Dear Mr. President:
There it goes. "Growing concerns over closing Guantanamo." It's as if people think that the detainees are going to be released into the air like a flock of doves. How hard is it for people to grasp that the detainees will be moved from one maximum-secuity prison (Guantanamo) to another maximum-security prison, where they will be treated like dangerous criminals who nonetheless have the right to know what they have been accused of and who their accusers are. Those rights, along with knowing that they will have a fair trial, are basic, fundamental, Founding Fathers protections built into the structure of the nation. Throwing somebody into a dungeon for an indefinite period of time without letting him know who is accusing him of what, is more characteristic of the Inquisition, the Roman Empire, ancient Egypt, the Third Reich. But the US in the 21st century?? What generated this wrinkle in time? Solar activity? A black hole?
Well, there goes the new, improved America that people hoped for when they voted you into office. We knew it was too good to be true. All it took was scaring people into believing that, if Guantanamo were closed, there would soon be enemy combatants running around their neighborhoods. The attention is now off rebuilding the economy and getting the tripartite federal government back into balance. (Did they ever find out where the Office of the Vice President fits in?)
Guantanamo is an archaic dungeon. It doesn't belong in this century.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Dear Mr. President
So, our Hero has feet of clay. When pressed by civil-rights groups as to whether you will allow a central 9/11-style commission under the Attorney General to investigate the torture issue, you repeatedly and curtly dismissed the idea. The reason you gave was that it would require too much time.
If my parents were murdered, and the police department stated that they didn't want to redirect any forensics or investigative personnel to investigate the crime because it would take too much time away from their current investigations, would you find that acceptable?
I believe you need to rethink your decisions regarding investigating the previous administration. If a sense of betrayal has reached all the way down through the grassroots to me and motivated me to write to the President, there must be a powerful, pervasive sense of betrayal among the people you represent.
When questioned about continuing the tribunals at Guantanamo rather than providing the detainees with legitimate trials, you said that it didn't help to compare you to the previous administration. This doesn't sound like the man who calmly and methodically countered the verbal attacks aimed at him by Clinton and McCain during the campaign. This is a swing from "conciliatory" all the way to "unreasonable."
I hope the shift is for good reasons. You are a deep thinker and seem to be able to outthink just about everyone in D.C. From my perspective deep in the grassroots, I would be relieved if a thorough investigation into the activities of the previous administration proved that no crimes were committed. And I would like to think that your reasons for obstructing that investigation and stonewalling on the matter are good, solid, honorable reasons. "It would divide the nation" is an honorable reason, but it's not solid. The nation is already critically divided. "We can't divert resources from rebuilding the economy" is also not solid. The personnel needed for the investigation would not make much of a dent in what is needed to rebuild the economy. I'd like to think that your reasons are sounder than these.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow said that it is absurd to think that the U.S. is incapable of incarcerating dangerous criminals. Close Guantanamo, by executive order if necessary. Allow the detainees the benefit of habeas corpus. And allow an investigation of the previous administration and, if possible, clear their good names.
If my parents were murdered, and the police department stated that they didn't want to redirect any forensics or investigative personnel to investigate the crime because it would take too much time away from their current investigations, would you find that acceptable?
I believe you need to rethink your decisions regarding investigating the previous administration. If a sense of betrayal has reached all the way down through the grassroots to me and motivated me to write to the President, there must be a powerful, pervasive sense of betrayal among the people you represent.
When questioned about continuing the tribunals at Guantanamo rather than providing the detainees with legitimate trials, you said that it didn't help to compare you to the previous administration. This doesn't sound like the man who calmly and methodically countered the verbal attacks aimed at him by Clinton and McCain during the campaign. This is a swing from "conciliatory" all the way to "unreasonable."
I hope the shift is for good reasons. You are a deep thinker and seem to be able to outthink just about everyone in D.C. From my perspective deep in the grassroots, I would be relieved if a thorough investigation into the activities of the previous administration proved that no crimes were committed. And I would like to think that your reasons for obstructing that investigation and stonewalling on the matter are good, solid, honorable reasons. "It would divide the nation" is an honorable reason, but it's not solid. The nation is already critically divided. "We can't divert resources from rebuilding the economy" is also not solid. The personnel needed for the investigation would not make much of a dent in what is needed to rebuild the economy. I'd like to think that your reasons are sounder than these.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow said that it is absurd to think that the U.S. is incapable of incarcerating dangerous criminals. Close Guantanamo, by executive order if necessary. Allow the detainees the benefit of habeas corpus. And allow an investigation of the previous administration and, if possible, clear their good names.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
An independent commission to investigate torture
Bipartisan, fair, disinterested, thorough.
