do I think it's good business. We know that power & wealth are closely related.

If the American middle class doesn't receive most of the wealth, power will also accumulate to the very top of the economic elites. And, all socio-economic elites want more and use their means to that effect. This situation is not good for us. Unless we act today, it may be too late tomorrow, or, it we may have to go through a traumatic shock.

Being rewarded for one's efforts is a moral thing--I agree with Adam Smith on this. But, no one achieves everything by himself. He usually stands on the shoulders of others. The self-made successful business people depend on the resources & the conditions that exist. They do not operate in the vacuum of space! Public transportation, educated work force, police, fire, EMT, the armed forces, and the law that secures their property are some of the benefits this country provides.

What should the benefits be for being a member of such a rich country? Is health care, for example, a right or a privilege? And--if I may push it a bit further--we can't analyze everything on a profit basis. Certain things aren't supposed to be profitable, like public libraries, national parks, etc. But, they are necessary for the quality of our lives.

Unless the majority of Americans start to pay more attention to what's going on, and are willing to participate in the affairs of our country, then the situation is going to get worse. This is an investment all of us should make. I think many Americans haven't realized this as yet. They sense that it's a good thing to live in this country--and it is! But, this is not enough, nor it's the result of divine order. It took many years of effort and leadership. The genius of the Founders was this: to create a system that allowed popular participation, minority rights, separation of church-state, economic opportunity, and it provided a way to amend it as the country moved through the centuries.

I don't believe our democracy will continue to function if we're to rest upon the achievements of the past and the occasional wise leadership that may come along. I think people's participation is necessary today more than ever. But, the people have to know enough to make reasonable decisions. We can't afford leaders like Bush any more--not in the highest leadership offices of the land anyway. We don't have another grace period; we have to hit the ground running.

I'm an optimist, but also a realist. I know that for all the hoopla, the necessity for reversing the present disastrous course, and the excitement of electing the next leader of the free world, etc, only a small percentage of US citizens will show up to vote in the months to come. How small you ask? Well, in our first contest in Iowa, only 6 to 10% of eligible voters will vote!

Americans may dislike their politics, they may find the political process unappealing, and definitely complicated. On the other hand, they still believe that "we're number one!" In the past, we looked around the world and we compared favorably. But, look how the world has changed since. Even totally destroyed countries (Germany, Japan) have rebounded.

I think the dissatisfaction hasn't reached the tipping point yet. It may come sooner than later and it may produce another wave that will bring a new New Deal. The "great middle"--the middle class ever so important to a stability of a country--is not gaining as much as the corporations. Now the latter are not only getting exceedingly preferential treatment but are increasingly capturing our government! Public services--once thought to be a main reason to have a government--are disappearing, being outsourced to corporations whose main concern (and obligation) is to make money, often by denying services! [such as the case with the health insurance companies]

We're privatizing our own government. Profit is good. Wealth is desirable. However, we have to create & maintain conditions for a good life; to keep a country where a progressive culture of life prevails. Creating wealth has to be done smartly not with savagery. For example, if you're in the business of logging in a competitive unregulated environment, then you cut down the last remaining tree standing! In the end, you're out of business (if rich) and all of us suffer. There's got to be a sane, more practical way than this approach.

Who's to care for the commonwealth then? If not the citizens, who? There's no one else but us.... Benevolent dictators are no more; hopefully, we've matured enough to assume responsibility for ourselves; to confer high offices to capable leaders who won't stroke our passions but motivate us to make the world a better place to live in. We cannot afford not to be people of the Enlightenment.

An Obscure Question: Is this an Age of Englightment, or an Enlightning Age? [or, are philosophical meanderings totally boring & impractical?]

Part 1

Yes, I know, most of the visitors to this blog today just said, "I'll be back later," after reading this post's title! it's OK, I still want to talk about ideas and their practical necessity in our world. Certainly, it's a good exercise to ponder ideas, to think in the abstract and connect the imaginary dots. On the other hand, I find that the world of ideas (hence, philosophy) is a very powerful one. Haven't humans done beautiful and horrible acts alike because of ideas? Often, it doesn't matter if an impression or an idea is based on fact or fiction, it gives a reason for action. It justifies, pacifies, soothes, excites, and provides a sense of identity.

The clash between the ancient religion and Christianity was inevitable [photo from the Agora in Athens with a byzantine church in the foreground]

The values we hold are based on ideas too! Culture evolved because of certain concepts about life and the perceived necessary conditions for human survival. God originated as an idea, and religion was the result of what people thought [most people were told and believed as de facto] of the practical application of the divine.

