Does Outrageous Epithetic Speech contribute to Hatred that leads to Violence?
The free speech doctrine does not permit one to yell "Fire" in a crowded Theatre precisely because it is clearly forseeable that this can cause a stampede and injury.
If injury is forseeable as a natural probable consequence, the Free speech is not constitutionally protected.
http://television.aol.com/tvtop5/all-riled-up-the-view/26670134001
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
He Who Has Hope Lives Differently (Benoit XVI)
Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are anger and courage. Anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain as they are.
- St. Augustine
- St. Augustine
Dieu est Amour (God is Love; just sounds better in French)
DIEU EST AMOUR
CITE DU VATICAN, 14 JUI 2009 (VIS). Avant la prière mariale avec les fidèles réunis Place-St.Pierre, le Pape a parlé de la solennité du Corpus Domini célébrée aujourd'hui dans divers pays et "où le Saint Sacrement est porté solennellement en procession. Au centre de cette fête -a-t-il dit- "se trouve le pain, fruit de la terre et du ciel. Ainsi, le pain eucharistique est le signe visible de celui par qui, au ciel et sur la terre, Dieu et homme sont devenus une seule chose". La solennité du Corps du Christ est intimement liée à Pâques et à Pentecôte: la mort et la résurrection de Jésus et l'effusion de l'Esprit Saint la présupposent. Elle est, en outre, directement liée à la fête de la Trinité célébrée dimanche dernier. C'est seulement parce que Dieu lui-même est relation, que nous pouvons avoir un rapport avec lui. C'est seulement parce qu'il est amour, que l'on peut aimer et être aimé. Ainsi, le Corpus Domini est une manifestation de Dieu, une preuve que Dieu est amour. Cette fête nous parle de l'amour divin d'une façon unique et particulière, de ce qu'il est et de ce qu'il fait".
Benoît XVI a ensuite souligné que "l'amour transforme toute chose, et l'on comprend donc qu'au centre de cette fête du Corpus Domini, se trouve le mystère de la transsubstantiation, signe de Jésus-Charité qui transforme le monde. En le regardant et en l'adorant, nous disons: oui, l'amour existe, et puisqu'il existe les choses peuvent s'améliorer et nous pouvons espérer. Et l'espérance qui provient de l'amour du Christ nous donne la force de vivre et d'affronter les difficultés. C'est pour cela que nous chantons en portant en procession le Saint Sacrement. Nous chantons et louons Dieu qui s'est révélé dans le signe du pain rompu. Nous avons tous besoin de ce pain parce que le chemin vers la liberté, la justice et la paix est long et fatigant".
Le Pape a invité les fidèles à imaginer "avec combien de foi et d'amour la Vierge Marie aura reçu et adoré dans son cœur l'Eucharistie! Chaque fois, c'était, pour elle, comme recevoir le mystère entier de son Fils Jésus, de sa conception jusqu'à sa résurrection". En rappelant que Jean-Paul II l'appelait Mère eucharistique, Benoît XVI a encouragé à apprendre de Marie "à sans cesse renouveler notre communion avec le Corps du Christ pour nous aimer les uns les autres comme lui nous a aimé".
CORPUS CHRISTI: EVIDENCE THAT GOD IS LOVE
VATICAN CITY, 14 JUN 2009 (VIS) - At midday today, before praying the Angelus with thousands of pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square, the Pope dedicated some remarks to the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, which is being celebrated today in various countries and "in which the Sacrament of the Lord's Body is borne in solemn procession".
At the heart of this feast, the Pope explained, "is the sign of the bread, fruit of the earth and the heavens. Hence the Eucharistic bread is the visible sign of He in Whom heavens and earth, God and man, were joined and made one".
"The Solemnity of Corpus Christi is intimately associated with Easter and with Pentecost: its premise is the death and resurrection of Jesus and the effusion of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore it is directly linked to the Feast of the Blessed Trinity, which was celebrated last Sunday. Only because God Himself is a 'God of relation' is it possible to have a relationship with Him; and only because He is love can He love and be loved. Thus Corpus Christi is an expression of God, it is evidence that God is love. In a unique way this feast speaks to us of divine love, of what it is and what it does".
"Love transforms all things", said Benedict XVI, "and hence we can understand why, at the heart of today's Feast of Corpus Christi, lies the mystery of transubstantiation, the sign of Jesus-Charity that transforms the world. By looking at Him and adoring Him, we are saying: yes, love exists, and because it exists things can change for the better and we may hope.
"It is the hope that arises from the love of Christ that gives us the strength to live and to face up to difficulties", the Holy Father added. "That is why we sing as we carry the Blessed Sacrament in procession; we sing and we praise God Who revealed Himself by hiding Himself in the sign of the broken bread. We all need this Bread because the journey towards freedom, justice and peace is long and tiring".
He then called upon the faithful to imagine "with how much faith and love the Virgin must have received and adored the Blessed Eucharist in her heart. For her, each time was like reliving the entire mystery of her Son Jesus, from conception to resurrection". Then, after recalling how John Paul II had described Mary as "Eucharistic woman", Pope Benedict concluded by encouraging people to learn from her "to renew our communion with the Body of Christ, in order to love one another as He loved us".
ANG/CORPUS CHRISTI/... VIS 090615
CITE DU VATICAN, 14 JUI 2009 (VIS). Avant la prière mariale avec les fidèles réunis Place-St.Pierre, le Pape a parlé de la solennité du Corpus Domini célébrée aujourd'hui dans divers pays et "où le Saint Sacrement est porté solennellement en procession. Au centre de cette fête -a-t-il dit- "se trouve le pain, fruit de la terre et du ciel. Ainsi, le pain eucharistique est le signe visible de celui par qui, au ciel et sur la terre, Dieu et homme sont devenus une seule chose". La solennité du Corps du Christ est intimement liée à Pâques et à Pentecôte: la mort et la résurrection de Jésus et l'effusion de l'Esprit Saint la présupposent. Elle est, en outre, directement liée à la fête de la Trinité célébrée dimanche dernier. C'est seulement parce que Dieu lui-même est relation, que nous pouvons avoir un rapport avec lui. C'est seulement parce qu'il est amour, que l'on peut aimer et être aimé. Ainsi, le Corpus Domini est une manifestation de Dieu, une preuve que Dieu est amour. Cette fête nous parle de l'amour divin d'une façon unique et particulière, de ce qu'il est et de ce qu'il fait".
Benoît XVI a ensuite souligné que "l'amour transforme toute chose, et l'on comprend donc qu'au centre de cette fête du Corpus Domini, se trouve le mystère de la transsubstantiation, signe de Jésus-Charité qui transforme le monde. En le regardant et en l'adorant, nous disons: oui, l'amour existe, et puisqu'il existe les choses peuvent s'améliorer et nous pouvons espérer. Et l'espérance qui provient de l'amour du Christ nous donne la force de vivre et d'affronter les difficultés. C'est pour cela que nous chantons en portant en procession le Saint Sacrement. Nous chantons et louons Dieu qui s'est révélé dans le signe du pain rompu. Nous avons tous besoin de ce pain parce que le chemin vers la liberté, la justice et la paix est long et fatigant".
Le Pape a invité les fidèles à imaginer "avec combien de foi et d'amour la Vierge Marie aura reçu et adoré dans son cœur l'Eucharistie! Chaque fois, c'était, pour elle, comme recevoir le mystère entier de son Fils Jésus, de sa conception jusqu'à sa résurrection". En rappelant que Jean-Paul II l'appelait Mère eucharistique, Benoît XVI a encouragé à apprendre de Marie "à sans cesse renouveler notre communion avec le Corps du Christ pour nous aimer les uns les autres comme lui nous a aimé".
CORPUS CHRISTI: EVIDENCE THAT GOD IS LOVE
VATICAN CITY, 14 JUN 2009 (VIS) - At midday today, before praying the Angelus with thousands of pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square, the Pope dedicated some remarks to the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, which is being celebrated today in various countries and "in which the Sacrament of the Lord's Body is borne in solemn procession".
At the heart of this feast, the Pope explained, "is the sign of the bread, fruit of the earth and the heavens. Hence the Eucharistic bread is the visible sign of He in Whom heavens and earth, God and man, were joined and made one".
"The Solemnity of Corpus Christi is intimately associated with Easter and with Pentecost: its premise is the death and resurrection of Jesus and the effusion of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore it is directly linked to the Feast of the Blessed Trinity, which was celebrated last Sunday. Only because God Himself is a 'God of relation' is it possible to have a relationship with Him; and only because He is love can He love and be loved. Thus Corpus Christi is an expression of God, it is evidence that God is love. In a unique way this feast speaks to us of divine love, of what it is and what it does".
"Love transforms all things", said Benedict XVI, "and hence we can understand why, at the heart of today's Feast of Corpus Christi, lies the mystery of transubstantiation, the sign of Jesus-Charity that transforms the world. By looking at Him and adoring Him, we are saying: yes, love exists, and because it exists things can change for the better and we may hope.
"It is the hope that arises from the love of Christ that gives us the strength to live and to face up to difficulties", the Holy Father added. "That is why we sing as we carry the Blessed Sacrament in procession; we sing and we praise God Who revealed Himself by hiding Himself in the sign of the broken bread. We all need this Bread because the journey towards freedom, justice and peace is long and tiring".
He then called upon the faithful to imagine "with how much faith and love the Virgin must have received and adored the Blessed Eucharist in her heart. For her, each time was like reliving the entire mystery of her Son Jesus, from conception to resurrection". Then, after recalling how John Paul II had described Mary as "Eucharistic woman", Pope Benedict concluded by encouraging people to learn from her "to renew our communion with the Body of Christ, in order to love one another as He loved us".
ANG/CORPUS CHRISTI/... VIS 090615
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Happy Feast Day Saint Anthony
PADUA- I'm coming.
[...a preacher so eloquently effective only his tongue was preserved uncorrupted after his death......a Franciscan.....he finds stuff....like your purpose and mission]http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-anthony-of-padua/
The Whole World In His Hands
God is Watching
Children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic school for lunch. At the head of the table was a large pile of apples. The nun made a note, "Take only one, God is watching."
At the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies. Moving through the line a boy wrote another note to leave by the cookies, "Take all you want, God is watching the apples."
Children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic school for lunch. At the head of the table was a large pile of apples. The nun made a note, "Take only one, God is watching."
At the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies. Moving through the line a boy wrote another note to leave by the cookies, "Take all you want, God is watching the apples."
Friday, June 12, 2009
A Question Of Healing
WHY WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM.
Bridget's Battle -
By Marion Wright Edelman
Desni and Bob Crock want their two-year-old daughter Bridget to have everything she needs to fight the rare cancer that's attacking her lung, but they find themselves fighting a second battle at the same time—a battle to survive financially because of soaring health care costs.
The Marietta, Ohio, couple knew Bridget was very sick when they took her to the doctor one morning in March 2007. Her temperature was high and her breathing had become labored. Still, colds and infections were common for Bridget, and the Crocks expected to be back home in an hour or two armed with an antibiotic and a doctor's assurance she would be fine in a few days. But a quick x-ray showed trouble, and the local hospital recommended she be transferred immediately to a children’s center in West Virginia. There, the Crocks' concern turned to panic when a cyst was discovered in Bridget's lung. Bridget was eventually diagnosed with pleuropulmonary blastoma, a form of cancer so rare it affects only 10 to 20 children in all of North America each year.
The Crocks were devastated, but they found solace in two pieces of good news. First, the cancer hadn't had time to spread to other parts of her body. Second, by what seemed to be a miraculous coincidence, one of the few oncologists in the country to have successfully treated other children with this type of cancer was on staff at that children’s center. Bridget's parents took great comfort in knowing that she was in the hands of one of the most experienced physicians available.
But that care is coming at a high price―in just the first two months of treatment, bills exceeded $35,000. Bob has insurance through his employer, but it is only covering 60 percent of Bridget's expenses. That’s because the children's center is not in the insurance company's "network," the group of hospitals with which it has negotiated to provide services at a set price. The Crocks could have chosen an "in-network" hospital in Columbus or Cleveland, but those facilities are much further away—two and a half to three and a half hours by car. Even more importantly to the Crocks, they don't have physicians who have the same level of expertise with Bridget's rare cancer. The Crocks feel they don’t have any choice but to have Bridget continue treatment with her current doctor.
But to the insurance carrier, the Crocks do have a choice. The circumstance doesn't meet the company's definition of a "forced care provider," which applies only when a patient receives emergency treatment. As a result, the company is paying a lower percentage of the bills, and for the first round of treatment the Crocks' share was $14,000. Desni said they would pay whatever it takes to save Bridget's life, but she can't help but feel the insurance company should make an exception in how it reimburses costs in these types of cases, especially when they involve a child. "With children, there shouldn't be a limit to which doctor you could go," she says.
Desni has had to give up her job as a real estate agent to care for Bridget, who regularly must undergo chemotherapy and often has to stay in the hospital when she isn't feeling well, and also needs to avoid the common cold and infections that might come with group child care. Bob, a salesperson and a part-time musician, has had to work extra hours evenings and weekends trying to make up for the loss of income. But there are only so many hours in a day—especially on the days that also require the long commute back and forth to Bridget's hospital, which is about an hour and a half from their home. Years of monthly medical payments will certainly be a burden on this young family's budget. But they're determined to go on as best they can, knowing they can't be concerned about finances for the sake of their daughter.
Bridget is an Irish name which means "strength," and the Crocks say their daughter has shown a lot of it as she's battled her illness. Her parents just want to do their part. The children's health care system in the United States should not force families onto the brink of financial ruin when they are faced with a child's life threatening illness. The public health insurance option currently being considered by Congress is what this family needs. The Crocks should have comprehensive, affordable coverage for their child that will allow them access to specialized treatments when they are needed. A strong public health insurance option would do just that. Then families like the Crocks could focus their energy on the fight that really matters.
Email your Members of Congress today to let them know that affordable, comprehensive health coverage for everyone—especially children—is important to you at: www.childrensdefense.org/healthaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Wright Edelman, whose new book is The Sea Is So Wide And My Boat Is So Small: Charting a Course for the Next Generation, is president of the Children's Defense Fund. For more information about the Children's Defense Fund, go to http://www.childrensdefense.org/.