If a thorough, honest investigation reveals that no crimes were committed by the Bush Administration, I would be as relieved by that outcome as I would be if the investigation turned up criminal wrongdoing and the perpetrators were not permitted to go free just because they're well-connected and rich.
Mr. President, you personally do not have to become entangled in the investigation. You can focus on moving the country forward, which you have stated as your intention. But don't block a criminal investigation. Let the messiness be taken care of by honorable, disinterested people far removed from your Administration.
The country is already critically divided. The distance between the poles of our polarization is already huge. (With Texas just happening to "mention" secession.) A criminal investigation cannot divide the country any more than it already is, and it would actually provide closure for all of us, whatever the outcome.
If a thorough, honest investigation reveals that no crimes were committed by the Bush Administration, I would be as relieved by that outcome as I would be if the investigation turned up criminal wrongdoing and the perpetrators were not permitted to go free just because they're well-connected and rich.
Mr. President, you personally do not have to become entangled in the investigation. You can focus on moving the country forward, which you have stated as your intention. But don't block a criminal investigation. Let the messiness be taken care of by honorable, disinterested people far removed from your Administration.
The country is already critically divided. The distance between the poles of our polarization is already huge. (With Texas just happening to "mention" secession.) A criminal investigation cannot divide the country any more than it already is, and it would actually provide closure for all of us, whatever the outcome.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
The Obama budget
(From MoveOn.org)
...makes a $634 billion down payment on fixing health care that will go a long way toward paying for a more efficient, more affordable health care system that covers every single American.3
...reduces taxes for 95% of working Americans. And if your family makes less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up one dime.4
...invests more than $100 billion in clean energy technology, creating millions of green jobs that can never be outsourced.5
...brings our troops home from Iraq on a firm timetable, finally bringing the war to a close—and freeing up almost ten billion dollars a month for domestic priorities.6
...reverses growing income inequality. The plan lets the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire and focuses on strengthening the middle class.7
...closes multi-billion-dollar tax loopholes for big oil companies.8
...increases grants to help families pay for college—the largest increase ever.9
...halves the deficit by 2013. President Obama inherited a legacy of huge deficits and an economy in shambles, but his plan brings the deficit under control as soon as the economy begins to recover.10
...dramatically increases funding for the SEC and the CFTC—the agencies that police Wall Street.11
...tells it straight. For years, budgets have used accounting tricks to hide the real costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, and too many other programs. Obama's budget gets rid of the smokescreens and lays out what America's priorities are, what they cost, and how we're going to pay for them.12 This is the change we voted for. President Obama has done his part, now we need to do ours.
...stops unnecessary government subsidies to big banks, health insurance companies and big agribusinesses.13,14,15
...expands access to early childhood education and improves schools by investing in programs that make sure every child has a qualified, strong teacher.16
...negotiates for better prescription drug prices using Medicaid's tremendous bargaining power.17
...expands access to family planning for low-income women.18
...caps the pollution that causes global warming, and makes polluters pay to support clean energy innovation.19
Sources:
1. "Climate of Change," The New York Times, February 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?em
2. "Obama Calls His Budget Sweeping, Needed Change," The New York Times, February 28, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51201&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=2
3. "Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51202&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=3
4. "Obama Expects Fight Over $3.55 Trillion Budget Plan," Bloomberg News, February 28, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51203&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=4
5. "Energy Budget Is Sunlight After Eight Years of Darkness," Center for American Progress, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51204&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=5
6. "The Economic Cost of War in Iraq and Afghanistan," The New York Times, March 1, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html
7. "Tax Cuts," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-tax.html
8. "Energy Budget Is Sunlight After Eight Years of Darkness," Center for American Progress, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51204&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=6
9. "Student Loans," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-edu.html
10. "Obama unveils budget blueprint," CNN, February 26, 2009 http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/budget/
11. "Obama budget would boost SEC, CFTC, FBI," Reuters, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51205&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=7
12. "Obama's budget," Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51206&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=8
13. "Student Loans," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-edu.html
14. "Health Insurance Stocks Dive on Medicare Advantage Cuts," The Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51207&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=9
15. "Agriculture," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-agri.html
16. "Investing Wisely in Our Children," Center for American Progress, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51208&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=10
17. "Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51202&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=11
18. "Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51202&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=12
19. "Setting 'Green' Goals," The New York Times, February 26, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51209&id=15687-6402300-GyJmdox&t=13
Friday, February 27, 2009
Midnight regulations and the American King
I'm just learning about midnight regulations now, and I am appalled. The president becomes a king in the last 100 days of his term by using executive tools (midnight regulations, executive orders, presidential proclamations, executive agreements, and national security initiatives) because Congress is too busy to block him while its own term is ending.