Faith provided a path to salvation and physical immortality. Unfortunately, religious ideas haven't been very compatible with each other and frequently they operated in a zero-sum game, where it was believed that the survival of one meant the death of the other. So, for much of human history religion played an important role in war and the reasons for going to war.

I'm not concerned with the supernatural [not today in this post anyway] but with how a range of philosophical observations help explain and challenge human behavior. Philosophy becomes very real and applicable when an empirical approach is used. You observe, analyze, form conclusions & theories, and revise as necessary. It's a rather scientific approach. I like that. It's a great medium for humans to evolve upon. The challenging part is also very important, because it can provide fresh ideas and methods of improvement. But, I think only enlightened persons who value inquiry and are brave enough to face reality are comfortable with such a challenge.

The good news is that this elite club doesn't have membership fees, nor other requirements except an open, skeptical, deliberate mind--oh, and probably an interest for such exercises of the mind. With all the amenities and the benefits of a modern society, life isn't always easy, time & energy are limited, and our focus can wane into the trivial.

Jeremy Bentham a "philosophical radical" [radical during his time] said that humans have two masters: pleasure and pain, and, therefore, behave accordingly. These two "masters" can be used as a guideline for human interaction and for deciding on the role of government. He said, government should have the purpose of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although, there are those who seek pain either for ..satisfaction or as a required means to an end, most people do prefer pleasure. Thus, a logical question would be, what is pleasure?

One of my favorite philosophers, John Stuart Mill, said it should be the individual who decides what constitutes pleasure; the same individual should be free to construct his own path to personal fulfillment. Mill put forth the Harm principle--which is very useful in deciding matters of privacy and public interest. The only acceptable reason for society to control individual behavior is to prevent harm to others. The individual's own good--either moral or physical--is not a sufficient warrant! This, of course, applies to people who are mature adults, not to children or to ..barbarians. In short, there's a personal definition of pleasure! In order to have that, rights of privacy are imperative.

We are who we are because of the environment we grow up in, our own efforts to enrich ourselves, accidental circumstances (luck), and availability of time & space to be ourselves. If the conditions of freedom and privacy change, then human character changes. I believe a liberal democracy offers the best possible conditions for the individual to fulfill his own potential. If this country is about property rights, let's not forget that you should own & be in charge of yourself.


But, shouldn't the light of reason prevail? As Immanuel Kant once asked, is this an age of enlightenment or an enlightening age? It's probably the latter. If we are to look around the world today many humans are hell-bent on total annihilation and destruction of reason and anything else that stands between them and their utopias. For a species, we are young and still primitive--although we have taken huge leaps of progress and we do have the greatest potential. If we allow ourselves to evolve that is.

One important act of maturity--or, in the process of getting there--is acting. Yes, observing and experiencing life can have a maturing effect, but taking the initiative and making choices is vital. A person should be an actor, not just part of a passive audience. That's why the conditions that foster freedom must be maintained, for freedom in this sense is a practical necessity!

We are creatures of convenience. Why not! But, there are a few things worth spending some time & effort on. Right? Convenience and laziness aren't identical. Thinking--critical and deliberate--is one worthwhile activity I reckon. Making decisions and assuming responsibility is hard too. At times we all want to regress to being children so we don't have to deal with life's adversities and demands. This is not a mature approach though. Sadly, too many modern humans are quite happy to remain in perpetual immaturity and let others make the decisions for them; it's much easier that way they reckon.

Those who have a choice, (usually those who live in a liberal democracy), have to answer a couple very important questions: Is it a worthwhile activity to lead an examined life? And, is it important to contribute a little bit to the conditions that foster human enlightenment?

[to be continued]

Is Impeaching Bush & Cheney the Best Way to Prevent Another War Against Iran?

Lately, there’s much talk about the possibility of Bush ordering a strike on Iran. People close to the president and other conservatives (some of those ‘geniuses’ also give advice to the White House) have been mulling the option of “limited air strikes” against Iran’s weapons of mass destruction. Conservative shills in the media are repeating the same rhetoric of few years ago—they’re just substituting the “q” for an “n” today.

The New Yorker’s Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has a very interesting article on this very topic, titled, Shifting Targets.

Hersh notes:

“The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.”