Desni and Bob Crock want their two-year-old daughter Bridget to have everything she needs to fight the rare cancer that's attacking her lung, but they find themselves fighting a second battle at the same time—a battle to survive financially because of soaring health care costs.
The Marietta, Ohio, couple knew Bridget was very sick when they took her to the doctor one morning in March 2007. Her temperature was high and her breathing had become labored. Still, colds and infections were common for Bridget, and the Crocks expected to be back home in an hour or two armed with an antibiotic and a doctor's assurance she would be fine in a few days. But a quick x-ray showed trouble, and the local hospital recommended she be transferred immediately to a children’s center in West Virginia. There, the Crocks' concern turned to panic when a cyst was discovered in Bridget's lung. Bridget was eventually diagnosed with pleuropulmonary blastoma, a form of cancer so rare it affects only 10 to 20 children in all of North America each year.
The Crocks were devastated, but they found solace in two pieces of good news. First, the cancer hadn't had time to spread to other parts of her body. Second, by what seemed to be a miraculous coincidence, one of the few oncologists in the country to have successfully treated other children with this type of cancer was on staff at that children’s center. Bridget's parents took great comfort in knowing that she was in the hands of one of the most experienced physicians available.
But that care is coming at a high price―in just the first two months of treatment, bills exceeded $35,000. Bob has insurance through his employer, but it is only covering 60 percent of Bridget's expenses. That’s because the children's center is not in the insurance company's "network," the group of hospitals with which it has negotiated to provide services at a set price. The Crocks could have chosen an "in-network" hospital in Columbus or Cleveland, but those facilities are much further away—two and a half to three and a half hours by car. Even more importantly to the Crocks, they don't have physicians who have the same level of expertise with Bridget's rare cancer. The Crocks feel they don’t have any choice but to have Bridget continue treatment with her current doctor.
But to the insurance carrier, the Crocks do have a choice. The circumstance doesn't meet the company's definition of a "forced care provider," which applies only when a patient receives emergency treatment. As a result, the company is paying a lower percentage of the bills, and for the first round of treatment the Crocks' share was $14,000. Desni said they would pay whatever it takes to save Bridget's life, but she can't help but feel the insurance company should make an exception in how it reimburses costs in these types of cases, especially when they involve a child. "With children, there shouldn't be a limit to which doctor you could go," she says.
Desni has had to give up her job as a real estate agent to care for Bridget, who regularly must undergo chemotherapy and often has to stay in the hospital when she isn't feeling well, and also needs to avoid the common cold and infections that might come with group child care. Bob, a salesperson and a part-time musician, has had to work extra hours evenings and weekends trying to make up for the loss of income. But there are only so many hours in a day—especially on the days that also require the long commute back and forth to Bridget's hospital, which is about an hour and a half from their home. Years of monthly medical payments will certainly be a burden on this young family's budget. But they're determined to go on as best they can, knowing they can't be concerned about finances for the sake of their daughter.
Bridget is an Irish name which means "strength," and the Crocks say their daughter has shown a lot of it as she's battled her illness. Her parents just want to do their part. The children's health care system in the United States should not force families onto the brink of financial ruin when they are faced with a child's life threatening illness. The public health insurance option currently being considered by Congress is what this family needs. The Crocks should have comprehensive, affordable coverage for their child that will allow them access to specialized treatments when they are needed. A strong public health insurance option would do just that. Then families like the Crocks could focus their energy on the fight that really matters.
Email your Members of Congress today to let them know that affordable, comprehensive health coverage for everyone—especially children—is important to you at: www.childrensdefense.org/healthaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Wright Edelman, whose new book is The Sea Is So Wide And My Boat Is So Small: Charting a Course for the Next Generation, is president of the Children's Defense Fund. For more information about the Children's Defense Fund, go to http://www.childrensdefense.org/.
2 Feasts on the Feast Day of Corpus Christi
And a great day for a Picnic.
Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Georgetown is honoring the Feast of the Body of Christ Day
by holding its annual picnic at the beautiful grounds of Visitation school, starting with a Mass at 10:30am. All are invited, bring the kiddies. Lots of great frying up kosher dogs on the grill, homemade deserts and fruit salads.
In the Afternoon, the combined efforts of Saint Matthews' Social Justice and Hospitality Committees will serve the many homeless residents of downtown Washington, DC with a big luncheon. If you want to drop off any goodies to contribute to the effort stop by the North Conference room at around 1:00 pm Sunday.
And in keeping with the fact that Jesus came to earth as a baby in human form for a reason, see below another fun story on how eager someone was to get to earth.
http://www.parentdish.com/2009/06/10/mom-gives-birth-in-her-pants?icid=mainmaindl7link6http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parentdish.com%2F2009%2F06%2F10%2Fmom-gives-birth-in-her-pants
by holding its annual picnic at the beautiful grounds of Visitation school, starting with a Mass at 10:30am. All are invited, bring the kiddies. Lots of great frying up kosher dogs on the grill, homemade deserts and fruit salads.
In the Afternoon, the combined efforts of Saint Matthews' Social Justice and Hospitality Committees will serve the many homeless residents of downtown Washington, DC with a big luncheon. If you want to drop off any goodies to contribute to the effort stop by the North Conference room at around 1:00 pm Sunday.
And in keeping with the fact that Jesus came to earth as a baby in human form for a reason, see below another fun story on how eager someone was to get to earth.
http://www.parentdish.com/2009/06/10/mom-gives-birth-in-her-pants?icid=mainmaindl7link6http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parentdish.com%2F2009%2F06%2F10%2Fmom-gives-birth-in-her-pants
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Imagine a World Where Women Died in Childbirth-then look here
Trans Africa Forum. Justice for the African World.
June 11, 2009
Dear Friend,
On June 16, 1976 thousands of Black schoolchildren took to the streets to protest South Africa’s apartheid regime. Hundreds were killed and wounded. Thousands were forced to flee the country, carrying the fight against apartheid around the globe. Today June 16th is marked to honor the children of Soweto and to highlight the condition of children around the world. This year the international community, led by UNICEF, is shining the spotlight on the conditions facing women and their children.
Since 1990 an estimated 10 million women have died from complications related to child birth. Nigeria, which is the most populous country in Africa, and India account for one-third of all maternal deaths around the world. More striking, a woman dies from pregnancy or childbirth related causes every minute of every day, amounting to more than 500,000 women per year.
Regrettably, we continue to live in a world where women and children are largely marginalized and where too little attention is placed on rights-based approaches to policy. Our basic rights are enshrined not only in the U.S. Constitution, but also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Everyone, including women, has the right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, work, and necessary social services. And our children have rights. They have the right to develop, the right to protection from abuse. They have the right to life, to respect for their views, nondiscrimination, and devotion to their best interests, including healthcare, education, and legal rights. These rights are included in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.
Human rights and human security are the essence of our work at TransAfrica Forum.
This month the U.S. Congress voted on a wartime supplemental bill that will set aside billions to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine if those funds were used to invest in the common public good: health care, food security, nutrition, education.
Imagine if the millions who voted in historic numbers in the 2008 Presidential Election demanded substantive change from all our policymakers for women and children. Imagine if we demand that, in addition to a stimulus package, more resources be directed to saving lives as opposed to war and weapons.
At TransAfrica Forum, we are doing more than imagining. And, if you are reading this, we know that you are interested in action, too. Together, our collective action can ensure that we get the change we need and that we deserve. Making a financial contribution is one action that you can take today and be assured that it will further work designed to guarantee that human rights are more than imagined.
In solidarity,
Nicole, Imani, Mwiza, and the TransAfrica Family
P.S. Make human rights and social justice a reality; use our secure website to make your online donation today!
TransAfrica Forum | 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20006 |
Phone: 202.223.1960 | Fax: 202.223.1966 | info@transafricaforum.org
www.transafricaforum.org
Visit: www.transafricaforum.org/donate-taf to donate.
send email to mmunthali@transafricaforum.org
But I say LOVE
even Your Enemies.
Bless Those who Persecute and Spitefully Use You.
Love.
And yet those who think themselves the superior Christians engage in the most aweful forms of pure rank HATRED. Don't you dare call it anything else- like "not diluting the message" or being principled. Disgusting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/the-holocaust-museum-shoo_b_214133.html
Have you no Shame?
Have you no Shame when you call the US President "Infanticidal" (because he didn't vote another redundant law into place when there already was a law on the books regarding care of any already born infant?)
Have you no Shame when you vilify opponents with rank slander to make yourself feel spiritually superior in a fashion that would make a Pharisee blush?
I was sick all day thinking about an 88 year old man who wanted his life summed up and reduced to a murder charge and a hate crime felony with his face plastered across the country as the paragon of twisted self-righteousness of the most purely evil form.
I was even sicker thinking about another fatherless child who will grow up without his father because of the insane evil of a virulent inexcusable bigotted murderer.
Have you no Shame - you all know who you are.
Bless Those who Persecute and Spitefully Use You.
Love.
And yet those who think themselves the superior Christians engage in the most aweful forms of pure rank HATRED. Don't you dare call it anything else- like "not diluting the message" or being principled. Disgusting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/the-holocaust-museum-shoo_b_214133.html
Have you no Shame?
Have you no Shame when you call the US President "Infanticidal" (because he didn't vote another redundant law into place when there already was a law on the books regarding care of any already born infant?)
Have you no Shame when you vilify opponents with rank slander to make yourself feel spiritually superior in a fashion that would make a Pharisee blush?
I was sick all day thinking about an 88 year old man who wanted his life summed up and reduced to a murder charge and a hate crime felony with his face plastered across the country as the paragon of twisted self-righteousness of the most purely evil form.
I was even sicker thinking about another fatherless child who will grow up without his father because of the insane evil of a virulent inexcusable bigotted murderer.
Have you no Shame - you all know who you are.
Prayers For Iranian
Elections.
The Iranians are exercising a serious form of Democracy and there is a serious contender to the incumbent. Pray- that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. By all accounts the contender is a much more moderate reasonable character with whom we would likely enjoy dealing on a more peaceful plane and arena.
The Iranians are exercising a serious form of Democracy and there is a serious contender to the incumbent. Pray- that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. By all accounts the contender is a much more moderate reasonable character with whom we would likely enjoy dealing on a more peaceful plane and arena.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Calendar JUNE 12-
Conflict Solutions International
is pleased to present:
Cuba: Past, Present and Future
FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2009, 6:30 PM to 9:30 PM
Event
A DISTINGUISHED PANEL OF SPEAKERS WILL EXPLORE THE HISTORY OF CUBA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE U.S. AND THE NEW ADMINISTRATION IN WASHINGTON.
is pleased to present:
Cuba: Past, Present and Future
FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2009, 6:30 PM to 9:30 PM
Event
A DISTINGUISHED PANEL OF SPEAKERS WILL EXPLORE THE HISTORY OF CUBA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE U.S. AND THE NEW ADMINISTRATION IN WASHINGTON.
A RECEPTION WILL FOLLOW THE PROGRAM.
Please note that this is a private event by invitation only and RSVPs are required. For security reasons, photo ID
will be required of all guests. CSI reserves the right to deny admission to anyone it chooses.
Address and directions
Letelier Theater
3251 Prospect Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20007
Next to Café Milano. Nearest metro stop: Foggy Bottom George Washington University (Orange and Blue line).
Cost
MINIMUM SUGGESTED Donation OF $5 +
MINIMUM SUGGESTED Donation OF $5 +
All proceeds will go to CSI, a 501(C)(3) non-profit. Donations
are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by law.
For more information on the foundation please visit our website at
WWW.CSIORG.ORG
Dress code
Business attire or dignified casual
RSVP by Wednesday, June 10 to
csievent@aol.com
With your full name, number of guests, phone number and email
Your RSVP is necessary to notify you in the event of event change or cancellation.
For a list of sponsors, please see the program at the event.
are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by law.
For more information on the foundation please visit our website at
WWW.CSIORG.ORG
Dress code
Business attire or dignified casual
RSVP by Wednesday, June 10 to
csievent@aol.com
With your full name, number of guests, phone number and email
Your RSVP is necessary to notify you in the event of event change or cancellation.
For a list of sponsors, please see the program at the event.
Choose Life- Rhetorically
There is a sign in the window
of a few churchs in DC which they picked up from the March for Life. They say "We Choose Life." I always have to chuckle when I see those signs because I want to tell the priest inside
that if he really believed that he should have married the girl and had a baby already. Telling other people to choose life isn't actually choosing life, it's just paid advertising for it.
http://www.truthout.org/060809R
of a few churchs in DC which they picked up from the March for Life. They say "We Choose Life." I always have to chuckle when I see those signs because I want to tell the priest inside
that if he really believed that he should have married the girl and had a baby already. Telling other people to choose life isn't actually choosing life, it's just paid advertising for it.
http://www.truthout.org/060809R
Sticks and Stones will break your bones but Names can get you Shot Dead
Extreme, overheated rhetoric can have dangerous consequences.
(reprinted from The People For The American Way; this information was "deleted" from the "American Papist" blog; probably because some of their
posters are guilty of some of the same sort of comments below- as well as other
right wing-nut bloggers who use language like "infanticidal" for the US President.)
By now, you may have heard or read that last Sunday, Dr. George Tiller, a physician who has been targeted for years for his willingness to provide abortion procedures often in the most difficult circumstances, was assassinated in his church in Kansas.
Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished constitutional values and rights -- and should always be protected. But just because speech might be constitutionally protected does not make it right or decent.
There can be little doubt that the irresponsible, inflammatory, dehumanizing and violent speech of some around the abortion debate -- much of it targeted at Dr. Tiller himself -- contributed to this tragedy. The reaction to the assassination by some of these same people has been pretty shocking.
Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry said Tiller "reaped what he sowed."
Ann Coulter basically equated a woman's decision to have an abortion with a would-be assassin's decision to kill an abortion doctor.
And Wiley Drake, a former vice president of Southern Baptist Convention who last year was Alan Keyes' running mate, called Tiller's death "an answer to prayer." Drake then unabashedly told FOX broadcaster Alan Colmes on his radio show that he prays for the death of President Obama!
Dr. Tiller's death is a sad reminder that stoking the flames of hate has serious ramifications, yet the Radical Right is seemingly doing everything it can to continue the extreme demonization of its opponents, even suggesting violence with the use of images.