...[The new president] can try to reverse the midnight regulations by using a law that has been successfully deployed just once. The Congressional Review Act creates an expedited process for Congress to repeal, by a simple majority vote in each house, any regulation it doesn't like. The president then signs the bill, and the rules are reversed. Given the Democratic majority, that tactic might work this time around. Now is the time to see whether Democrats really are any different from Republicans. (Veronique de Rugy, Reason, Feb. 1, 2009)It would be much more effective to put strict limits on the number of regulations the president can issue in the last 100 days of his term, when he faces absolutely no political repercussions. Waiting until the new president takes office is clearly a less effective way to undo the cloud of midnight regulations issued by the outgoing president: 82% of Clinton's midnight regulations were left unchanged by the new Bush administration. This isn't a political issue. The party affiliation of the outgoing president isn't significant in this regard. This is an issue concerning whether the government is representational or a monarchy.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Tinselfish is not the name of a drag queen!
(Although I can picture a performer with a name like Holly Tinselfish.) Then it's like a thorny tinselfish (Grammicolepis brachiusculus)? Not this time. Tinselfish is a novel and the tagline explains the title: “Underneath all the tinsel...is a fish out of water.” Another tagline I use is “Real guns. Real tinsel.”
My book was recently included in the Drewey Wayne Gunn Collection of Gay Male Mysteries and Police Stories in Duke University's Rare Book, Manuscript and Special Collections Library. I would be interested in finding out if an earlier version of the book (the earlier title was Life Doesn't Always, published in 2004) was listed in Gunn's book The Gay Male Sleuth in Print and Film: A History and Annotated Bibliography, published in 2005.
The following is how I describe the book to librarian-types:
Tinselfish offers a look at gay West Hollywood in the early 00's. Cafes, bars, and club nights which no longer exist are mentioned and described. The two-volume set is written as a series of screenplays for a TV detective series, but they are written to be read as a cohesive novel and not as screenplays composed in the industry's abbreviated, codeworded style. Book 1 includes a detailed, extensively researched account of a closeted Amish farmer's difficult coming-out process in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in the 70's and 80's. It also includes a chapter/episode which focuses on the gay scene in Philadelphia in the late 80's around Walnut and 13th. (Find Book 2 here.) Both books extensively reference classic films noirs of the 40's and 50's and highlight the encrypted gay subtext of many of those films. Several chapter/episodes explore homosexuality in traditional Arab and Persian cultures as well as the gay Arab-American experience in Los Angeles since 9/11. Each chapter/episode includes endnotes citing the books and screenplays referenced in the text. Other chapter/episodes explore Hollywood history and examine Intolerance, Clara Bow, Busby Berkeley, and Sunset Blvd. and the different film technologies and styles prevalent at each stage. A minor subplot in the novel involves tracking down ex-Nazis in South America in the years following WWII. A recurring theme is the dilemma of an actor trapped in a movie franchise he hates because the franchise does reasonably well at the box office.
Because the novel is written as a series of screenplays, it should be considered experimental fiction, an exploration of the one literary form reading or looking like the other. With the novel set in “Hollywood,” the reader's Hollywood-insider experience is enhanced by going through the same reading process as an actor or director reading a screenplay. (As a compromise, the text is set in a Roman font rather than the standard typewriter font.) Another continuing theme is depression and its medications, and in the experimental vein, one chapter/episode presents an attack of severe depression as alternating time-lapse and slow-motion cinematography. The detailed descriptions of these effects allow the reader to envision what are otherwise exclusively visual techniques, as well as to gain insight into the emotional disruption of severe depression.