As to the lack of popular support for another war against Iran, well, this is a problem, although not an insurmountable one. For starters, it’s not beyond this administration’s modus operati to manufacture an “incident” and/or “evidence” pointing to Iran; an agressive action that poses an imminent danger to us. The baiting game has already started. But, I don’t think this is even necessary. For leaders like Bush who have lost almost all political credibility there’s one last hurrah that they think might help them. After all, they’re not running for re-election, and, if the current Republican presidential field remains in a morose state—with a predictable outcome in the 2008 elections—then one more restraining element from Bush’s options will be removed.

President Bush will go down as a very bad president (possibly the worst); and, he’s aware of this, despite telling us that history will eventually vindicate him. Now, what’s left for him (and leaders in similar predicaments) but to remain stubborn and maintain a façade of principled conviction? Actually, there’s this other option, a last-chance for turning things around. That is, to bet everything he’s got left hoping the roulette of war will be kind to him. That’s why the possibility of another serious conflict is a good possibility. In a perverted sense, only something extraordinarily spectacular may save his legacy. Obviously I don't think there's such a chance, but delusional persons think differently. Of course, a war with Iran will be another very bad choice. But, bad choices and incompetence is a trademark of this administration.

The war in Iraq has indeed produced winners, namely Iran and AlQeda. Everything the neocons and several airheads in the so-called liberal media told us about Iraq was wrong, wrong, wrong! At which point, I wonder, the experts should stop being ..experts when all their predictions are wrong? [check the sidebar for a video clip about such predictions] Are we suffering from a short-memory syndrome?

Iran has a very reactionary, Old Regime-type leadership, but as a country has a rather progressive populace as compared to the rest of the countries in that region. Iran has a very young population, the majority under 30 years old, who doesn’t like the regime of the mullahs. Tehran was the only place in the Near/Middle East where there was a public demonstration in sympathy to the victims of 9-11. Did you notice something similar elsewhere over there? On the contrary!

Yet, the moment there’s an American boot on Iranian soil or a bomb falls there, all bets are off for political transformation. The radicalization will be immense; the ayatollahs will remain in power for another generation, and terrorism will get a boost. Read more on this in a article by Katrina Vanden Heuvel in the Nation (on line).

Thus, the question is what to do here. My suggestion is that the Democrats attack this problem at its root. Expose Bush for what he’s thinking of doing and the reasons for such foolish action. De-funding the war [already the majority of Americans are either for partial or complete defunding] in Iraq is a good starting point. Congress has to assume a bigger role. The American people now understand that this administration is incapable of a liability. Fool or ignorant, equally dangerous.

I was not in favor of impeachment, because I thought it’d be a distraction, would require too much time & energy while, with the present composition in the US Senate, it would never succeed. However, I’m beginning to change my mind. Not because impeaching Bush & Cheney would succeed in removing them from office, but if this is going to prevent them from further damaging our country by attacking Iran, then it’s worth it. Keep a tight leash on these two. Our constitution provides for such checks. I hope Congress is up for it, though not holding my breath on this one. It takes political courage to be a leader, but courage without prudence is rather ineffective.

Let’s not forget that this is a very critical moment in our history. I’m not evaluating this from a sentimental view of how history will judge us. Reality check: high death toll, bloodshed, pain & suffering, spending insane amount of money. This is what's been happening in the last few years. We can’t afford to allow Bush to make another huge mistake, compound our problems, and possibly dig such a big hole that we won't be able to climb out of it.

What a Relief... "No Gays in Iran," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President Tells the World. Who's Next?

Now that the president of Iran has spoken at Columbia University and later at the UN's General Assembly, I feel vindicated that sometimes it's worthwhile to give a public forum to persons like him. Why not? What are we afraid of? The appeal of his demagogy? His radiant personality, or the power of his arguments?

The absurdities, even offensive, should be made public so people can judge for themselves. Of course, after a point--when everybody knows about the nature of the speaker and his/her arguments--we should find better things to do with out time instead of paying attention to Ahmadinejads, Coulters, and O'Reillys--just to name a few wingnuts.

On the other hand, it's sad that so many modern humans fall for all that garbage uttered by such wackos. The latter would irrelevant if they were largely ignored. In an open, tolerant society, democracy is good, but it can't exist without the commitment and responsibility of its citizens. And, you know, having a critical mind helps a lot!

The Iranian president's visit to Columbia was important. We demonstrate that we value free speech, while we still can challenge bigotry and other fallacies of the mind. If we (and I believe we do) have better arguments for having a liberal democracy instead of the islamist authoritarian government of Mr. Ahmadinejad, then we shouldn't be afraid of engaging our adversaries. A liberal democracy allows for individual freedom (including personal life-style choices), for separation of church & state, and for open debate in the marketplace of ideas.