In the wake of Tiller's death, a Religious Right group calling itself Answers in Genesis has a billboard up in Texas and a TV ad comparing Atheism to murder. And the FOX Nation web site actually featured side-by-side articles with images that appear to have firearms aimed at the heads of progressive leaders who also happen to be African American. The absolute best that can be said of this is that FOX Nation is guilty of sloppy and irresponsible negligence.
It's incredibly important that we all stay vigilant in exposing the fear mongering and hate that drive people inclined towards violence to take action. PFAW's RightWingWatch.org blog is one such place for activists like you to stay informed. Please visit the blog often, sign up for regular "Best of the Blog" updates and help spread the word about this resource.
Thank you for all you do.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Celibacy and Self-flagulation
Healthy.
In the Dominican House of Studies in DC there is a chapel on which walls appears a whip to remind the House-broken boys that it was better to whip oneself silly than suffer the demon lust as they broke them into believing celibacy was the only path to holiness worthy of a priest. The Vatican Press machine is aflutter with the new expedited laicization rules for priests deigning and daring to challenge the mandatory "gift" of celibacy that the church gives its priests.
We are historically removed from how holiness got defined like this. Once upon a time there was no such rule - and Christ never imposed one. To the contrary, Bishops had to be the husband of one wife with their houses and kids in order. Timothy warned that in the end times there would be those who forbade marriage. It is titled "false asceticism."
All the "brothers of the Lord", Cephas (Peter) and "all the other Apostles" wrote Paul were married, and this was a "right."
Around the 11th or 12th century after earlier conventions, it became mandatory that all Priests had to renounce marriage (and give up wives if they had them). Up until then about 39 Popes were married. For the first ten centuries of Christendom there was no such requirement of mandatory celibacy. Consequently, the entire Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine rites have no such rule. The Catholic church operated under it for about 400 more years until the Protestant Reformation. No Protestant church makes celibacy mandatory. The Augustinian monk theologian Martin Luther who led the reformation by accident while protesting abuses of a system of "indulgences" used for the Vatican building finance campaign, married an x-nun and had five kids.
Now, it has its merits, this mandatory celibacy "gift" that the church gives his priests- or that they allegedly all have of the Holy Spirit. But it also has severe draw-backs.
Imagine for example that the American Bar Association came out with a rule that said No lawyer may ever marry- they must be celibate to best serve the needs of the community and maintain a quality of professionalism. Nothing about being a lawyer intrinsically requires that one cannot have a spouse while there would be obvious advantages- for example, one would not be burdened with
time diverted from writing briefs or running a law practice. One would not be inclined to spend long hours with ones spouse in the morning and get to work early. One would not have to spend money on kids that could be advanced for client costs, etc. Someone could develop a whole theology on why it maximally serves the profession to have lawyers that are forever lifetime celibates. After time, it would be unthinkable to have a married lawyer. If a lawyer got married it would offend everyone's sensibilities and he should be immediately disbarred. An entire class of people who were prideful lawyers would insist that there is no way possible to be a married lawyer because these are ontological contradictions. Pretty soon a distinct class of people who had no interest in being married (the conflicted repressed gays, the unfit to marry, the misogynists and those who drank the kool-aid) would pridefully insist that they were best qualified to be lawyers and no married people could be lawyers. People in healthy marriages or inclined to be attracted to the opposite sex desiring of intimacy would be self-vetted out or thrown out of the Bar. It would create a Bar of a particular psychological bent of people.
In the same way, nothing about being a priest intrinsically requires that one cannot have a spouse. Nothing. It is a cultural creation of the church. It has created a particular psychological bent of people as priests. It has self-affirmed the myth that these are the only truly qualified people to be priests, it has defined circularly its qualifications by what it wants to perpetuate.
And it excludes definitionally the healthy heterosexuals who desire intimacy with the opposite sex.
Is there any wonder then, that five states now, without credible moral opposition have legislated in "Marriage Equality" for Gay Marriage? Is there any wonder that women revolt against this intrinsically misogynist view of holiness that definitionally precludes them from
attaining requisite Christ-closeness "holiness" because they are women and mere conjugal association with them disqualifies a priest from the priesthood.
This doctrine is harmful to women. It is emotionally destructive to women. It is insulting to women. The Marriage Priesthood Option should be implemented. The harder the Pope cracks down against it, the more over 70% of all polled Americans think that the Church is harmful to them.
Moreover, the view that "Christ wasn't married" is not scripturally definitively sound.
Who would have to officiate to Christ for him to be married? Clearly there is no one with more
spiritual authority than Christ on earth. If he was committed to, for example, Mary Magdalene, with the sort of love that had her not leaving his side even while he was nailed to the Cross and later camping at his grave site Tomb all night, in a sense he was married to her. Who did Adam and Eve have officiate their wedding? Christ's words create life. For there to be a marriage vow with him and Mary Magdalene, all he would ever have to say is "You are coming with me"- and she did until he left the planet, came back and left again.
Jesus came as a baby to a human woman who had cosmic sex with the Holy Spirit. God took a human spouse. But women don't rank according to the Pope. What's wrong with this picture. What's seriously perversely wrong with this picture.
In the Dominican House of Studies in DC there is a chapel on which walls appears a whip to remind the House-broken boys that it was better to whip oneself silly than suffer the demon lust as they broke them into believing celibacy was the only path to holiness worthy of a priest. The Vatican Press machine is aflutter with the new expedited laicization rules for priests deigning and daring to challenge the mandatory "gift" of celibacy that the church gives its priests.
We are historically removed from how holiness got defined like this. Once upon a time there was no such rule - and Christ never imposed one. To the contrary, Bishops had to be the husband of one wife with their houses and kids in order. Timothy warned that in the end times there would be those who forbade marriage. It is titled "false asceticism."
All the "brothers of the Lord", Cephas (Peter) and "all the other Apostles" wrote Paul were married, and this was a "right."
Around the 11th or 12th century after earlier conventions, it became mandatory that all Priests had to renounce marriage (and give up wives if they had them). Up until then about 39 Popes were married. For the first ten centuries of Christendom there was no such requirement of mandatory celibacy. Consequently, the entire Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine rites have no such rule. The Catholic church operated under it for about 400 more years until the Protestant Reformation. No Protestant church makes celibacy mandatory. The Augustinian monk theologian Martin Luther who led the reformation by accident while protesting abuses of a system of "indulgences" used for the Vatican building finance campaign, married an x-nun and had five kids.
Now, it has its merits, this mandatory celibacy "gift" that the church gives his priests- or that they allegedly all have of the Holy Spirit. But it also has severe draw-backs.
Imagine for example that the American Bar Association came out with a rule that said No lawyer may ever marry- they must be celibate to best serve the needs of the community and maintain a quality of professionalism. Nothing about being a lawyer intrinsically requires that one cannot have a spouse while there would be obvious advantages- for example, one would not be burdened with
time diverted from writing briefs or running a law practice. One would not be inclined to spend long hours with ones spouse in the morning and get to work early. One would not have to spend money on kids that could be advanced for client costs, etc. Someone could develop a whole theology on why it maximally serves the profession to have lawyers that are forever lifetime celibates. After time, it would be unthinkable to have a married lawyer. If a lawyer got married it would offend everyone's sensibilities and he should be immediately disbarred. An entire class of people who were prideful lawyers would insist that there is no way possible to be a married lawyer because these are ontological contradictions. Pretty soon a distinct class of people who had no interest in being married (the conflicted repressed gays, the unfit to marry, the misogynists and those who drank the kool-aid) would pridefully insist that they were best qualified to be lawyers and no married people could be lawyers. People in healthy marriages or inclined to be attracted to the opposite sex desiring of intimacy would be self-vetted out or thrown out of the Bar. It would create a Bar of a particular psychological bent of people.
In the same way, nothing about being a priest intrinsically requires that one cannot have a spouse. Nothing. It is a cultural creation of the church. It has created a particular psychological bent of people as priests. It has self-affirmed the myth that these are the only truly qualified people to be priests, it has defined circularly its qualifications by what it wants to perpetuate.
And it excludes definitionally the healthy heterosexuals who desire intimacy with the opposite sex.
Is there any wonder then, that five states now, without credible moral opposition have legislated in "Marriage Equality" for Gay Marriage? Is there any wonder that women revolt against this intrinsically misogynist view of holiness that definitionally precludes them from
attaining requisite Christ-closeness "holiness" because they are women and mere conjugal association with them disqualifies a priest from the priesthood.
This doctrine is harmful to women. It is emotionally destructive to women. It is insulting to women. The Marriage Priesthood Option should be implemented. The harder the Pope cracks down against it, the more over 70% of all polled Americans think that the Church is harmful to them.
Moreover, the view that "Christ wasn't married" is not scripturally definitively sound.
Who would have to officiate to Christ for him to be married? Clearly there is no one with more
spiritual authority than Christ on earth. If he was committed to, for example, Mary Magdalene, with the sort of love that had her not leaving his side even while he was nailed to the Cross and later camping at his grave site Tomb all night, in a sense he was married to her. Who did Adam and Eve have officiate their wedding? Christ's words create life. For there to be a marriage vow with him and Mary Magdalene, all he would ever have to say is "You are coming with me"- and she did until he left the planet, came back and left again.
Jesus came as a baby to a human woman who had cosmic sex with the Holy Spirit. God took a human spouse. But women don't rank according to the Pope. What's wrong with this picture. What's seriously perversely wrong with this picture.
Wordsmithery Review: Daniel Levy on Obama
Daniel Levy comments on Obama's Muslim outreach tour.
Daniel Levy, an expert in international security issues notes as follows (reprinted with permission)
***
10 Comments on Obama in Cairo –
Still Accumulating, Not Expending Capital
The Obama team’s remarkable wordsmithery and the president’s unparalleled
capacity for delivery were exquisitely on display again today in Cairo. But this
speech should perhaps be remembered as much for what was not said. Gone was the
arrogance and lecturing: there was no lavishing of praise on Egypt’s
undemocratic leader – the word ‘Mubarak’ was not even mentioned once. Out too
was the purple finger version of democratization and even the traditional
American condescension toward the Palestinian narrative. But perhaps most
remarkably of all, the words ‘terror’ or ‘terrorism’ did not pass the
president’s lips. Here was a leader and a team around him smart enough to
acknowledge that certain words have become too tainted, too laden with baggage,
their use has become counter-productive, today the Global War on Terror framing
was truly laid to rest.
Particularly striking was that President Obama almost certainly has emerged from
the Cairo speech having accumulated additional capital rather than expending
it, with greater popularity, traction, and respect among not only his ostensible
target audience, the Muslim world, but also globally, including at home in
America and even in Israel and with the world’s Jewish community. His future
leverage across a range of issues has been enhanced.
It’s true that whenever the speech descended from the lofty heights of 30,000
feet to the 100-feet resolution of policy specifics and details, the magic dust
seemed to dissipate as it emerged from the clouds, and those details were too
often more autopilot than reset. But this was a big picture speech, and there is
room later to make those course corrections on policy detail.
Here then are ten quick thoughts:
1. The Mother of All Resets
The president’s speech literally in one fell swoop will have much of the Muslim
world and certainly elites, opinion leaders, and activists scratching their
heads and recalibrating their stance toward America. Yes, for everyone the proof
of the pudding will be in the eating, what comes next and whether policy changes
on specific issues. The immediate effect though is to buy America space and
time. It gives those who share an affinity with American values a new lease of
life, causes the majority who are not hostile to the US but deeply skeptical of
its intentions to reconsider and suspend judgment, and it will induce in
America’s enemies a splitting headache.
At a most basic level, the president managed to connect. He spoke humbly and
touched on buzz words for this audience, discussing dignity, justice, and the
truths we hold in our hearts. He even uttered the word colonialism and mentioned
denial of rights and cold-ward proxies. Obama evoked Islam’s contribution to the
world and to America, and yes, he quoted t he Quran. Above all, he restored
balance, confining the label of enemy only to those violent extremists who
threaten America’s security, while opening up to the vast majority of practicing
Muslims, including, I would argue, Islamist movements.
2. In Cairo the Conversation with Political Islam Began
By narrowly focusing on al-Qaeda as the enemy and apparently articulating an
understanding of the non-al-Qaeda Islamist narrative, the president seemed to
extend a tentative but visibly unclenched fist to mainstream political Islam. It
is those Islamist movements that we should be most closely watching in the weeks
and months ahead as they begin to work through their own responses to the new
administration.
Obama seemed to implicitly accept20the legitimacy of political Islam and its
role in the democratic process while challenging it to unequivocally reject
violence against civilians. There was a stark contrast, for instance, between
the president’s message to al-Qaeda (we will defeat you if you threaten us) as
compared to his message to Hamas (whom he addressed directly as having a role to
fulfill Palestinian aspirations and unify the Palestinian people).
The president’s historical analogies may not have been the best ones. In
discussing the nonviolent resistance of black America to the “lash of the whip”
in achieving equal rights he obviously made a powerful and reasonable point but
one that may be more relevant to a Palestinian struggle for a one-state
democracy rather than for national liberation and de-occupation. By claiming
that the same story can be told in South Africa and elsewhere, he simply rewrote
history – the ANC did of course use armed resistance in their struggle as did so
many other successful liberation movements.
That said, Obama’s effort to carry the argument in somewhat symp athetic terms
to the Palestinian resistance–“violence…rockets…is not how moral authority is
claimed; that is how it is surrendered”–was a valiant one and should be
encouraged, not least in Israel. I might be reading too much into this but the
speech could be seen as an acknowledgement that a process that engages Hamas is
more likely to produce results than one that does not.
Responding immediately on al-Jazeera, Ahmed Yusuf, advisor to Gaza Prime
Minister Haniyeh, lavished praised on Obama’s “Martin Luther King-like speech”
and his rejection of the clash of civilizations discourse while defensively
questioning his call for Hamas to accept the international community’s three
preconditions (end violence, accept past agreements, recognize Israel).The
distinction though was clear and the years of wrong-headedly lumping together
the Salafist jihadis of al-Qaeda with the Muslim Brothers of Hamas or the
Hezbollah movement is over.
3 . Regaining the Moral Clarity of 9/11
Almost eight years on, there it was, an American president explaining to the
world what happened on that day and the war of necessity against al-Qaeda that
was launched in its wake. It was an important moment in resetting and
reconfiguring for international and Muslim public opinion what happened then and
has happened since. It is also perhaps the most damning indictment of all for
the Bush presidency that in 2009 such a reiteration by an American president is
so necessary.