Tinselfish is not only an entertaining read, carefully written and exhaustively proofread, but is also educational and enlightening in its exploration of different cultures, regions, timeframes, topics, and genres.
My book was recently included in the Drewey Wayne Gunn Collection of Gay Male Mysteries and Police Stories in Duke University's Rare Book, Manuscript and Special Collections Library. I would be interested in finding out if an earlier version of the book (the earlier title was Life Doesn't Always, published in 2004) was listed in Gunn's book The Gay Male Sleuth in Print and Film: A History and Annotated Bibliography, published in 2005.
The following is how I describe the book to librarian-types:
Tinselfish offers a look at gay West Hollywood in the early 00's. Cafes, bars, and club nights which no longer exist are mentioned and described. The two-volume set is written as a series of screenplays for a TV detective series, but they are written to be read as a cohesive novel and not as screenplays composed in the industry's abbreviated, codeworded style. Book 1 includes a detailed, extensively researched account of a closeted Amish farmer's difficult coming-out process in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in the 70's and 80's. It also includes a chapter/episode which focuses on the gay scene in Philadelphia in the late 80's around Walnut and 13th. (Find Book 2 here.) Both books extensively reference classic films noirs of the 40's and 50's and highlight the encrypted gay subtext of many of those films. Several chapter/episodes explore homosexuality in traditional Arab and Persian cultures as well as the gay Arab-American experience in Los Angeles since 9/11. Each chapter/episode includes endnotes citing the books and screenplays referenced in the text. Other chapter/episodes explore Hollywood history and examine Intolerance, Clara Bow, Busby Berkeley, and Sunset Blvd. and the different film technologies and styles prevalent at each stage. A minor subplot in the novel involves tracking down ex-Nazis in South America in the years following WWII. A recurring theme is the dilemma of an actor trapped in a movie franchise he hates because the franchise does reasonably well at the box office.
Because the novel is written as a series of screenplays, it should be considered experimental fiction, an exploration of the one literary form reading or looking like the other. With the novel set in “Hollywood,” the reader's Hollywood-insider experience is enhanced by going through the same reading process as an actor or director reading a screenplay. (As a compromise, the text is set in a Roman font rather than the standard typewriter font.) Another continuing theme is depression and its medications, and in the experimental vein, one chapter/episode presents an attack of severe depression as alternating time-lapse and slow-motion cinematography. The detailed descriptions of these effects allow the reader to envision what are otherwise exclusively visual techniques, as well as to gain insight into the emotional disruption of severe depression.
Tinselfish is not only an entertaining read, carefully written and exhaustively proofread, but is also educational and enlightening in its exploration of different cultures, regions, timeframes, topics, and genres.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Block the Bush pardons
From the People's Email Network:
Speak Out Against The Planned Bush Blanket Pardons BEFORE They Can HappenFather God, please save us from your people.
Pay no attention to the handful of Christmas pardons granted by Bush. This is mere political window dressing to distract from the bumper crop of blanket absolutions, including one for himself, scheduled to be released just before midnight on Jan 19th. Cheney would not so arrogantly be bragging on TV about how he authorized torture if it were not so.
But there is a resolution in Congress, H.Res. 1531, preemptively condemning any such move if we can just get enough members of Congress to sponsor it (already 10 so far). Many of you have submitted a action page on this already. Please do it again, especially if your representative did not hear you the first time.
Action Page To Stop The Bush Pardons: http://www.usalone.com/hres1531.php
Each action page you submit is another lump of coal in Cheney's stocking. [John's comment: And we all know how clean coal is as a fuel. No greenhouse gases. No residual sludge. Clean energy for tomorrow's world.] Some have speculated on the possibility of post-inauguration impeachment, especially considering the fact that many insiders are waiting until then to spill the beans. Maybe they don't want to get bumped off in asuspicious plane crash like Mike Connell. But a self pardon at the very last minute would certainly be grounds for some kind of action, perhaps even impeachment, if and only if Congress would react and take action immediately
Saturday, December 20, 2008
For 5,000 years, every culture, every religion...