A couple centuries ago, liberalism began to replace the Old Regime in the western world. The Old Regime [the old way of organizing human societies] had two main characteristics: Religious conformity and ascribed status. Religious conformity meant serious trouble for those of a different faith, or, more accurately, those of a different sect. There was no separation of church/state. Ascribed status meant nobility not mobility. Every person was born in a particular station in society and remained there from cradle to grave. The "special people" ruled by divine right, and even society was thought to be divinely ordained. The elites for obvious reasons perpetuated this scheme. The Church, already holding a privileged position, told the masses that, if they behaved in a certain way, their rewards would come in the ..future, after death!

Fortunately, liberalism, bolstered by the Enlightenment and Newtonian science, offered an alternative: a society with conditions that gave the individual the best chances to achieve his/her own bliss; opportunities to a better self-fulfillment. It was also a more successful model for prosperity as societies that organized themselves on the principles of liberalism flourished.

The other important aspect of liberalism is that it accommodates progress. From the scientific reasoning & method, to an ever-changing (and hopefully) improving society. It fosters the conditions that allow people to be creative, to think for themselves, to inquiry about the world, to challenge old "divine" notions about human nature, purpose of life, and even the nature of God (or the absence thereof).

However, the Old Regime has not disappeared. It exists in Mr. Ahmadinejad's Iran and in many other countries in this 21st century. Unfortunately, it also has many supporters in the US. OK, they don't want an islamist state here, but if you changed this word to Christian theocracy, it'd fit nicely. Just watch the O'Reillys, the Robertsons/Falwells, etc, etc, etc, and the millions of Americans who believe this crap. Yes, it's worrisome that the majority of Americans (US) believe that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in their life time! [read: end of the world as we know it]

While we condemn the brutality and the bigotry of people like Ahmadinejad, we should be more vigilant in protecting and enhancing our liberal democracy here at home. Lead by example, not just by rhetoric. That's why we cannot afford to be tourists in our own country. The quality of our democracy depends on the quality of people involved in it.

Even people in parts of the globe that don't have anything near to what we have here can see that human dignity and a quality of life has a better chance in a liberal democracy than under Big Brother. Not every person will readily accept a system that allows challenges and requires responsibility, but more and more people see the advantages of such. For example, the Eastern Bloc countries were rocked by revolutions some 15 years ago as their citizens realized that "their enemies" had better lives! The "peoples' government" had failed to provide while it required total obedience and sacrifices. Those governments had the monopoly of power, the monopoly of truth, while brutally suppressing their people and anything else they didn't like.

When and if [since the Iranian president told us there aren't such persons in his country] the first homosexuals, infidels, dissenters of all stripes appear in Iran, the liberal democracies can be a beacon of freedom that lies on the other side of their fence. Maybe, then, there will be some hope for progressive change and a path to a better life. Because, hope for a better world is a great motivator.




UPDATE, 9/28/07
Wait, maybe Ahmadinejad has now found some gays in Iran! Until he takes care of this ..problem, and for accurancy's sake, he removed the following denial of homosexual presence: "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don't know who has told you that we have it," from the official transcript.

The Millennial Generation has Progressive Politics in Mind

School has started and, as it happens in my classes, we get to discuss current events and the important issues facing our country. There are some worrisome signs and some encouraging ones. Worrisome in the sense that people in fear or in crisis may react in ways that actually change those conditions (or the reasons) that made our country great. This new generation is not immune from this threat. For example, there isn't an urgency (as much as I'd like to see anyway) regarding the incremental intrusions into our civil liberties by our government in the name of national security. Young people, by definition, haven't had the experiences of the past, thus, serious abuses [like the interment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry, the McCarthy witch-hunts, etc.] haven't been felt, while the current ones haven't sank in yet.

Yet, over all, I think the millennium (or millennial) generation--those who come of age at the cusp of the new century--is probably more promising than the one that preceded it.

Every generation has to deal with important issues and big challenges, but this one is marked by the "war on terror" which includes the attacks on 9-11, and the Bush presidency. I believe that the country made a terrible mistake by giving power to this small man--most likely the worst president in US history--because the bad policies of his administration will haunt this & future generations. It was a missed opportunity for America to start the new millennium on the right path and sensible plans for the future. Instead, the new president will have no margin for error in foreign & domestic policies. It seems that every generation, 25 years or so, the US does something really stupid. It's up to the millennials not to repeat the mistakes of the past.