President Obama also reissued a clear statement of America’s interests across a
range of issues from getting out of Iraq and achieving a Palestinian state to
its goals in Afghanistan, and shared values with so much of the Muslim world in
promoting basic freedoms, religious pluralism, women’s rights, and development.
4. Finally a President Who Can Talk to Palestinians
Obama’s words on the Palestinian situation were not remarkable for his advocacy
of a two-state solution, his mentioning of Palestine, or his opposition to the
settlements. All of that we have heard before, and in fact, the speech gave
precious little by way of actually articulating a plan for Palestinian
de-occupation and statehood. But that was also its strength.
The idea of a Palestinian state, even before it exists, has lost much of its
luster and appeal for Palestinians precisely because American and Israeli
leaders talked about statehood as a technical fix for a Palestinian problem, in
exclusively economic, governance, and security terms. In so doing, they ignored
or demeaned and denied the Palestinian narrative and made the whole arrangement
sound rather unappetizing.
Today, President Obama began to redress that. PA capacity and economic
opportunities were something of a footnote. And thankfully, the building of
Palestinian security forces was not even mentioned.
Instead Obama spoke a language that actual Palestinians could relate to,
recalling the 60-year “pain of dislocation,” the “wait in refugee camps”
(without in the same breath emasculating the refugees of any rights). He spoke
of humiliation, occupation, and an intolerable situation – in other words,
Palestinian daily reality. Only after recognizing the Palestinian experience did
he chart the course for achieving “the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for
dignity,” namely, via a Palestinian state. This shift in discourse may be lost
on most American ears, not so for Palestinians and in the Arab and Muslim world,
and it begins to give Obama a moral authority that will allow him to address
this issue in speaking directly to the Palestinian people above the heads of
their divided leadership.
5. Shimon Peres Could Not Have Done a Better Job
In what is becoming classical Obama, he at the same time presented perhaps the
most compelling justification and explanation of Israel’s rights and its
existence ever spoken in an Arab and Muslim capital. No Israeli has ever done a
better job, he is a true friend. In the most unequivocal of terms and in a
speech that so captured Muslim world attention, Obama placed the notions of
threatening Israel’s destruction, stereotypes of Jews, and Holocaust denial, as
being irredeemably beyond the pale and unacceptable. And he reaffirmed America’s
“unbreakable bond with Israel.”
Tellingly, if unsurprisingly, it is these messages that are leading the Israeli
news coverage of the speech. While the government of Benjamin Netanyahu may be
squirming in discomfort at Obama’s reasoned and repeated calls for a settlement
freeze,=2 0for reopening Gaza, and for Palestinian statehood, the Israeli public
will, I think, be both reassured and keen to believe in the hope for change and
a better future for them also.
One imagines too that the day is not so far off for an honest, empathetic, and
home-truths Obama speech to Israel and the Jewish world. Expect that speech to
be not only well-received but also to bring us dramatically closer to finally
ending the Arab-Israeli conflict and achieving that two-state solution. Obama’s
use of the phrase, “align American policies with those who pursue peace,” will
also be noted in Jerusalem. Finally, by referring to “Jewish homeland” rather
than a Jewish state, Obama, I think, studiously avoided giving succor to the
slew of racist laws being presented in the new Israeli Knesset.
6. Policy Details – More Auto-Pilot Than Reset.
In a speech that I genuinely think carries game-changing potential for so many
issues that America and the Muslim world are caught up in, there was virtually
nothing new in detailed policy terms. That is very probably due to the nature of
the speech, and the detailed policy changes might follow in the coming months.
But if they don’t, Cairo will go down as a moment of unrequited promise and
opportunity.
On Israel-Palestine, we dusted off the Road Map (yet again), a Bush relic that
should have long ago been filed in the trash can, and the Afghanistan and Iraq
plans still do not sound too convincing. It’s unclear how even Obama’s more
sophisticated version of democratization will be advanced with America’s
staunchest and most democracy-resistant allies, and the way forward with Iran
remains opaque. Noteworthy, too, was that in a speech stating that America has
no designs on maintaining military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the continued
American military footprint elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world was not
touched upon.
7. Hosni Mubarak and the Perils of Playing Host
Egypt’s rulers would no doubt have been mortified had this speech taken place
anywhere else in the Arab or Muslim world. There is an understandable Egyptian
sense of pride in their history and sense of longing to still be considered the
region’s leading power. Having landed those hosting rights, Mubarak’s regime
today had to live with the consequences. Obama spoke to his audience and to the
Egyptian people, and in an interesting break from past practice, his
presidential host Mr. Mubarak was not even mentioned let alone lavished with
praise. It will not go unnoticed.
Obama did mention Egypt’s Christian Coptic minority and of course spoke to human
rights and people choosing their own governments to loud applause. So much for
all the neocon bleating before the speech about Obama being a valueless realist
ready to sell freedom-spirited Egyp tians down the river. I was not there, but a
sense of being empowered almost seemed to echo around the room at Cairo
University and well beyond, and it might have major implications for Egypt and
the region that will be played out in the coming years.
And finally, we have an American president who avoided the Pavlovian repetition
of how American support for the Egyptian regime is so linked to Egypt’s historic
peace with Israel. The way that linkage has played out – that America goes soft
of non-democratic tendencies in the Arab world as long as they are pro-Israel –
has done a great disservice to the public perception of not only peace but also
of America and even Israel.
8. More Hand Less Fist on Iran
There was even some encouragement for Obama’s Iran policy in today’s speech. It
was beginning to look disturbingly like the Obama administration would be
brandishing the stick of sanctions in one hand and the stopwatch of deadlines in
the other, thereby leaving no hand free to shake any prospective Iranian
unclenched fist. Obama moved beyond that. Many will point to his
acknowledgement of history: “The United States played a role in the overthrow of
a democratically elected Iranian government,” as being the money line. It’s
true that is a big deal and goes further than what was said in his Norouz
message. However, I think this was more important, if not entirely new: “any
nation- including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power
if it complies with its responsibilities under the NPT.”
The president also had this intriguing chestnut to share on nuclear
nonproliferation: “I understand those who protest that some countries have
weapons that others do not.” Now I may be a bit Israelocentric in how I look at
the world but this sounds like a not too subtle hint to me. Might this be a kind
of “yes – we acknowledge there is a double standard here regarding the Israeli
nuclear issue, and eventuall y we will get to that too.” It won’t be a headline,
Israel will officially ignore it, and when asked Obama’s spokespeople will
obfuscate but in more than a few capitals, including Jerusalem, a parsing
industry will grow up around those few words.
9. Giving a Finger to the Purple Finger Theory of Democratization
Obama did it. He reclaimed the democratization agenda by placing it in a broader
context as a set of rights and freedoms, and by going on to address religious
pluralism, women’s rights, and the challenge of adapting economic development
and modernity to traditional values. To be honest, it’s not a particularly
difficult one to pull off, but to give him his fair dues, Barack Obama does do
it better than anyone else. And there’s something of a new policy here, timely
with the Lebanese election elections next week: “…we will welcome all elected,
peaceful governments20- provided they govern with respect for all their people.”
The genius was in the pivot. Obama respected Islamic tradition and religious
piety, and for instance, a woman’s right to wear the hijab, and he then pivoted
that into a broader discussion of the values of female education and women’s
rights, placing those things in seamless harmony rather than in contradiction.
After an American president who was perceived as doing so much to sow division
in the Muslim world, one of Obama’s most powerful lines was undoubtedly,
“fault-lines must be closed among Muslims… the divisions between Sunni and Shia
have led to tragic violence,” and all this couched in a constant appeal to young
people.
10. And He Was Also Speaking to the American Public
After years of fear-mongering, Islamofascist awareness weeks on campuses, and
tens of millio ns of copies of the vile “Obsession” DVD appearing in newspapers
and mailboxes, yet another, no less important, reset button was pressed today.
The president will no doubt be accused of apologetics and moral relativism, but
he decided to face this head-on, to go to Cairo, speak with respect and honesty
to the Muslim world, and to do what was best for America’s national security
interests.
In so doing, he was also broadcasting a message back home. Most American Muslims
will no doubt be feeling a great sense of pride and inspiration from this
speech. The rest of America was given a timely and even touching reminder of the
contributions that American Muslims have made to this country and that Muslims
have given the world in general. Oh, and there might have even been a little
message in there upping the ante, for Congress and even for his own party–“I
have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.”
Daniel Levy, an expert in international security issues notes as follows (reprinted with permission)
***
10 Comments on Obama in Cairo –
Still Accumulating, Not Expending Capital
The Obama team’s remarkable wordsmithery and the president’s unparalleled
capacity for delivery were exquisitely on display again today in Cairo. But this
speech should perhaps be remembered as much for what was not said. Gone was the
arrogance and lecturing: there was no lavishing of praise on Egypt’s
undemocratic leader – the word ‘Mubarak’ was not even mentioned once. Out too
was the purple finger version of democratization and even the traditional
American condescension toward the Palestinian narrative. But perhaps most
remarkably of all, the words ‘terror’ or ‘terrorism’ did not pass the
president’s lips. Here was a leader and a team around him smart enough to
acknowledge that certain words have become too tainted, too laden with baggage,
their use has become counter-productive, today the Global War on Terror framing
was truly laid to rest.
Particularly striking was that President Obama almost certainly has emerged from
the Cairo speech having accumulated additional capital rather than expending
it, with greater popularity, traction, and respect among not only his ostensible
target audience, the Muslim world, but also globally, including at home in
America and even in Israel and with the world’s Jewish community. His future
leverage across a range of issues has been enhanced.
It’s true that whenever the speech descended from the lofty heights of 30,000
feet to the 100-feet resolution of policy specifics and details, the magic dust
seemed to dissipate as it emerged from the clouds, and those details were too
often more autopilot than reset. But this was a big picture speech, and there is
room later to make those course corrections on policy detail.
Here then are ten quick thoughts:
1. The Mother of All Resets
The president’s speech literally in one fell swoop will have much of the Muslim
world and certainly elites, opinion leaders, and activists scratching their
heads and recalibrating their stance toward America. Yes, for everyone the proof
of the pudding will be in the eating, what comes next and whether policy changes
on specific issues. The immediate effect though is to buy America space and
time. It gives those who share an affinity with American values a new lease of
life, causes the majority who are not hostile to the US but deeply skeptical of
its intentions to reconsider and suspend judgment, and it will induce in
America’s enemies a splitting headache.
At a most basic level, the president managed to connect. He spoke humbly and
touched on buzz words for this audience, discussing dignity, justice, and the
truths we hold in our hearts. He even uttered the word colonialism and mentioned
denial of rights and cold-ward proxies. Obama evoked Islam’s contribution to the
world and to America, and yes, he quoted t he Quran. Above all, he restored
balance, confining the label of enemy only to those violent extremists who
threaten America’s security, while opening up to the vast majority of practicing
Muslims, including, I would argue, Islamist movements.
2. In Cairo the Conversation with Political Islam Began
By narrowly focusing on al-Qaeda as the enemy and apparently articulating an
understanding of the non-al-Qaeda Islamist narrative, the president seemed to
extend a tentative but visibly unclenched fist to mainstream political Islam. It
is those Islamist movements that we should be most closely watching in the weeks
and months ahead as they begin to work through their own responses to the new
administration.
Obama seemed to implicitly accept20the legitimacy of political Islam and its
role in the democratic process while challenging it to unequivocally reject
violence against civilians. There was a stark contrast, for instance, between
the president’s message to al-Qaeda (we will defeat you if you threaten us) as
compared to his message to Hamas (whom he addressed directly as having a role to
fulfill Palestinian aspirations and unify the Palestinian people).
The president’s historical analogies may not have been the best ones. In
discussing the nonviolent resistance of black America to the “lash of the whip”
in achieving equal rights he obviously made a powerful and reasonable point but
one that may be more relevant to a Palestinian struggle for a one-state
democracy rather than for national liberation and de-occupation. By claiming
that the same story can be told in South Africa and elsewhere, he simply rewrote
history – the ANC did of course use armed resistance in their struggle as did so
many other successful liberation movements.
That said, Obama’s effort to carry the argument in somewhat symp athetic terms
to the Palestinian resistance–“violence…rockets…is not how moral authority is
claimed; that is how it is surrendered”–was a valiant one and should be
encouraged, not least in Israel. I might be reading too much into this but the
speech could be seen as an acknowledgement that a process that engages Hamas is
more likely to produce results than one that does not.
Responding immediately on al-Jazeera, Ahmed Yusuf, advisor to Gaza Prime
Minister Haniyeh, lavished praised on Obama’s “Martin Luther King-like speech”
and his rejection of the clash of civilizations discourse while defensively
questioning his call for Hamas to accept the international community’s three
preconditions (end violence, accept past agreements, recognize Israel).The
distinction though was clear and the years of wrong-headedly lumping together
the Salafist jihadis of al-Qaeda with the Muslim Brothers of Hamas or the
Hezbollah movement is over.
3 . Regaining the Moral Clarity of 9/11
Almost eight years on, there it was, an American president explaining to the
world what happened on that day and the war of necessity against al-Qaeda that
was launched in its wake. It was an important moment in resetting and
reconfiguring for international and Muslim public opinion what happened then and
has happened since. It is also perhaps the most damning indictment of all for
the Bush presidency that in 2009 such a reiteration by an American president is
so necessary.
President Obama also reissued a clear statement of America’s interests across a
range of issues from getting out of Iraq and achieving a Palestinian state to
its goals in Afghanistan, and shared values with so much of the Muslim world in
promoting basic freedoms, religious pluralism, women’s rights, and development.
4. Finally a President Who Can Talk to Palestinians
Obama’s words on the Palestinian situation were not remarkable for his advocacy
of a two-state solution, his mentioning of Palestine, or his opposition to the
settlements. All of that we have heard before, and in fact, the speech gave
precious little by way of actually articulating a plan for Palestinian
de-occupation and statehood. But that was also its strength.
The idea of a Palestinian state, even before it exists, has lost much of its
luster and appeal for Palestinians precisely because American and Israeli
leaders talked about statehood as a technical fix for a Palestinian problem, in
exclusively economic, governance, and security terms. In so doing, they ignored
or demeaned and denied the Palestinian narrative and made the whole arrangement
sound rather unappetizing.