has implemented or condoned slavery. So what's your point, Warren? Historical precedent isn't a very reliable support for an argument. In fact, you've probably already been contacted by quite a few historians who can show you with actual historical and archaeological evidence that your blanket statement "every culture, every religion" was wrong. But your response to each of them is a shrug, because you already know what you want the truth to be.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Warren invocation: It's just a prayer
Yes the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration is an insult to progressives who feel that Prop 8 stapled bigotry onto California's constitution. And it's appropriate that we voice our disapproval vigorously. But if Warren's invocation makes evengelicals preen a little and feel smug but results in their being a little more willing to work with Obama, then the good that is accomplished outweighs the harm. It's not as if Obama appointed Warren to a Cabinet position. It's just a five-minute prayer, during which kids will fidget and grownups on both sides of the fence will yawn, and afterward Warren will leave the stage and that will be it. The symbolic gesture will dissipate into the winter air.
Addendum: My message to Warren via Courage Campaign's petition:
Rev. Warren,
Your girth indicates that you have very strong appetites and that you indulge yourself in some of them, apparently unaware that your excessive weight undermines your credibility. As an obese wealthy person, you send a clear message that you are appetite-driven (bigger congregation, more revenue, more TV time, greater political influence), which runs counter to the message you preach from Scripture. I'm surprised your congregation overlooks your wealth and obesity, but you certainly aren't the first obese minister to have achieved your level of fame, e.g. Falwell, Hagee. When a minister preaches what people want to hear, people don't concern themselves with what disconnect there may be between the simple, service-oriented life promoted by the minister's sermons and the appetite-driven life exhibited by the minister himself. You should have already examined your heart deeply to see how this disconnect could have happened. God wants you to be rich? God wants you to be fat? What passages of Scripture support those ideas? I could point you to Scripture passages that lead the Christian away from obesity and wealth. But, of course, you already know those passages—a discrepancy that calls into question your credibility as a leader in any discussion of moral issues.
Addendum: My message to Warren via Courage Campaign's petition:
Rev. Warren,
Your girth indicates that you have very strong appetites and that you indulge yourself in some of them, apparently unaware that your excessive weight undermines your credibility. As an obese wealthy person, you send a clear message that you are appetite-driven (bigger congregation, more revenue, more TV time, greater political influence), which runs counter to the message you preach from Scripture. I'm surprised your congregation overlooks your wealth and obesity, but you certainly aren't the first obese minister to have achieved your level of fame, e.g. Falwell, Hagee. When a minister preaches what people want to hear, people don't concern themselves with what disconnect there may be between the simple, service-oriented life promoted by the minister's sermons and the appetite-driven life exhibited by the minister himself. You should have already examined your heart deeply to see how this disconnect could have happened. God wants you to be rich? God wants you to be fat? What passages of Scripture support those ideas? I could point you to Scripture passages that lead the Christian away from obesity and wealth. But, of course, you already know those passages—a discrepancy that calls into question your credibility as a leader in any discussion of moral issues.
Friday, December 12, 2008
A well-regulated militia in Yosemite
From Freedom States Alliance:
As a parting shot, the Bush administration has overturned a regulation to keep guns out of national parks. Despite the objections of every living former director of the National Park Service, tens of thousands of national park visitors, and several ranger organizations, the Interior Department has published a rule that will allow loaded, concealed guns in most of the country's national parks.
This rule is a gift from the Bush administration to the National Rifle Association and the reversal of this ruling should be among the Obama administrations first actions upon taking office in January.
Please sign our petition to encourage the incoming Obama administration to reverse this rule so we can keep our national parks safe from gun violence.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Jerry Falwell with a pretty face
I can't believe it. It's going to happen again. Four more years of a conservative White House. I'm already beginning to prepare emotionally for seeing mobs of conservatives on TV shrieking with unbelieving joy that they've won the Biggest Football Game in the World a third time in a row, and for seeing bloggers rub salt into the wounds of the loser lefties by posting pictures of crying babies. After '00 and '04, why should it come as a surprise?
By all means, give the people what they want. That's the nature of democracy. One takes the good with the bad. One just hopes that there are enough checks and balances left in the system to keep the people from genuinely hurting themselves with the choices they make.