The younger people tend to have more progressive attitudes; the Democrats may benefit from this trend.

I do think that our politics is equally dominated by personalities as much as people's party affiliation and ideology. However, the basic core ideological tenets--or, if you like, the pursued public policies--as expressed by our two major political groups Democrats & Republicans. The Democratic agenda has found a wider acceptance among the younger (under 30) US citizens.

Take a look at the chart [produced by Democracy Corps; its site has more info], and check out the Harvard Institute of Politics polling data [here, in pdf]. If you want to read more about the so-called millennials at the New Politics Institute, go here. [includes a pdf download on the progressive attitudes of younger Americans]

This millennial generation is trending away from the Republican party. As things stand today in the presidential field, the Republican candidates couldn't be farther from the core preferences of this generation. Of course, the Republican primary voters are a different beast, so the candidates obviously reflect this sentiment over all. Although, even within the broader Republican base, the presidential candidates are out of touch when it comes to ending the failed occupation in Iraq.

Several conservatives have replied that younger people always tend to be more radical until they ..grow up. I don't subscribe to this theory. People can change their minds at any time--depending on the circumstances, life experiences, availability of leadership, etc. However, certain core beliefs are formed rather earlier in a person's life. If, say, people under 30 believe that same-sex marriage is OK, I don't see why they'd change their mind and support all those laws denying same rights to every American. Likewise, for a host of other issues, i.e., the environment, heath care, education, etc. We also know that if a person votes for a particular political party 3 times or more before he/she's 30, they stay with this party in the years to come.

Next year, the Millennial voters will be 50 million. By 2016, they'll be 1/3 of the electorate. I am a liberal-progressive not because I happened to pick a team and sticking with it, but because it makes sense. Many of the issues we're facing today could be easily solved if more people used sense and an analytical mind instead of following their ..gut. Wanting to believe in something [yeah, we've all been there.... Remember failed relationships?] when all evidence pointed to the opposite direction, or, when people just accept something that makes them feel good without any supporting evidence.

Anyway, the bottom line: there's ground for optimism, much of it comes from the signs that Millenials are civic-minded, politically engaged, and hold values long associated with progressives, such as concern about economic inequalities, smarter & multilateral foreign policy, and that government can be an instrument for a fairer society. [from the New Politics Institute]

“Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you’ve got about a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies — ‘God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.’ ” Kurt Vonnegut

Six Years after 9-11-01. Liberty Still Under Attack from Fear & Absolutism

The Duty of a Patriot

General Petraeus, Are you going to have another "Powell moment"? Are you going to be like EPA Chief Christie Whitman regarding the safety of air at Ground Zero? Are you going to be like CIA "slam-dunk" chief Tenet?

[Editor's note: posted a few hours before Patraeus's report is made public.]

AND THE ANSWER IS: No need for a drum roll, because there's no surprise here... Read Patraeus's song & dance here.

Who Buys & Dispenses Crap? [When should we stop listening to those who've been wrong about everything?]

“I have asked Don to join the distinguished group of scholars that will pursue new insights on the direction of thinking that the United States might consider going forward.” Director John Raisian of the Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Again, it doesn't matter if one's dismal analytical skills, whereas his predictions and implementation of policy are all utter failures. Name recognition, rabid-fan loyalty, and a certain audience's willingness to buy crap & stupidity are more important virtues in our world.

“Rumsfeld will serve on a task force of scholars and experts who will focus on issues pertaining to ‘ideology and terror,’ the conservative think tank announced Friday in a press release.”

Here are some of Rumsfeld's high points... [from Think Progress]

– Compared Iraq war critics to Hitler appeasers and Stalinists
– Called Iraq war critics “quitters” who “blame America first” and “cannot stomach a tough fight”
– Claimed insurgent violence increases “in the spring, summer and fall months”
– Warned terrorists were carrying out violence because they wanted a change in leadership here in the U.S.
– Said war critics were manipulated by bin Laden’s "media committees"

UPDATE, 9/9
It irks me that persons like William Kristol still get to peddle their "expertise." He just said that "we're winning the war in Iraq"! Now, he's either delusional, or just saying what people want to hear. Or, that he's a White House shill--just like Judith Miller (formely) of the NY Times. Do you remember when the White House was saying that even the NYT reports support the administration's policy in Iraq? Except that those reports & lies were being fed to Miller by sources in the WH!