Today, President Obama began to redress that. PA capacity and economic
opportunities were something of a footnote. And thankfully, the building of
Palestinian security forces was not even mentioned.
Instead Obama spoke a language that actual Palestinians could relate to,
recalling the 60-year “pain of dislocation,” the “wait in refugee camps”
(without in the same breath emasculating the refugees of any rights). He spoke
of humiliation, occupation, and an intolerable situation – in other words,
Palestinian daily reality. Only after recognizing the Palestinian experience did
he chart the course for achieving “the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for
dignity,” namely, via a Palestinian state. This shift in discourse may be lost
on most American ears, not so for Palestinians and in the Arab and Muslim world,
and it begins to give Obama a moral authority that will allow him to address
this issue in speaking directly to the Palestinian people above the heads of
their divided leadership.
5. Shimon Peres Could Not Have Done a Better Job
In what is becoming classical Obama, he at the same time presented perhaps the
most compelling justification and explanation of Israel’s rights and its
existence ever spoken in an Arab and Muslim capital. No Israeli has ever done a
better job, he is a true friend. In the most unequivocal of terms and in a
speech that so captured Muslim world attention, Obama placed the notions of
threatening Israel’s destruction, stereotypes of Jews, and Holocaust denial, as
being irredeemably beyond the pale and unacceptable. And he reaffirmed America’s
“unbreakable bond with Israel.”
Tellingly, if unsurprisingly, it is these messages that are leading the Israeli
news coverage of the speech. While the government of Benjamin Netanyahu may be
squirming in discomfort at Obama’s reasoned and repeated calls for a settlement
freeze,=2 0for reopening Gaza, and for Palestinian statehood, the Israeli public
will, I think, be both reassured and keen to believe in the hope for change and
a better future for them also.
One imagines too that the day is not so far off for an honest, empathetic, and
home-truths Obama speech to Israel and the Jewish world. Expect that speech to
be not only well-received but also to bring us dramatically closer to finally
ending the Arab-Israeli conflict and achieving that two-state solution. Obama’s
use of the phrase, “align American policies with those who pursue peace,” will
also be noted in Jerusalem. Finally, by referring to “Jewish homeland” rather
than a Jewish state, Obama, I think, studiously avoided giving succor to the
slew of racist laws being presented in the new Israeli Knesset.
6. Policy Details – More Auto-Pilot Than Reset.
In a speech that I genuinely think carries game-changing potential for so many
issues that America and the Muslim world are caught up in, there was virtually
nothing new in detailed policy terms. That is very probably due to the nature of
the speech, and the detailed policy changes might follow in the coming months.
But if they don’t, Cairo will go down as a moment of unrequited promise and
opportunity.
On Israel-Palestine, we dusted off the Road Map (yet again), a Bush relic that
should have long ago been filed in the trash can, and the Afghanistan and Iraq
plans still do not sound too convincing. It’s unclear how even Obama’s more
sophisticated version of democratization will be advanced with America’s
staunchest and most democracy-resistant allies, and the way forward with Iran
remains opaque. Noteworthy, too, was that in a speech stating that America has
no designs on maintaining military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the continued
American military footprint elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world was not
touched upon.
7. Hosni Mubarak and the Perils of Playing Host
Egypt’s rulers would no doubt have been mortified had this speech taken place
anywhere else in the Arab or Muslim world. There is an understandable Egyptian
sense of pride in their history and sense of longing to still be considered the
region’s leading power. Having landed those hosting rights, Mubarak’s regime
today had to live with the consequences. Obama spoke to his audience and to the
Egyptian people, and in an interesting break from past practice, his
presidential host Mr. Mubarak was not even mentioned let alone lavished with
praise. It will not go unnoticed.
Obama did mention Egypt’s Christian Coptic minority and of course spoke to human
rights and people choosing their own governments to loud applause. So much for
all the neocon bleating before the speech about Obama being a valueless realist
ready to sell freedom-spirited Egyp tians down the river. I was not there, but a
sense of being empowered almost seemed to echo around the room at Cairo
University and well beyond, and it might have major implications for Egypt and
the region that will be played out in the coming years.
And finally, we have an American president who avoided the Pavlovian repetition
of how American support for the Egyptian regime is so linked to Egypt’s historic
peace with Israel. The way that linkage has played out – that America goes soft
of non-democratic tendencies in the Arab world as long as they are pro-Israel –
has done a great disservice to the public perception of not only peace but also
of America and even Israel.
8. More Hand Less Fist on Iran
There was even some encouragement for Obama’s Iran policy in today’s speech. It
was beginning to look disturbingly like the Obama administration would be
brandishing the stick of sanctions in one hand and the stopwatch of deadlines in
the other, thereby leaving no hand free to shake any prospective Iranian
unclenched fist. Obama moved beyond that. Many will point to his
acknowledgement of history: “The United States played a role in the overthrow of
a democratically elected Iranian government,” as being the money line. It’s
true that is a big deal and goes further than what was said in his Norouz
message. However, I think this was more important, if not entirely new: “any
nation- including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power
if it complies with its responsibilities under the NPT.”
The president also had this intriguing chestnut to share on nuclear
nonproliferation: “I understand those who protest that some countries have
weapons that others do not.” Now I may be a bit Israelocentric in how I look at
the world but this sounds like a not too subtle hint to me. Might this be a kind
of “yes – we acknowledge there is a double standard here regarding the Israeli
nuclear issue, and eventuall y we will get to that too.” It won’t be a headline,
Israel will officially ignore it, and when asked Obama’s spokespeople will
obfuscate but in more than a few capitals, including Jerusalem, a parsing
industry will grow up around those few words.
9. Giving a Finger to the Purple Finger Theory of Democratization
Obama did it. He reclaimed the democratization agenda by placing it in a broader
context as a set of rights and freedoms, and by going on to address religious
pluralism, women’s rights, and the challenge of adapting economic development
and modernity to traditional values. To be honest, it’s not a particularly
difficult one to pull off, but to give him his fair dues, Barack Obama does do
it better than anyone else. And there’s something of a new policy here, timely
with the Lebanese election elections next week: “…we will welcome all elected,
peaceful governments20- provided they govern with respect for all their people.”
The genius was in the pivot. Obama respected Islamic tradition and religious
piety, and for instance, a woman’s right to wear the hijab, and he then pivoted
that into a broader discussion of the values of female education and women’s
rights, placing those things in seamless harmony rather than in contradiction.
After an American president who was perceived as doing so much to sow division
in the Muslim world, one of Obama’s most powerful lines was undoubtedly,
“fault-lines must be closed among Muslims… the divisions between Sunni and Shia
have led to tragic violence,” and all this couched in a constant appeal to young
people.
10. And He Was Also Speaking to the American Public
After years of fear-mongering, Islamofascist awareness weeks on campuses, and
tens of millio ns of copies of the vile “Obsession” DVD appearing in newspapers
and mailboxes, yet another, no less important, reset button was pressed today.
The president will no doubt be accused of apologetics and moral relativism, but
he decided to face this head-on, to go to Cairo, speak with respect and honesty
to the Muslim world, and to do what was best for America’s national security
interests.
In so doing, he was also broadcasting a message back home. Most American Muslims
will no doubt be feeling a great sense of pride and inspiration from this
speech. The rest of America was given a timely and even touching reminder of the
contributions that American Muslims have made to this country and that Muslims
have given the world in general. Oh, and there might have even been a little
message in there upping the ante, for Congress and even for his own party–“I
have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.”
Daniel Levy is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative at The Century Foundation and a Senior Fellow and Director of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation.
During the Barak Government, he worked in the Prime Minister's Office as special adviser and head of the Jerusalem Affairs unit under Minister Haim Ramon. He also worked as senior policy adviser to former Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin. He was a member of the official Israeli delegation to the Taba negotiations with the Palestinians in January 2001, and previously served on the negotiating team to the “Oslo B” Agreement from May to September 1995, under Prime Minister Rabin. In 2003, he worked as an analyst for the International Crisis Group Middle East Program. Daniel was the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative and prior to joining The Century Foundation and New America Foundation was directing policy planning and international relations at the Geneva Campaign Headquarters in Tel Aviv.
Levy received a Bachelors and Masters with Honors from King’s College, Cambridge; he was awarded prizes in Social and Political Science and was Scholar of the College. He served as World Chairman of the World Union of Jewish Students in Jerusalem from 1991 to 1994 and as Projects Director for the Economic Co-operation Foundation, a policy planning think-tank in Tel Aviv. He has published extensively in a broad range of publications including Ha’aretz, The Jerusalem Post, The Boston Globe, United Press International, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The International Herald Tribune, and more.
During the Barak Government, he worked in the Prime Minister's Office as special adviser and head of the Jerusalem Affairs unit under Minister Haim Ramon. He also worked as senior policy adviser to former Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin. He was a member of the official Israeli delegation to the Taba negotiations with the Palestinians in January 2001, and previously served on the negotiating team to the “Oslo B” Agreement from May to September 1995, under Prime Minister Rabin. In 2003, he worked as an analyst for the International Crisis Group Middle East Program. Daniel was the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative and prior to joining The Century Foundation and New America Foundation was directing policy planning and international relations at the Geneva Campaign Headquarters in Tel Aviv.
Levy received a Bachelors and Masters with Honors from King’s College, Cambridge; he was awarded prizes in Social and Political Science and was Scholar of the College. He served as World Chairman of the World Union of Jewish Students in Jerusalem from 1991 to 1994 and as Projects Director for the Economic Co-operation Foundation, a policy planning think-tank in Tel Aviv. He has published extensively in a broad range of publications including Ha’aretz, The Jerusalem Post, The Boston Globe, United Press International, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The International Herald Tribune, and more.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Crossing the Bridge is only Half Way Home
The Progressive Campaign for America's Future
reminded me of the walk home from Valley Forge Jr. High. If I missed the sports bus I had to walk home- all the way home up Valley Forge Mountain. When I crossed the bridge and the creek that ran through the Park I was only half way home. Democrats are back in power- everywhere- we crossed the Bridge. Now we have to walk up the Mountain- and that is the hard part.
reminded me of the walk home from Valley Forge Jr. High. If I missed the sports bus I had to walk home- all the way home up Valley Forge Mountain. When I crossed the bridge and the creek that ran through the Park I was only half way home. Democrats are back in power- everywhere- we crossed the Bridge. Now we have to walk up the Mountain- and that is the hard part.
Straw Poll ranks Heath Care Highest Concern-Let's Gidder Dun
at the Campaign For America's Future
(republished from email from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Democracy Corps polling)
Final results show progressives overwhelmingly approve of President Obama, see health care reform with a public option as top priority
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, in conjunction with Democracy Corps and Campaign for America's Future conducted a straw poll among registered participants at “America's Future Now!”, an annual conference of progressive activists from around the country. The poll, measuring preferences on key issues and opinions, has been a feature of the conference for three years in a row.
Read more »
Poll results show that progressives are energized by President Obama and supportive of his agenda. An overwhelming 90 percent of conference goers approve of the job he is doing, with over half (53 percent) strongly approving. Similarly, President Obama's personal favorability rating among conference attendees is sky-high as 90 percent of attendees rate the president favorably, including three-quarters who rate him very favorably.
Other key findings:
While participants found a lot to like in the first 100 days plus, they are very focused on health care as the highest priority: 43 percent say it should be the president's top priority, with all other responses in the teens or lower. And while the participants strongly support the president and his priorities, 63 percent say they will not support a health care plan without a public option for health insurance, even if that was the only way to get the planned passed.
While two thirds of conference attendees (66 percent) favor congressional investigations into the practices of the Bush Administration in their handling of suspected terrorist suspects, an even stronger majority (81 percent) would like to see Congress investigate the fraud and excesses of Wall Street that led to the financial crisis.
Not surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh is incredibly unpopular with participants. Indeed, his favorability rating – with just 3 percent of participants rating him favorably – represents one of the lowest personal thermometer ratings of any poll Greenberg Quinlan Rosner has ever conducted.
The straw poll also surveyed favorability of key media figures. Jon Stewart bests Stephen Colbert in our favorability battery (with 83 percent of attendees rating Stewart favorably compared to 79 percent who do so for Colbert) and Rachel Maddow is viewed more favorably than Keith Olbermann (with 70 and 68 percent rating Maddow and Olbermann warmly respectively).
Stan Greenberg, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner CEO announced the final results at the conference closing ceremonies on Wednesday.
(republished from email from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Democracy Corps polling)
Final results show progressives overwhelmingly approve of President Obama, see health care reform with a public option as top priority
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, in conjunction with Democracy Corps and Campaign for America's Future conducted a straw poll among registered participants at “America's Future Now!”, an annual conference of progressive activists from around the country. The poll, measuring preferences on key issues and opinions, has been a feature of the conference for three years in a row.
Read more »
Poll results show that progressives are energized by President Obama and supportive of his agenda. An overwhelming 90 percent of conference goers approve of the job he is doing, with over half (53 percent) strongly approving. Similarly, President Obama's personal favorability rating among conference attendees is sky-high as 90 percent of attendees rate the president favorably, including three-quarters who rate him very favorably.
Other key findings:
While participants found a lot to like in the first 100 days plus, they are very focused on health care as the highest priority: 43 percent say it should be the president's top priority, with all other responses in the teens or lower. And while the participants strongly support the president and his priorities, 63 percent say they will not support a health care plan without a public option for health insurance, even if that was the only way to get the planned passed.
While two thirds of conference attendees (66 percent) favor congressional investigations into the practices of the Bush Administration in their handling of suspected terrorist suspects, an even stronger majority (81 percent) would like to see Congress investigate the fraud and excesses of Wall Street that led to the financial crisis.
Not surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh is incredibly unpopular with participants. Indeed, his favorability rating – with just 3 percent of participants rating him favorably – represents one of the lowest personal thermometer ratings of any poll Greenberg Quinlan Rosner has ever conducted.
The straw poll also surveyed favorability of key media figures. Jon Stewart bests Stephen Colbert in our favorability battery (with 83 percent of attendees rating Stewart favorably compared to 79 percent who do so for Colbert) and Rachel Maddow is viewed more favorably than Keith Olbermann (with 70 and 68 percent rating Maddow and Olbermann warmly respectively).
Stan Greenberg, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner CEO announced the final results at the conference closing ceremonies on Wednesday.
We Are Just Getting Started
Concluded Borosage in his closing remarks at the Campaign For America's Future.