It's surprising how close Obama and McCain are in the polls. One could have expected that Obama's rockstar status during the primaries would have given him a significant lead in the campaign. But there doesn't appear, yet, to be an unstoppable momentum building toward bringing Obama's freshness and intelligence to the White House. It may be just the way the media are presenting the two candidates and consciously trying to avoid the favoritism toward Obama they exhibited during the primaries. But one would expect that, by now, there would be a huge, youth-driven wave of enthusiasm for a changing of the guard in Washington, for the torch being passed to a new generation. But my perception isn't that the tide is flowing strongly in that direction.
I've just learned that a Clinton fundraiser, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is now backing McCain instead of Obama. She says "I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party—and they will continue to—too far to the left. I'm not comfortable there."
Of course Ms. Rothschild isn't comfortable on the left. After building her multimillion-dollar telecommunications company, she married into the Rothschild banking family of England and her net worth is probably in the hundreds of millions. One wonders if she wandered into the Democratic party by mistake. She says she will step down from her position on the DNC Platform Committee (how did she get on the committee in the first place?) but will not be changing parties. We would, however, heartily encourage Ms. Rothschild to change parties. It's very simple: When one wants to make mountains of money, one doesn't become a Democrat. The philosophy and focus of the party are counter-productive to the amassing and retention of great wealth. One wonders if Ms. Rothschild actually infiltrated the upper echelons of the DNC in the same way that Mary McFate infiltrated numerous gun-control organizations as an NRA mole.
I've also recently learned that, while Mayor, Sarah Palin wanted a book written by a Baptist minister from the neighboring town of Palmer to be banned from the public library in Wasilla. The book is Pastor, I Am Gay by Howard Bess. Palin now denies trying to have the book banned, but Bess says "This is a small town, we all know each other. People in city government have confirmed to me what Sarah was trying to do." Bess, now a retired American Baptist minister, also says of Palin "She scares me. She's Jerry Falwell with a pretty face" and "At this point, people in this country don't grasp what this person is all about. The key to understanding Sarah Palin is understanding her radical theology."
When comparing the virtual landscapes created by the rhetoric of both parties, I wonder why there isn't a wholesale evacuation of the right because of its unrelenting drive toward tight moral control of the individual by the unelected government of business. Why isn't there a mass migration toward the healthy, digital landscape of the left? Why should the tide of this campaign be pulled in both directions with equal force? Because being controlled is comforting and feels safe? If only voters on the right could see their landscape with disinterested clarity. They would see everything in the landscape, including the pews and pulpits, covered with a thin, gummy film of petroleum.
By all means, give the people what they want. That's the nature of democracy. One takes the good with the bad. One just hopes that there are enough checks and balances left in the system to keep the people from genuinely hurting themselves with the choices they make.
It's surprising how close Obama and McCain are in the polls. One could have expected that Obama's rockstar status during the primaries would have given him a significant lead in the campaign. But there doesn't appear, yet, to be an unstoppable momentum building toward bringing Obama's freshness and intelligence to the White House. It may be just the way the media are presenting the two candidates and consciously trying to avoid the favoritism toward Obama they exhibited during the primaries. But one would expect that, by now, there would be a huge, youth-driven wave of enthusiasm for a changing of the guard in Washington, for the torch being passed to a new generation. But my perception isn't that the tide is flowing strongly in that direction.
I've just learned that a Clinton fundraiser, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is now backing McCain instead of Obama. She says "I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party—and they will continue to—too far to the left. I'm not comfortable there."
Of course Ms. Rothschild isn't comfortable on the left. After building her multimillion-dollar telecommunications company, she married into the Rothschild banking family of England and her net worth is probably in the hundreds of millions. One wonders if she wandered into the Democratic party by mistake. She says she will step down from her position on the DNC Platform Committee (how did she get on the committee in the first place?) but will not be changing parties. We would, however, heartily encourage Ms. Rothschild to change parties. It's very simple: When one wants to make mountains of money, one doesn't become a Democrat. The philosophy and focus of the party are counter-productive to the amassing and retention of great wealth. One wonders if Ms. Rothschild actually infiltrated the upper echelons of the DNC in the same way that Mary McFate infiltrated numerous gun-control organizations as an NRA mole.