So, Kristol may be expressing the intent of the WH to maintain at least 100,000 troops in Iraq until this president leaves office! He expresses the neocon argument that the only way the US can lose in Iraq is by "cut & run"!!!! Ridiculous, simply ridiculous. But, that's the plan today, and the Congressional Dems are not standing up firmly against Bush and cut the funding for the continuation of this failed expedition/occupation in Iraq.

Sure, there's progress in Iraq, some people are telling us. Look, they say, violence is down. Really? Hmm. Upon closer inspection, we found out that the military doesn't count the deaths from violence within the religious sects, or anyone shot in the head, etc!!!! Honestly, I'm not making this up.

Asking the right question

CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer said this morning that one of the lessons we learned from Vietnam “is that we were asking the wrong question” to our generals. “When we have to ask, are we winning? we’re probably losing. Victory is always obvious,” he said.

"Instead of that question, let’s hope the general will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money?"

I've often made this point in various posts here. When we're told, "stay the course," it doesn't mean we stick with a minor inconvenience. It means that many more deaths at great expense. It's too costly and there's no good end in sight. No matter what we do in Iraq, the killings there will continue--and it's been our fault since we were the ones to take the heavy lid that had kept things relatively quiet. Our ship has run aground, it's taking in water, people are dying, and our captain is delusional. There's no progress forward. Too late for such a thing. And, we're making more enemies than we can kill. As long as we maintain a presence in Iraq, we're an attractive target there, and we help our enemies get stronger. [not to mention the resources we can better use elsewhere & more wisely]

Sen. J. Biden (D-DE) makes some good points on Meet the Press (9/9/07) regarding the situation in Iraq. He preempts Gen. Petraeus who will present a better, but wrong, picture of Iraq in his report tomorrow (9/10). FACT: Every month this year we've had more casualties than the same month last year! Watch the video.

Dying in a Terrorist Attack Makes you a Hero. Dying from Your Government's Neglect & Incompetence Puts you on a Waiting List (maybe)

As long as we pursue stupid policies, more people will die from our own negligence than terrorists will ever kill.

One last gasp of summer before its semi-official end, on the Labor Day weekend. A new school year is upon us; this young 110 Congress (with many very old people in it) comes back in session with the Dems in charge but not in command. The Supremes will start a little later, in October, and I pray to ..Zeus that John Paul Stevens makes it another year on SCOTUS. Personally, I feel the excitement of having a new batch of students and a couple new classes to teach, and I do feel good that I'm able to do a few things I really like. I don't know if it's the best approach, but I often say that I'm fortunate not to live in wretched conditions that so many billions of humans experience in this 21st century.

Just two years ago, we witnessed the horrible scenes from the Gulf states, notably New Orleans, LA. We shouldn't forget the deplorable response of our government to this disaster. Today, president Bush is asking for another $50 billion to pay for a few weeks' worth of a wasting war overseas--the total cost will soon surpass the trillion dollar mark. Don't tell me that we couldn't have invested this money more wisely--including making America safer through improving the living conditions domestically and internationally; I can think of many ways, smarter ways to spend our national resources. For instance, it'd take 1/5 of Bush's latest request to eradicate malaria in Africa for one year.

Any aid to foreign lands that actually improves the human condition it is in the best interest of the US. We can't kill enough terrorists faster than they're being made, often by our own actions. Being tough and powerful is good only if such are wisely used. Good deeds and good will are more effective than bullets in the long run. And, I'd guess cheaper too.

Obviously it's not only about money, but also of priorities. For example, we spend the most than any other country (percentage of GDP) on healthcare while we leave 45 million [their numbers larger than many countries] uninsured and many more under-insured. Most personal bankruptcies are due to overwhelming medical expenses, and most of those are from people who do have some kind of health insurance.

The scenes [often witnessed in underdeveloped countries] from New Orleans two years ago revealed an unpleasant truth about the US--a reality we have to face if we're to make progress. We should begin by carefully examining our national priorities. But, we all need to pay more attention and demand accountability from our leaders who we should elect after serious consideration. Elections have consequences, and it's a serious duty of every citizen to participate in the affairs of his/her nation.

The conservatives often said that they wanted to shrink the government so much that it could drown in a bathtub. In reality what they've done under the current regime is to shrink the social services (like cutting S-CHIP) while increasing the size & scope of Big Brother! Spending money on a war of (bad) choice, while transferring wealth to the top-tier income bracket. No, we need health insurance, we need libraries, we need a good public transportation system, we need access to education, we need consumer protection, we need national parks, we need clean environment, etc.