Progressives from all over the country convened for three successful days in Washington to discuss everything from the health care and educational finance crisis, the necessity of implementing a meaningful public health care option, to the role of new media (bloggery versus print journalism and old fashioned TV), our billions in a massive trade deficit, our shrinking manufacturing industrial base, our rising unemployment and the need to strengthen unions and statutory provisions to encourage unionization, our Pell Grant deficit, our Afghani war problem and all the things we elected Obama to fix. Panel after panel gave strategic angles and analysis.
Closing speakers were inspirational noting that the civil rights legends like Jesse Jackson who came in all humility to address leveling the playing field in education, stood shoulder to shoulder once with civil rights greats walking with Martin Luther King, Jr. Through seven degrees of separation I felt more connected to Martin Luther King by being blessed with Jackson's presence and marvelled at how astounding it truly is that now we have an African American President.
A meme can be a crippling assumption that blocks change. This was a Meme-busting convention which threw down the gauntlet to challenge us all to dream bigger and better and push the envelope on the possible. The "Washington as usual" mantra was crushed beneath the
"Yes we can" ethic- Yes we can get universal health care with a public option, Yes we can have a country where higher education is subsidized adequately for those who need it so all are educated as far as their dreams take them, Yes we can have a regenerated industrial base through a new green economy and a positive balance of trade, Yes we can make Peace in Afghanistan and Iraq, Yes we can rebuild our infrastructure, Yes we can have a country where once again the next generation is better off than the previous one. The American dream was alive and well at the Progressive conference. Platitudes aside, it is now time to get down to business. The easy part was "taking back" the country. The hard part will be building it again on a platform of socio-economic and educational Justice and Equity to compete in the global marketplace.
HUGE thanks again to the Campaign for America's Future and all it's organizers, staff and directors.
Progressives from all over the country convened for three successful days in Washington to discuss everything from the health care and educational finance crisis, the necessity of implementing a meaningful public health care option, to the role of new media (bloggery versus print journalism and old fashioned TV), our billions in a massive trade deficit, our shrinking manufacturing industrial base, our rising unemployment and the need to strengthen unions and statutory provisions to encourage unionization, our Pell Grant deficit, our Afghani war problem and all the things we elected Obama to fix. Panel after panel gave strategic angles and analysis.
Closing speakers were inspirational noting that the civil rights legends like Jesse Jackson who came in all humility to address leveling the playing field in education, stood shoulder to shoulder once with civil rights greats walking with Martin Luther King, Jr. Through seven degrees of separation I felt more connected to Martin Luther King by being blessed with Jackson's presence and marvelled at how astounding it truly is that now we have an African American President.
A meme can be a crippling assumption that blocks change. This was a Meme-busting convention which threw down the gauntlet to challenge us all to dream bigger and better and push the envelope on the possible. The "Washington as usual" mantra was crushed beneath the
"Yes we can" ethic- Yes we can get universal health care with a public option, Yes we can have a country where higher education is subsidized adequately for those who need it so all are educated as far as their dreams take them, Yes we can have a regenerated industrial base through a new green economy and a positive balance of trade, Yes we can make Peace in Afghanistan and Iraq, Yes we can rebuild our infrastructure, Yes we can have a country where once again the next generation is better off than the previous one. The American dream was alive and well at the Progressive conference. Platitudes aside, it is now time to get down to business. The easy part was "taking back" the country. The hard part will be building it again on a platform of socio-economic and educational Justice and Equity to compete in the global marketplace.
HUGE thanks again to the Campaign for America's Future and all it's organizers, staff and directors.
Somebody Please Make Him Stop
Cheney Likes his Waterboarding "Well Done"- what? As opposed to Medium Rare??
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/01/waterboarding-was-well-done/
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/01/waterboarding-was-well-done/
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Jesse's Girl
Jesse Jackson paints more Rainbows of Hope
Jesse Jackson, make no mistake is a Pastor. Sure, he runs a highly successful Coalition delivering Rainbows of salvation and for those of you too young to remember- he was the first African American to run for President (twice)- but above all- he is a Pastor with a Pastor's heart who has devoted himself to Justice and Mercy. Educational Justice is now on his plate and he's serious about it.
He headlined the panel this afternoon on Educational Reform at the Campaign for America's Future starting his session by asking people in the audience whether they still had any student loans.
More than half the room's hands went up. He noted no one should feel too bad about this- Michelle and Barack Obama just paid off all their loans two years ago with the booming book sales. Two years ago they were mid-career professionals like lots of us only with a pocket of student debt.
Then Jesse asked people to say how much debt they were in. People were not shy so much as indignant that they had to carry this much- $40,000, $30,000, $110,000 including grad school, etc. The numbers were stunning.
So much for the argument that you can get a college education for little more than a car note.
Wrong!
Jesse noted that we have had a shift in thinking about higher Education from a place where we understood it to be an investment in the future of the country (one vet who went to college on a GI bill noted the country reaped the investment in his higher tax revenue return) to viewing is as a commodity. JJ believes that we should have expanded grants rather than loans, and that the interest rates for loans should not exceed the bank interest rates.
One pitiable soul is paying 17% interest on his student loans. Another carries six figures. Even one panelist said she had no idea how she was going to pay off her $80,000 after attending Pitt when she makes less than $40,000 a year.
Where did the country go off the rails in penalizing kids who have the brains and ambition to go to college with overwhelming punishing debt at usurious interest? As school tuition rises, it becomes all the more imperative to get a handle on this and provide a means by which kids can afford to go to college and know that they are not ruining their life by strapping them with debt- which can never be discharged in any bankruptcy. It stays with them always.
Note to pro-lifers, if more grants were available so young women/girls could still go to college
while having a child they would be less likely to abort. They cannot work and go to college while
the child is young- grants would allow them to continue to go to college and feel like they have the resources to have a child. This would serve to encourage a lot more girls/young women to keep their children rather than abort. One half of all abortions happen to women before the age they would have graduated from college. One Half. Something is wrong here that can be looked at from a prism of educational finance reform.
People need to make their voices heard --Just electing an excellent President is not going to move anything unless he gets the message that we want the Change We Can Believe In and know what it is. Educational reform is a key to economic progress.
One panelist noted that at a recent UNESCO conference she was chagrined to learn that the US is one of the few countries that does not subsidize across the board college education. It's free in France for the most part for example. It's free in England if you can get in most places.
So lets fix it now here.
THE WOMEN WHO RAN FOR PRESIDENT
JO FREEMAN Talks
At the Women's National Democratic Club, June 12, 5:30-7:00 to discuss a Chapter in her book, 'Before Hillary: The Women Who Ran For President." Call 232-7363 for details.
Between 1964 and 2004 over 50 women have been on at least one ballot as candidates for President both as a minory party candidate and as candidates in primaries for the nomination of the Republican or Democratic parties. in the 19th century, voters cast tickets prepared by the parties rather than marked ballots prepared by the state. Not until 1964 did any wmoan have her name on a ballot as a candidate for President.
Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (ME)
Rep. Shirley Chisolm (NY)
Charlene Mitchell
Ellen Mccormack
Lenora Fulani
Elizabeth Dole
Jo Freeman is a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. www.jofreeman.com
Email: jfrbc@hotmail.com
At the Women's National Democratic Club, June 12, 5:30-7:00 to discuss a Chapter in her book, 'Before Hillary: The Women Who Ran For President." Call 232-7363 for details.
Between 1964 and 2004 over 50 women have been on at least one ballot as candidates for President both as a minory party candidate and as candidates in primaries for the nomination of the Republican or Democratic parties. in the 19th century, voters cast tickets prepared by the parties rather than marked ballots prepared by the state. Not until 1964 did any wmoan have her name on a ballot as a candidate for President.
Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (ME)
Rep. Shirley Chisolm (NY)
Charlene Mitchell
Ellen Mccormack
Lenora Fulani
Elizabeth Dole
Jo Freeman is a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. www.jofreeman.com
Email: jfrbc@hotmail.com
Campaign For America's Future continues.....
www.BLOGTALKRADIO.com
Live Streaming. Green economies, and the greening of buildings, creating a land a Man on the Moon economic initiative and a sustainable environment --
now being discussed by co-director of the Campaign For America's Future and luncheon speakers.
Catch the Vision- the transition to the GREENING OF AMERICA. Tune in now.
Taking it up a level- the merging of environmental and energy policy.
Live Streaming. Green economies, and the greening of buildings, creating a land a Man on the Moon economic initiative and a sustainable environment --
now being discussed by co-director of the Campaign For America's Future and luncheon speakers.
Catch the Vision- the transition to the GREENING OF AMERICA. Tune in now.
Taking it up a level- the merging of environmental and energy policy.
Winning the Peace, not the War in Afghanistan
www.RETHINKAFGHANISTAN.com
Larry Corb, a frequent lecturer at the Center for American Progress and expert on military matters noted in the video/DVD that you can order off the above site that the Afghan and Iraq wars combined will cost us a trillion dollars under the current plans before long.
The conclusion that this contributed to our current economic melt-down is unavoidable. Much if not most of this funding is borrowed funding for which we owe interest- even to foreign governments.
The DVD is moving in its depiction of civilian casualties and the antipathy that the Afghanis have regarding the American military presence. We have had 7 years to deliver on infastructure and aid and all the funds seem to be misplaced in the direction of the American contractors direction enriching Americans not Afghanis. That, anyway appears to be the perception of the Afghani families who curse the existence of the soldiers and throw their candy back in their faces.
At a panel on 'Rethinking Afghanistan' an American woman who spent the last four years living in Afghanistan indicated that at one time there was a window of opportunity for Americans
after the repressive Taliban was thrown out- she could travel freely on public transport and felt more or less welcome. Not so now. She argued that the existence of our overthrow of the Taliban only benefitted a small minority of women who threw off their Burkas but the village women were unafected except that wherever American soldiers were in which places they were under tighter repressive lock and key.
Panelists argued that the effort now should be directed toward winning the peace- rebuilding schools and infrastructure using capable Afghanis- even expat Afghanis who are living in Western countries (such as a German NGO is doing sending German Afghani doctors to serve in clinics throughout Afghanistan.) There is a large Afghani diaspora who could be summoned to help with their professional skills. The solution won't be military, argued panelists. The Afghanis are the world champions of throwing off foreign occupation and domination and the Taliban are a mixed lot of people who are integrated fully and wholly into the villages- they did not come from foreign countries, they originated in the villages and were sent outside for schooling but are Afghanis and the Afghanis have lived with them co-operatively. The Afghani woman Member of Parliament panelist who is also a medical doctor (Gynocologist) indicted that it is an impossible task to eliminate all Taliban, and an unacceptable cost of civilian casualties would result. She noted that no one wanted them to have a one party rule system and is glad that is gone, but she thinks it preferable that they have a place at a multi-coalition government table. Otherwise they will be able to exploit the Afghani fear that the outside military influences are there to destroy their religion. Afghanis are very religious people, she argued. An angle of society has successfully convinced a segment of the fundamentally motivated Muslims that their martyrdom will result in immediate trajectory to paradise if they kill themselves as suicide bombers against the christian forces. She held out no hope that Americans will dissuade the religious zealots of their views of martyrdom.
The war begs the question- what is the Exit Strategy. There is no less risk of this becomming the Vietnam of the 21st century than Iraq. The panelists uniformly expressed
the need to keep pressure on the Administration to concretize an Exit Strategy- and not commit by default to an open ended war and occupation when the Afghanis are at this point, universally disgusted with our presence, argued the panelists. There will need to be some concrete progress and delivery of all the promises currently deemed broken and illusory- we have created a huge refugee problem-and destroyed villages, created massive numbers of widows and fatherless children and in seven (7) years done very little to make anyone believe an American influenced Afghanistan is any better than a co-alition Taliban government, according to this panel.
Whether the panel is one sided or not wasn't evident- because the PR job that the Administration is doing to inform the American public about what progress is actually made in Afghanistan is paulty and insufficient to get a true picture of what is going on there.
The conclusion that the human rights plight of the women has improved in any marked fashion was refuted by the panel. So what exactly are we spending a trillion dollars on that we cannot afford?
Larry Corb, a frequent lecturer at the Center for American Progress and expert on military matters noted in the video/DVD that you can order off the above site that the Afghan and Iraq wars combined will cost us a trillion dollars under the current plans before long.
The conclusion that this contributed to our current economic melt-down is unavoidable. Much if not most of this funding is borrowed funding for which we owe interest- even to foreign governments.
The DVD is moving in its depiction of civilian casualties and the antipathy that the Afghanis have regarding the American military presence. We have had 7 years to deliver on infastructure and aid and all the funds seem to be misplaced in the direction of the American contractors direction enriching Americans not Afghanis. That, anyway appears to be the perception of the Afghani families who curse the existence of the soldiers and throw their candy back in their faces.
At a panel on 'Rethinking Afghanistan' an American woman who spent the last four years living in Afghanistan indicated that at one time there was a window of opportunity for Americans
after the repressive Taliban was thrown out- she could travel freely on public transport and felt more or less welcome. Not so now. She argued that the existence of our overthrow of the Taliban only benefitted a small minority of women who threw off their Burkas but the village women were unafected except that wherever American soldiers were in which places they were under tighter repressive lock and key.
Panelists argued that the effort now should be directed toward winning the peace- rebuilding schools and infrastructure using capable Afghanis- even expat Afghanis who are living in Western countries (such as a German NGO is doing sending German Afghani doctors to serve in clinics throughout Afghanistan.) There is a large Afghani diaspora who could be summoned to help with their professional skills. The solution won't be military, argued panelists. The Afghanis are the world champions of throwing off foreign occupation and domination and the Taliban are a mixed lot of people who are integrated fully and wholly into the villages- they did not come from foreign countries, they originated in the villages and were sent outside for schooling but are Afghanis and the Afghanis have lived with them co-operatively. The Afghani woman Member of Parliament panelist who is also a medical doctor (Gynocologist) indicted that it is an impossible task to eliminate all Taliban, and an unacceptable cost of civilian casualties would result. She noted that no one wanted them to have a one party rule system and is glad that is gone, but she thinks it preferable that they have a place at a multi-coalition government table. Otherwise they will be able to exploit the Afghani fear that the outside military influences are there to destroy their religion. Afghanis are very religious people, she argued. An angle of society has successfully convinced a segment of the fundamentally motivated Muslims that their martyrdom will result in immediate trajectory to paradise if they kill themselves as suicide bombers against the christian forces. She held out no hope that Americans will dissuade the religious zealots of their views of martyrdom.