I've also recently learned that, while Mayor, Sarah Palin wanted a book written by a Baptist minister from the neighboring town of Palmer to be banned from the public library in Wasilla. The book is Pastor, I Am Gay by Howard Bess. Palin now denies trying to have the book banned, but Bess says "This is a small town, we all know each other. People in city government have confirmed to me what Sarah was trying to do." Bess, now a retired American Baptist minister, also says of Palin "She scares me. She's Jerry Falwell with a pretty face" and "At this point, people in this country don't grasp what this person is all about. The key to understanding Sarah Palin is understanding her radical theology."
When comparing the virtual landscapes created by the rhetoric of both parties, I wonder why there isn't a wholesale evacuation of the right because of its unrelenting drive toward tight moral control of the individual by the unelected government of business. Why isn't there a mass migration toward the healthy, digital landscape of the left? Why should the tide of this campaign be pulled in both directions with equal force? Because being controlled is comforting and feels safe? If only voters on the right could see their landscape with disinterested clarity. They would see everything in the landscape, including the pews and pulpits, covered with a thin, gummy film of petroleum.
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Reverend Obese Millionaire
God has truly blessed Rick Warren's ministry. He's plump as a fatted calf, he's a multi-millionaire from his book sales, and his congregation is one of the largest in the nation. Like the Dean Martin song says (more or less), if he were any more blessed, he'd be sick.
My only question is, why would God reward the faithfulness of his servants with treasures on earth? He told us not to lay up for ourselves treasures on earth. Y'know—moths, rust, thieves. So why would he himself reward his servants with what he told us not to accrue? It's okay if God gives us treasures on earth, but it's not okay for us to lay up for ourselves treasures on earth? Is that what that verse means? So, the treasures Rick Warren has been laying up for himself in Heaven, like he's supposed to, God is giving part of those treasures to him now as an advance, like an advance from a publisher? I'm confused. If life here on earth is supposed to be like a strait gate and a narrow way, why would God bestow so much treasure on his servants that their way becomes undeniably broad?
I hope Warren preaches a sermon soon about his various treasures on earth to clear this issue up for all of us. And while he's at it, he could also explain God's blessing McCain with so much treasure on earth too. I've just learned that he owns ten very pricey homes. Ten? Ain't that a kick in the cred.
My only question is, why would God reward the faithfulness of his servants with treasures on earth? He told us not to lay up for ourselves treasures on earth. Y'know—moths, rust, thieves. So why would he himself reward his servants with what he told us not to accrue? It's okay if God gives us treasures on earth, but it's not okay for us to lay up for ourselves treasures on earth? Is that what that verse means? So, the treasures Rick Warren has been laying up for himself in Heaven, like he's supposed to, God is giving part of those treasures to him now as an advance, like an advance from a publisher? I'm confused. If life here on earth is supposed to be like a strait gate and a narrow way, why would God bestow so much treasure on his servants that their way becomes undeniably broad?
I hope Warren preaches a sermon soon about his various treasures on earth to clear this issue up for all of us. And while he's at it, he could also explain God's blessing McCain with so much treasure on earth too. I've just learned that he owns ten very pricey homes. Ten? Ain't that a kick in the cred.
Friday, August 08, 2008
A response from Congressman Schiff
Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for introducing articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome your input.
I share your concern about the policies and actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney and I am deeply troubled by the potentially precedent-setting expansion of executive power at the cost of our system of coequal branches and the civil liberties guaranteed to all Americans. The Executive Branch is an extraordinarily powerful one; in order for the checks and balances to function properly, both Congress and the Courts must resist an excessive assertion of executive power that is at odds with the interests of the American people or violates the Constitution. Despite the challenges that our nation faces, we must not cast aside the values and ideals that our people have defended for centuries.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention that no one branch of government should become too powerful. With the oppression of monarchical rule only recently behind them, they sought to prevent the rise of a too-powerful executive by crafting a calibrated system of checks and balances that allows for interplay between the three branches of government. Congress has an important legislative function, but it has an equally vital role in providing oversight and we must continue to aggressively exercise this prerogative.
On the specific remedy of impeachment, the Founding Fathers established a high standard requiring the determination of high crimes and misdemeanors. After witnessing the misguided, destructive and polarizing impeachment of President Clinton, I can well understand why they raised the bar so high. There is no question that the President and Vice President have done a great disservice to the country in many ways, and I am deeply troubled by their views of executive authority and performance in office. We must continue to do vigorous oversight and let the evidence lead us where it may; at the same time, we must not be deterred from the highest imperative of changing our Iraq policy, reversing the Administration's intrusive surveillance policy, meeting the challenge of global climate change, and turning around our ailing economy.