I think we have our priorities all screwed up, and we often fall into the trap that we can't afford all those goodies. Well, let's see where the money goes, including the wealth that's shifted through tax policy. Let's have an honest debate about it. I understand that not every person has the same priorities, but I'm willing to bet that most Americans, given the facts, would not vote for a politician who promises to vote for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, while he also votes to build a bridge to nowhere for several hundred millions of dollars. What's more important, having true family values, like health insurance for kids & parents, or conducting unnecessary wars every 25 years on false pretenses?

The list goes on... Life too, if you're lucky!



PS. One year ago, I wrote another post on the anniversary of Katrina. It contains interesting facts about, and reactions to that disaster. Here is the link.

Is Carl Rove the Mother Teresa of US Politics? [editor's note: the testimony to his miracles have commenced...Sainthood to follow]

Scene One. Ext.-The White House. VO: Bush's Brain has just left the building.... Dick remains to finish job!

It seems that, at least in the public domain, credibility, accolades, popularity, acceptance, image, attention, etc, often have nothing to do with what a revered person has actually done in his life. If you stay around long enough, you're in the public eye [read: any publicity], there'll always be millions of admirers who want to rub shoulders with you and add to your fame by going hysterical over you.

When a person exits [pick any scenario here], there's also the tendency to mostly remember the good deeds while exaggerating the achievements. It's the Mother Teresa phenomenon--whereas mainly facilitating (a Catholic) death can lead to sainthood! Do you see this being repeated?

Carl Rove--also known as "Bush's brain,"and an "architect" of the neo-conservative wave that screwed up our country-- is leaving this failed administration. I say, good riddance! On the other hand, I wouldn't mind Rove staying and designing strategy for the 2008 elections. Honestly, I would... judging from his brilliant takes on the 2006 Congressional elections. Not to mention what conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan said about Rove.

While the deification process is already going on (including by the so-called liberal media), there are few of us who are passing the vomit bucket around. Why? Because we think winning a few battles at any cost isn't always worth it. In other words, the ends don't necessarily justify the means. Yet, the latter seems to be the case here. You seriously divide the country, by injecting fanaticism and falsehoods to motivate your political base. When you don't really care for anything other than achieving and using power to benefit your own narrow political goals, then you are not performing a service to your country but to your own boss and your own exclusive socio-political tribe.

This is exactly what Rove did. But, especially in this White House, the rewards and appreciation don't come based on serving the commonwealth, but rather the ruling elite. We've seen so many others--very incompetent persons in high political offices--who were promoted, given medals, or left the government with "honors" for plush positions in the private sector.

As much as I dislike those individuals who abuse their power and public benefits--particularly when they're entrusted to act in the interest of the commonwealth--I also don't like those who supposedly try to appear above politics by pretending they give an opportunity to all sides to express all points of view... First, not all points of view carry the same weight or validity. Secondly, more often than not we don't have a free and informative forum where we discuss the important public issues.

Usually what happens in the media is about the same narrow interests who want to maintain those socio-economic relations in our country. Needless to say, the status quo (the prevailing conditions) favors, well, the status quo. I don't know if it's a human propensity to want to exaggerate the positive and minimize the negative, but when it comes to a public figure, I think, we need to carefully examine his/her actions, and not re-construct an image to our liking. In Rove's case, unless you're a hard-core neocon and of the small class of beneficiaries, you can't possibly say that his tenure in the White House was a good thing.

But, success isn't an absolute value. Myth-making is still a thriving industry. Have you heard of memes? This is what's going on today. Once a meme reaches a critical mass, then it becomes part of the collective folklore. It doesn't really matter what reality is. The perception is what matters the most. All societies, to various degrees, are prone to creating memes and public myths. I won't go into the sociological/anthropological value of such practice, but in this 21st century America, I'd expect a little more sophistication.

Why, for example, we still give a public forum to people who have been wrong about almost everything? Where's the credibility? How does a person earn that? Where's the self-criticism? Where's the, "I'm sorry, I was totally wrong on this one"? Or, is it the celebrity factor that counts more than anything else? I think it often does! Sadly.

Yes, it's not only the Faux News that hires those talking heads to spew propaganda and engage in infotainment. I'm in the academia, and I've seen it too often for my liking. The likes of George Will and Bill Kristol [and more Carl Rove soon] that deliver commencement addresses, give lectures, etc, while they're maintaining their political views without being challenged on their very recent and certain pronouncements about, say, the war in Iraq...