The war begs the question- what is the Exit Strategy. There is no less risk of this becomming the Vietnam of the 21st century than Iraq. The panelists uniformly expressed
the need to keep pressure on the Administration to concretize an Exit Strategy- and not commit by default to an open ended war and occupation when the Afghanis are at this point, universally disgusted with our presence, argued the panelists. There will need to be some concrete progress and delivery of all the promises currently deemed broken and illusory- we have created a huge refugee problem-and destroyed villages, created massive numbers of widows and fatherless children and in seven (7) years done very little to make anyone believe an American influenced Afghanistan is any better than a co-alition Taliban government, according to this panel.
Whether the panel is one sided or not wasn't evident- because the PR job that the Administration is doing to inform the American public about what progress is actually made in Afghanistan is paulty and insufficient to get a true picture of what is going on there.
The conclusion that the human rights plight of the women has improved in any marked fashion was refuted by the panel. So what exactly are we spending a trillion dollars on that we cannot afford?
What's wrong with a little Torture??
www.torturingdemocracy.org
No excuse for not watching this 90 minute video that is streamed in three parts on this site.
Click "Watch the Program" or order the whole DVD. This award winning documentary was
produced by a former PBS producer Sherry Jones who provides valuable insight into the processes and procedures that allowed these grievous human rights violations to occur. Many thanks for the screening at the Campaign for America's Progress conference.
No excuse for not watching this 90 minute video that is streamed in three parts on this site.
Click "Watch the Program" or order the whole DVD. This award winning documentary was
produced by a former PBS producer Sherry Jones who provides valuable insight into the processes and procedures that allowed these grievous human rights violations to occur. Many thanks for the screening at the Campaign for America's Progress conference.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Congressman Jerry Adler insists on a Special Prosecutor for Torture Investigation
"Not Worthy Of Our Country"
Congressman Jerry Adler wants to redeem the country and in the eyes of our allies. He declared in noting that the Bush Administration was riddled with practices that amounted to "Criminal wrongdoing" which threatened our rule of law, and very democracy, it is unacceptable to let them get away with it. He noted that Obama made progress in noting that Gitmo should be closed, but retreated in his Archives speech in not guaranteeing the sort of due process worthy of our Constitution in reinstituting the military tribunals.
He noted that the NIMBY objections are absurd fear mongering. It is preposterous that we can't place a few hundred detainees in the super-max prisons. when we house murderers, rapists and other terrorists currently in super-max prisons. These are just "scare tactics" that have no rational basis. Demagoguery.
Cleaning up the mess has to be serious, and it has to make sure that it does not happen again.
Bush, argued Nadler, took office "through illegitiate means " and was the most secretive and criminal administration in the nation's history.
The majority of the detainees are not guilty or any threat to anything. Many of them were turned in because of bounties. They have been in detention without charge. Tortured. They cannot be returned because they face danger in the countries where they came from.
The Muslims from China arrested and sent to Guantanamo are enemies of the Red Chinese state. The Chinese government wants them back and we know what the Chinese will do to them. "Things have changed when we want to arrest enemies of the red Chinese" said Nadler.
"We arrested them improperly, held them illegally. We have a moral responsibility to accept them in the country."
The republicans propose to detain them indefinitely. We cannot hold people based on speculation or unreliable (torture derived) evidence. No reason they could not be tried under the Uniform Military court or codes of justice. No reason to compromise due process by invoking a military commission. Nadler will not be a "rubber stamp" for any process that compromises due process unworthy of our constitutional due process.
"Preventative detention" will not be authorized by Nadler. "Free societies do not do that."
" Bush has soiled the nation's honor. "
Difficulty is no excuse for not dealing with tough evidentiary or trial issues honestly or appropriately. If people engaged in hostile acts against the US we should try them in a normal court. There may be people caught in the battlefield, where combat is taking place. There is plenty of precedent to hold "prisoners of war" for the duration of the conflict, and this hinges on whether someone is a true "prisoner of war." If someone is not in uniform then it is a trickier decision, but there are acceptable due process protocols for dealing with prisoners of war.
If someone is hostile to us, we ought to be able to prove in a proper tribunal
prisoner of war, we don't need inferior courts with less than normal due process provisions. This compromises our constitutional integrity.
It is without controversy now that the US government at the highest level did condone and engage in torture. The government was involved in kidnapping people and turning them over to torturers, both US torturers and foreign torturers in other countries. We know these crimes were conceived and authorized at the highest levels. We are violating our own laws if we do not investigate and prosecute the crimes.
The good new is that Obama recognizes what is torture and has come out against the practices. Obama says we no longer engage in these activities. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation is in fact torture. No doubt about that.
So what to do now? Crime in the country under domestic laws and international obligations has to be investigated and prosecuted. The Convention Against Torture was ratified by the US Senate and is valid law. The 1996 Anti-Torture Act is the law of the land. Whenever torture occurs under or in our jurisdiction we don't have a choice: we MUST investigate and where warranted prosecute it. Thus, There MUST be an investigation. There must be accountability. Independent. Guilty parties must be brought to Justice. Otherwise the Justice Dept. is just flatly breaking the flaunted law.
Because of the potential for appearance of or actual conflict of interest, this requires the AG Holder immediately Appoint a Special counsel. " There is no legal alternative" argued Nadler
"What is right is not always easy." Unless we hold the people responsible accountable, we have to anticipate that there will be no legal consequences to deter future administrations from engaging in flagrant abuses of authority. It is an unacceptable risk. We will stand judged by our allies....
Bush made us all less safe" argued Nadler.
The other danger in terms of excessive executive power to commit crime:
The State Secrets privilege. This holds that there are national security sensitive state secrets which are so sensitive cases may not proceed because of the risks to disclose information which might allegedly compromise national security. The doctrine deems cases dismissable under this theory on a first motion to dismiss preliminarily- to keep whatever information they want secret.
The Bush dept. and now Obama has taken the position that whole cases should be thrown out of court because information is so sensitive. This operates as No limit on the power of the Exec. which completely undermines our basic constitutional liberty rights. This functions as an unlimited power without check to kill any prosecution or cases in court.
Nadler stated the axiom that there is "No Right without a Remedy."
No Administration will prosecute itself. Therefore, the independent court action potential is thus a serious deterrent to executive power abuses and the only deterrent.
The only remedy we have sometimes is that a grieved party can sue. If kidnapped or tortured, they could sue the Administration. If the Government can move to dismiss on the grounds that consideration will endanger national security then there is nothing deterring illegal government action and no real limit on executive power.
These abuses render our legal system to something that looks more like the Stalinist constitution- constitutional rights become meaningless if they cannot be enforced.
There should be a requirement that a party show a Judge in camera evidence and that Judge can make a determination regarding whether the evidence compromises national security with a summary judgment ruling based on the evidence viewed in camera.
If there is no judicial review- and the Executive has exclusive power to determine when it can be prosecuted based on its own characterization of evidence against it- this is the very
definition of Tyranny.
"We are a strong and honorable enough nation to solve these problems" summarized Nadler.
"We cannot afford to fail" in making sure there is torture accountability.
The ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel on the panel indicates that the AG will not prosecute anyone who relied in good faith on legal opinions. This leaves (a) people who acted before the memos written, (b) people didn't know about or could have in good faith relied on the opinions, and (c) people whose actions exceeded the authority of the opinions.
There should be no golden Shield for all torturers or insulation against torture. The torture authorizing memos were disavowed by conservative lawyers as well as the rest of the legal community and people knew better or should have. Who actually relied on these? People who were in the meetings where it was discussed knew better, Condi Rice is well steeped in international law and what our treaty obligations are. The ACLU lawyer noted she should have known better. Everyone did.
The Bush Administration acted above the law- they knew they were violating the law in creating justifications that were not reasonable given the state of domestic and international torture law. Torture is and was a violation of our Constitutional obligations against permitting "cruel and unusual punishment." The Bush Administration in fact acted as a rogue nation in acting outside our International treaty and other obligations.
The Rule of Law cannot be truly restored unless there is a penalty for these crimes.
A rule without accountability is no rule at all.
Our Democracy Depends on Accountability. Our union is neither "more Perfect" nor more unified without the protection of our basic civil liberties. We are at a dangerous cross-roads. The Rule of Law depends on our taking the right road at this juncture.
(this was blogged in real time at the Campaign for America's Future conference shorthand and edited later so apologies to anyone reading a cached unedited version)
Congressman Jerry Adler wants to redeem the country and in the eyes of our allies. He declared in noting that the Bush Administration was riddled with practices that amounted to "Criminal wrongdoing" which threatened our rule of law, and very democracy, it is unacceptable to let them get away with it. He noted that Obama made progress in noting that Gitmo should be closed, but retreated in his Archives speech in not guaranteeing the sort of due process worthy of our Constitution in reinstituting the military tribunals.
He noted that the NIMBY objections are absurd fear mongering. It is preposterous that we can't place a few hundred detainees in the super-max prisons. when we house murderers, rapists and other terrorists currently in super-max prisons. These are just "scare tactics" that have no rational basis. Demagoguery.
Cleaning up the mess has to be serious, and it has to make sure that it does not happen again.
Bush, argued Nadler, took office "through illegitiate means " and was the most secretive and criminal administration in the nation's history.
The majority of the detainees are not guilty or any threat to anything. Many of them were turned in because of bounties. They have been in detention without charge. Tortured. They cannot be returned because they face danger in the countries where they came from.
The Muslims from China arrested and sent to Guantanamo are enemies of the Red Chinese state. The Chinese government wants them back and we know what the Chinese will do to them. "Things have changed when we want to arrest enemies of the red Chinese" said Nadler.
"We arrested them improperly, held them illegally. We have a moral responsibility to accept them in the country."
The republicans propose to detain them indefinitely. We cannot hold people based on speculation or unreliable (torture derived) evidence. No reason they could not be tried under the Uniform Military court or codes of justice. No reason to compromise due process by invoking a military commission. Nadler will not be a "rubber stamp" for any process that compromises due process unworthy of our constitutional due process.
"Preventative detention" will not be authorized by Nadler. "Free societies do not do that."
" Bush has soiled the nation's honor. "
Difficulty is no excuse for not dealing with tough evidentiary or trial issues honestly or appropriately. If people engaged in hostile acts against the US we should try them in a normal court. There may be people caught in the battlefield, where combat is taking place. There is plenty of precedent to hold "prisoners of war" for the duration of the conflict, and this hinges on whether someone is a true "prisoner of war." If someone is not in uniform then it is a trickier decision, but there are acceptable due process protocols for dealing with prisoners of war.
If someone is hostile to us, we ought to be able to prove in a proper tribunal
prisoner of war, we don't need inferior courts with less than normal due process provisions. This compromises our constitutional integrity.
It is without controversy now that the US government at the highest level did condone and engage in torture. The government was involved in kidnapping people and turning them over to torturers, both US torturers and foreign torturers in other countries. We know these crimes were conceived and authorized at the highest levels. We are violating our own laws if we do not investigate and prosecute the crimes.
The good new is that Obama recognizes what is torture and has come out against the practices. Obama says we no longer engage in these activities. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation is in fact torture. No doubt about that.
So what to do now? Crime in the country under domestic laws and international obligations has to be investigated and prosecuted. The Convention Against Torture was ratified by the US Senate and is valid law. The 1996 Anti-Torture Act is the law of the land. Whenever torture occurs under or in our jurisdiction we don't have a choice: we MUST investigate and where warranted prosecute it. Thus, There MUST be an investigation. There must be accountability. Independent. Guilty parties must be brought to Justice. Otherwise the Justice Dept. is just flatly breaking the flaunted law.
Because of the potential for appearance of or actual conflict of interest, this requires the AG Holder immediately Appoint a Special counsel. " There is no legal alternative" argued Nadler
"What is right is not always easy." Unless we hold the people responsible accountable, we have to anticipate that there will be no legal consequences to deter future administrations from engaging in flagrant abuses of authority. It is an unacceptable risk. We will stand judged by our allies....
Bush made us all less safe" argued Nadler.
The other danger in terms of excessive executive power to commit crime:
The State Secrets privilege. This holds that there are national security sensitive state secrets which are so sensitive cases may not proceed because of the risks to disclose information which might allegedly compromise national security. The doctrine deems cases dismissable under this theory on a first motion to dismiss preliminarily- to keep whatever information they want secret.
The Bush dept. and now Obama has taken the position that whole cases should be thrown out of court because information is so sensitive. This operates as No limit on the power of the Exec. which completely undermines our basic constitutional liberty rights. This functions as an unlimited power without check to kill any prosecution or cases in court.
Nadler stated the axiom that there is "No Right without a Remedy."
No Administration will prosecute itself. Therefore, the independent court action potential is thus a serious deterrent to executive power abuses and the only deterrent.
The only remedy we have sometimes is that a grieved party can sue. If kidnapped or tortured, they could sue the Administration. If the Government can move to dismiss on the grounds that consideration will endanger national security then there is nothing deterring illegal government action and no real limit on executive power.
These abuses render our legal system to something that looks more like the Stalinist constitution- constitutional rights become meaningless if they cannot be enforced.
There should be a requirement that a party show a Judge in camera evidence and that Judge can make a determination regarding whether the evidence compromises national security with a summary judgment ruling based on the evidence viewed in camera.
If there is no judicial review- and the Executive has exclusive power to determine when it can be prosecuted based on its own characterization of evidence against it- this is the very
definition of Tyranny.
"We are a strong and honorable enough nation to solve these problems" summarized Nadler.
"We cannot afford to fail" in making sure there is torture accountability.
The ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel on the panel indicates that the AG will not prosecute anyone who relied in good faith on legal opinions. This leaves (a) people who acted before the memos written, (b) people didn't know about or could have in good faith relied on the opinions, and (c) people whose actions exceeded the authority of the opinions.
There should be no golden Shield for all torturers or insulation against torture. The torture authorizing memos were disavowed by conservative lawyers as well as the rest of the legal community and people knew better or should have. Who actually relied on these? People who were in the meetings where it was discussed knew better, Condi Rice is well steeped in international law and what our treaty obligations are. The ACLU lawyer noted she should have known better. Everyone did.