Recently, Rep. Kucinich introduced an article of impeachment against the President (H.Res.1345) on the House floor and requested a vote to refer the legislation to a committee with appropriate jurisdiction. I voted with Rep. Kucinich to refer this legislation to the Judiciary Committee. On July 25, 2008, the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, held an important hearing to probe these matters. The hearing, entitled "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations," included testimony from Rep. Dennis Kucinich who testified about the impeachment articles he has introduced.
At the hearing, I spoke of my deep concerns with the conduct of this Administration and its overreach of constitutional limitations—particularly related to the areas of surveillance, interrogations, and the intelligence used in leading up to the war in Iraq. I used this opportunity to call upon Congress to create a select committee—in the mold of the "Church Committee"—to conduct a comprehensive investigation of activities engaged in by the Executive Branch to determine their impact on the civil liberties of Americans.
The "Church Committee" was established in 1975 in response to abuses during the Nixon Administration. The Committee produced 50,000 pages of documents and published 14 reports—leading to a variety of crucial reforms including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I believe that Congress should initiate a similarly robust investigation of Executive Branch abuses to ensure continued Constitutional accountability and to implement necessary reforms.
Please be assured that I will continue to do my part in every other way to ensure that Congress provides a check on the Executive and ensures that the Administration is held accountable for its actions.
Sincerely,
Adam B. Schiff
Member of Congress
I share your concern about the policies and actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney and I am deeply troubled by the potentially precedent-setting expansion of executive power at the cost of our system of coequal branches and the civil liberties guaranteed to all Americans. The Executive Branch is an extraordinarily powerful one; in order for the checks and balances to function properly, both Congress and the Courts must resist an excessive assertion of executive power that is at odds with the interests of the American people or violates the Constitution. Despite the challenges that our nation faces, we must not cast aside the values and ideals that our people have defended for centuries.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention that no one branch of government should become too powerful. With the oppression of monarchical rule only recently behind them, they sought to prevent the rise of a too-powerful executive by crafting a calibrated system of checks and balances that allows for interplay between the three branches of government. Congress has an important legislative function, but it has an equally vital role in providing oversight and we must continue to aggressively exercise this prerogative.
On the specific remedy of impeachment, the Founding Fathers established a high standard requiring the determination of high crimes and misdemeanors. After witnessing the misguided, destructive and polarizing impeachment of President Clinton, I can well understand why they raised the bar so high. There is no question that the President and Vice President have done a great disservice to the country in many ways, and I am deeply troubled by their views of executive authority and performance in office. We must continue to do vigorous oversight and let the evidence lead us where it may; at the same time, we must not be deterred from the highest imperative of changing our Iraq policy, reversing the Administration's intrusive surveillance policy, meeting the challenge of global climate change, and turning around our ailing economy.
Recently, Rep. Kucinich introduced an article of impeachment against the President (H.Res.1345) on the House floor and requested a vote to refer the legislation to a committee with appropriate jurisdiction. I voted with Rep. Kucinich to refer this legislation to the Judiciary Committee. On July 25, 2008, the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, held an important hearing to probe these matters. The hearing, entitled "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations," included testimony from Rep. Dennis Kucinich who testified about the impeachment articles he has introduced.
At the hearing, I spoke of my deep concerns with the conduct of this Administration and its overreach of constitutional limitations—particularly related to the areas of surveillance, interrogations, and the intelligence used in leading up to the war in Iraq. I used this opportunity to call upon Congress to create a select committee—in the mold of the "Church Committee"—to conduct a comprehensive investigation of activities engaged in by the Executive Branch to determine their impact on the civil liberties of Americans.
The "Church Committee" was established in 1975 in response to abuses during the Nixon Administration. The Committee produced 50,000 pages of documents and published 14 reports—leading to a variety of crucial reforms including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I believe that Congress should initiate a similarly robust investigation of Executive Branch abuses to ensure continued Constitutional accountability and to implement necessary reforms.
Please be assured that I will continue to do my part in every other way to ensure that Congress provides a check on the Executive and ensures that the Administration is held accountable for its actions.
Sincerely,
Adam B. Schiff
Member of Congress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