Will anyone-- including the PhDs and other intellectuals--ever publicly challenge Dr. Rice on her assumptions, decisions and public statements? Shouldn't this happen when she's offered a forum to express her opinions? This is beyond being courteous. Charlatans must be exposed and ridiculed. If a person argues the world is flat, then, unless ships have fallen off the horizon, such claims must be challenged! Since, persons like Rice, Kristol, Rove, Rumie, Powel, Wolfie, et al--and all the other "experts"--have indeed told us the earth was flat, (in no uncertain terms nonetheless), why the heck do they still get to peddle their "expertise"? Ah, it's the celebrity factor. Oh, and to appear that we don't have a ..liberal bias!

I was just an undergraduate student when I learned that if an external power (that's imposed on the local populace) wants to establish peace and order, as in Iraq, it needs to have a monopoly of violence! In other words, it needs overwhelming force to freeze everything. Wasn't Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D, aware of this when she was making US foreign policy? When, I dare ask, applied ignorance is a disqualifier for further public exaltation? Is power, is single-mindedness, is stubbornness in light of contrary evidence a virtue? Is achieving a goal--no matter of its nature--a higher value, even if it's achieved by whatever means?

So, where do you feel like contributing today when you confronted with a Rovian reality? To the sheep's bleat, or to the vomit bucket?


PS. I had the same reaction with the almost-universal eulogy of Jerry Falwell when he died.


Editor's note: I know it's summertime and we should take it easy--enjoying the opportunities for fun & games and leisure time--but occasionally the conversation can degenerate into harsh political reality, because, heck, politics is what we do; it's what we've invented to get things done. When the test for "done" is a fork in my backside, then I pounce. OK, now I feel better; back to enjoying Perseid showers and Long Island teas. Happy rest of summer to all of you dear bloggers and readers alike.

Experts on (Eaves) Droppings

Part 1. You may not know much about Mugabe of Zimbabwe, but this brutal dictator has destroyed his country. Yet, there are signs that our country has something to teach him. After all, under Bush's doctrine, the US should export some of the goodies we enjoy here. Stop, don't pop the bubbly just yet. Mugabe made a domestic surveillance law, like any other dictator who wants to control the private lives of his "subjects." All in the name of national security of course! This "interception of communications bill" will give his government the authority (as if it needed a permission) to eavesdrop on phone, internet communications, and read all mail, electronic & regular. Bush's actions have been an inspiration to our enemies and all the enemies of democracy & freedom. Nice legacy Dubya!

Part 2. I was drinking my morning coffee when I read this and I laughed in a way that coffee came out of my nose! So, be warned. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is going to Iraq to offer ..legal advice on how to build their judicial system! Need to say more?....

Why Summer is so Special...

The journeys (some real, some imaginary) of summers past were mostly great experiences.

The past year was the hottest on record, while the winter of 2006-2007 was the warmest. Maybe this doesn't mean anything other than New York becoming Florida in a few years, but I suppose it's good to know what the heck is going on, and whether it's good or bad. If it's bad--as the consensus of the scientific community says--then what can humans do to to help, especially if we are responsible for causing or adding to global warming. Scientists who don't work for the energy industry (or for BushCo) tell us that we are responsible. The earth might be doing its own thing, but we're the only modern species that have had such a great impact on the global environment since the industrial revolution.

But, this post is about the past. The personal past that resides in your memory cells. What was your early summers? What was so special about them? I think everyone has fond memories of summers while growing up. So, let's hear about your stories... [comments section open]

First, summer meant time off--not just a short break from school, but a long one when a kid could actually see himself/herself grow up, through experiences and even physically. I had more scrapes & bruises in the summer; they taught me to suck it up and deal with them, and they were usually badges of a good time. I had time to do stuff, to be myself. I had time! Yet, that elusive time flew by faster than anything else. After the 4th of July, it was like counting down, from freedom to bondage.

In the summer, I didn't have to answer questions like, "how's school going?" or, "what have you learned lately?"...

Did you happen to meet new people during this season? Chances are you did, like most of us. New friends, perhaps a new amore entered the picture. Did you have to say "goodbye" to that person in September? That sucked!

We are who we are partly because of our memories. That's why I tell my friends to create memories every day if possible. I mean, create something, experience something that you'd want to take with you in the future. And, when you look back, you can remember the many good things; it's wonderfully satisfying, don't you think? For me, it's the many little goodies that make a big difference in life; usually it's not the big (and rare) events that determine personal happiness.

So, do you think summer was special for you? Care to share?....