The Bush Administration acted above the law- they knew they were violating the law in creating justifications that were not reasonable given the state of domestic and international torture law. Torture is and was a violation of our Constitutional obligations against permitting "cruel and unusual punishment." The Bush Administration in fact acted as a rogue nation in acting outside our International treaty and other obligations.
The Rule of Law cannot be truly restored unless there is a penalty for these crimes.
A rule without accountability is no rule at all.
Our Democracy Depends on Accountability. Our union is neither "more Perfect" nor more unified without the protection of our basic civil liberties. We are at a dangerous cross-roads. The Rule of Law depends on our taking the right road at this juncture.
(this was blogged in real time at the Campaign for America's Future conference shorthand and edited later so apologies to anyone reading a cached unedited version)
Universal Public Health Care Option.
For Everyone Under 65 NOW.
Howard Dean teamed up with Bob Borsage and Wade Henderson, Chair of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights today and others at the Progressive Campaign for America conference and argued forcefully why we need the Public Health Care option now.
The distort and scare PR "Harry and Louise" insurance waged opposition cannot work now.
Whether the Republicans get behind it or not bi-partisanly (they didn't support either Social Security or Medicaid either) the country wants the Public Health Care Option. The Time is NOW.
No, argued Dean, a medical doctor who obtained health care for all children of Vermont when he was its Governor, this will not eliminate private insurance. In every European country where they have a public option, notably England where there is a strong public health care system, private insurance is also available. No, it won't mean that you can't pick your doctors. No, it won't mean anyone will force you to travel miles and states away to get what you need. Everyone over 65 now has a public health care option available to them. Now, us kids want it too.
The costs of health care are responsible for half the bankruptcies in this country. The costs prevent effective preventative care and result in higher mortality and higher disease rates. The costs for small businesses can put them out of business. Over 50 Percent of all workers fear loss of job with attendant loss of health care. This is an issue that affects the economy profoundly and it is one deeply felt at home.
This is a profound civil rights issue, argued Wade Henderson.
Poor pre-natal care and poor childhood care results in children who are less likely to be able to succeed at school, less likely to be able to excel to get into excellent colleges. Poor health care of children in turn requires single parents to take time off work to tend to chronic illness, and disadvantages a population in completely avoidable ways. Wade Henderson is a fan of coalition politics and this issue has generated universal support across the board. It is time to get it done now. The American public will be able to see through the Fear and Smear politics to get something fundamental done that they have -across the board- wanted for a century. Health Care is a fundamental Civil Right- it should not depend on your job status- it should not depend on how your employer wants to classify you or cut corners. It should depend on nothing more than the fact that you are living in America and in America we take care of people and make them well.
No one should have to travel to Canada to try to get into their health care.
The legislative action on this will occur before August. So -this is important- please call your Congressperson, and your Senator and/or drop them a post-card to tell them how much it matters to you that we finally get the Public Insurance Option.
Your kids- yet born and unborn- will thank you.
Howard Dean teamed up with Bob Borsage and Wade Henderson, Chair of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights today and others at the Progressive Campaign for America conference and argued forcefully why we need the Public Health Care option now.
The distort and scare PR "Harry and Louise" insurance waged opposition cannot work now.
Whether the Republicans get behind it or not bi-partisanly (they didn't support either Social Security or Medicaid either) the country wants the Public Health Care Option. The Time is NOW.
No, argued Dean, a medical doctor who obtained health care for all children of Vermont when he was its Governor, this will not eliminate private insurance. In every European country where they have a public option, notably England where there is a strong public health care system, private insurance is also available. No, it won't mean that you can't pick your doctors. No, it won't mean anyone will force you to travel miles and states away to get what you need. Everyone over 65 now has a public health care option available to them. Now, us kids want it too.
The costs of health care are responsible for half the bankruptcies in this country. The costs prevent effective preventative care and result in higher mortality and higher disease rates. The costs for small businesses can put them out of business. Over 50 Percent of all workers fear loss of job with attendant loss of health care. This is an issue that affects the economy profoundly and it is one deeply felt at home.
This is a profound civil rights issue, argued Wade Henderson.
Poor pre-natal care and poor childhood care results in children who are less likely to be able to succeed at school, less likely to be able to excel to get into excellent colleges. Poor health care of children in turn requires single parents to take time off work to tend to chronic illness, and disadvantages a population in completely avoidable ways. Wade Henderson is a fan of coalition politics and this issue has generated universal support across the board. It is time to get it done now. The American public will be able to see through the Fear and Smear politics to get something fundamental done that they have -across the board- wanted for a century. Health Care is a fundamental Civil Right- it should not depend on your job status- it should not depend on how your employer wants to classify you or cut corners. It should depend on nothing more than the fact that you are living in America and in America we take care of people and make them well.
No one should have to travel to Canada to try to get into their health care.
The legislative action on this will occur before August. So -this is important- please call your Congressperson, and your Senator and/or drop them a post-card to tell them how much it matters to you that we finally get the Public Insurance Option.
Your kids- yet born and unborn- will thank you.
Bright Lights in the Big City: Campaign for America's Future Conference in DC
http://www.ourfuture.org/
'We've Only Just Begun' is the theme for the three day Conference on the Campaign for America's Future which explores how we can aid Obama in implementing the Progressive Agenda. A veritable Who's Who of progressive thought comes together for three days of brainstorming to make possibilities real. No time for foolishness, time to get serious, panelists argued, noting that the transformational reform must be accomplished within the year because of this unprecedented window of opportunity.
This presents a strategic shift from the oppositional progressive politics wherein loudly shouting 'No More!' "Make Them Stop Please!" has to be supplanted with Let's Go Forward and Get it Done NOW. The Hallmarks of the new agenda, which include the various 100 day initiatives involve transformational efforts to create sustained economic growth, radical education reform and accessibility, a Health Care reform legislation that involves universal access to a public health care option and affordable accessibility for all, immigration reform, Employee Free Choice Act for a healthy labor movement deemed an underpining of a recovering middle class and a recovery program that does not merely involve billions in hand out bail-outs but holds accountable the bad manager players (and even frausters) who are responsible for the unprecedented meltdowns.
The suffering is palpable and under the radar largely of the Washington punditry. One in Eleven (1 in 11) American homes will be in foreclosure this year and the statistic is rising. Tent cities are cropping up in unlikely places filled with people who previously rode their mowers over freshly cut lawns bordered by picket fences in neighnorhoods of modest homes. The taxation of the mental health of the country as a result cannot be under-estimated.
Like all real change, it cannot be implemented with merely Presidential proclamations but will require that the grass roots gets behind the President to support his agenda and express their support and demands to their Congressional representatives. With the Al Franken Filibuster-busting vote, real change is really achievable-for the first time in a very long time. Generational change is possible. The creation of an economy that diverges from the traditional "Shampoo Economy" model of "Bubble-Bust-Repeat" with the appropriate regulatory framework requires an appreciation that rejects the "trickle down" fallacies and allows wealth creation at all strata. One panelist indicated that cleaning house at the top of financial institutions is necessary to avoid "pumping massive infusions of blood into a rotting corpse and expecting it to rise and dance."
Educational opportunity is a key peg in this formula for economic growth. And it's only Fair.
Fairness is a hallmark of the progressive agenda and at the core of American Justice. Fairness of treatment and opportunity and fairness of access.
'We've Only Just Begun' is the theme for the three day Conference on the Campaign for America's Future which explores how we can aid Obama in implementing the Progressive Agenda. A veritable Who's Who of progressive thought comes together for three days of brainstorming to make possibilities real. No time for foolishness, time to get serious, panelists argued, noting that the transformational reform must be accomplished within the year because of this unprecedented window of opportunity.
This presents a strategic shift from the oppositional progressive politics wherein loudly shouting 'No More!' "Make Them Stop Please!" has to be supplanted with Let's Go Forward and Get it Done NOW. The Hallmarks of the new agenda, which include the various 100 day initiatives involve transformational efforts to create sustained economic growth, radical education reform and accessibility, a Health Care reform legislation that involves universal access to a public health care option and affordable accessibility for all, immigration reform, Employee Free Choice Act for a healthy labor movement deemed an underpining of a recovering middle class and a recovery program that does not merely involve billions in hand out bail-outs but holds accountable the bad manager players (and even frausters) who are responsible for the unprecedented meltdowns.
The suffering is palpable and under the radar largely of the Washington punditry. One in Eleven (1 in 11) American homes will be in foreclosure this year and the statistic is rising. Tent cities are cropping up in unlikely places filled with people who previously rode their mowers over freshly cut lawns bordered by picket fences in neighnorhoods of modest homes. The taxation of the mental health of the country as a result cannot be under-estimated.
Like all real change, it cannot be implemented with merely Presidential proclamations but will require that the grass roots gets behind the President to support his agenda and express their support and demands to their Congressional representatives. With the Al Franken Filibuster-busting vote, real change is really achievable-for the first time in a very long time. Generational change is possible. The creation of an economy that diverges from the traditional "Shampoo Economy" model of "Bubble-Bust-Repeat" with the appropriate regulatory framework requires an appreciation that rejects the "trickle down" fallacies and allows wealth creation at all strata. One panelist indicated that cleaning house at the top of financial institutions is necessary to avoid "pumping massive infusions of blood into a rotting corpse and expecting it to rise and dance."
Educational opportunity is a key peg in this formula for economic growth. And it's only Fair.
Fairness is a hallmark of the progressive agenda and at the core of American Justice. Fairness of treatment and opportunity and fairness of access.
Murray's Law
This is the First Time an Entire Pastoral letter has been here republished. In light of the recent assassination of the abortion doctor is bears repeating. This appeared on Holy Trnity's bulletin yesterday:
At the beginning of his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius has a prenote—he calls it a Presupposition—to the effect that “…every good Christian is more ready to put a good interpretation on another’s statement than to condemn it as false.” He goes on to say that if this cannot be done, he should engage the other in polite conversation to find out his intention. If he finds him mistaken, he should correct him “with all kindness.”
When I was a theological student at Woodstock College, one of our professors, Fr. John Courtney Murray, was a peritus—an expert advisor to the Bishops at the Second Vatican Council. One of his areas of expertise was the relationship between church and state. At the Council he was chiefly responsible for the Decree on Religious Freedom. In his classes at Woodstock, he often lamented the lack of civility in public discourse.
Both Ignatius and Fr. Murray suffered from misunderstanding in their lives: Ignatius with the Inquisition, and Fr. Murray with certain American theologians who objected to his position on religious freedom and church and state, ideas which are current approved teaching in the church.
I can’t help but feel that St. Ignatius and Fr. Murray would both have been appalled by the behavior of people who call themselves Christians as they hurled angry words and hate-filled epithets at Presidents Obama and Jenkins during this year’s Notre Dame Commencement address.
I guess I have to give these people the benefit of the doubt as Ignatius urges in his Presupposition. Perhaps the zeal in their anti-abortion crusade has blinded them to the simple requirements of civil discourse. As far as I can tell, nothing is accomplished by such misguided behavior. By way of contrast, the reasonable, calm and respectful statements of the two presidents are a model of how to deal with people who disagree with each other. Indeed, President Obama called for civil discussion by people on both sides of the issue.
My concern here is not whether abortion is good or bad. I firmly believe that it is wrong. What I am talking about is how we deal with the issue. Abortion is an emotion-laden topic that lends itself all too easily to explosive and passionate words and behavior. Some of our bishops and priests, whose intentions are good, sometimes fan the flames of these emotions with statements about politicians they think should be excluded from the Eucharist. Jesus excluded no one from his company. He dined with the Pharisees with whom he had serious disagreements. He welcomed sinners, prostitutes and tax-collectors. When I pray about the Last Supper, I see Jesus handing the bread and the wine that have become his body and blood to Peter who will deny him and to Judas who will betray him. Or I see him kneeling before Judas after washing his feet, looking into his eyes and saying, “It’s all right. I love you.”
What we sometimes forget is that we are a church of sinners, all of us. Fortunately, Jesus came for all of us—not just for the saints. I thank God for that every day.
Some of you may not agree with everything I have said here. But that’s okay. We can disagree, provided we do it civilly.
-Leo A. Murray, S.J.
When I was a theological student at Woodstock College, one of our professors, Fr. John Courtney Murray, was a peritus—an expert advisor to the Bishops at the Second Vatican Council. One of his areas of expertise was the relationship between church and state. At the Council he was chiefly responsible for the Decree on Religious Freedom. In his classes at Woodstock, he often lamented the lack of civility in public discourse.
Both Ignatius and Fr. Murray suffered from misunderstanding in their lives: Ignatius with the Inquisition, and Fr. Murray with certain American theologians who objected to his position on religious freedom and church and state, ideas which are current approved teaching in the church.
I can’t help but feel that St. Ignatius and Fr. Murray would both have been appalled by the behavior of people who call themselves Christians as they hurled angry words and hate-filled epithets at Presidents Obama and Jenkins during this year’s Notre Dame Commencement address.
I guess I have to give these people the benefit of the doubt as Ignatius urges in his Presupposition. Perhaps the zeal in their anti-abortion crusade has blinded them to the simple requirements of civil discourse. As far as I can tell, nothing is accomplished by such misguided behavior. By way of contrast, the reasonable, calm and respectful statements of the two presidents are a model of how to deal with people who disagree with each other. Indeed, President Obama called for civil discussion by people on both sides of the issue.
My concern here is not whether abortion is good or bad. I firmly believe that it is wrong. What I am talking about is how we deal with the issue. Abortion is an emotion-laden topic that lends itself all too easily to explosive and passionate words and behavior. Some of our bishops and priests, whose intentions are good, sometimes fan the flames of these emotions with statements about politicians they think should be excluded from the Eucharist. Jesus excluded no one from his company. He dined with the Pharisees with whom he had serious disagreements. He welcomed sinners, prostitutes and tax-collectors. When I pray about the Last Supper, I see Jesus handing the bread and the wine that have become his body and blood to Peter who will deny him and to Judas who will betray him. Or I see him kneeling before Judas after washing his feet, looking into his eyes and saying, “It’s all right. I love you.”
What we sometimes forget is that we are a church of sinners, all of us. Fortunately, Jesus came for all of us—not just for the saints. I thank God for that every day.
Some of you may not agree with everything I have said here. But that’s okay. We can disagree, provided we do it civilly.
-Leo A. Murray, S.J.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)