June 25, 2004
"Equal Justice Under Law?"
That principle -- "Equal Justice Under Law" -- is carved in stone over the
entrance of the Supreme Court building.
One wonders of the justices ever bother to look up as they enter that
building.
Case in point: Jones v. Clinton. Remember that case?
The American Spectator, a right-wing rag supported by Richard Mellon Scaife,
located and identified Paula Jones as a "victim" of an alleged indecent act
by Gov. Bill Clinton (an event never proved in a court of law).
This, Ms. Jones charged, publicly defamed her. So she sued. And who was the
defendant? The American Spectator, which identified and thus defamed her? Of course not. She
sued Clinton.
Go figure.
When the lawyers of then President Clinton filed for a postponement, on the
grounds that the case was distracting him from the duties of his office, the
Supreme Court refused relief, stating that this Jones business need not be a
significant distraction.
And now this: Today, the Supreme Court announced that, with regard to the
suit demanding that Veep Cheney disclose the details of his energy task
force, a lower court should spend more time (conveniently past the November
election) clarifying its ruling.
Writing for the majority,
Justice Anthony Kennedy said that there is "a paramount necessity of
protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation that might
distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties."
Clearly, this "paramount necessity" applies to Republicans and not to
Democrats.
Equal Justice under Law?
Fagettaboutit!
Who Sez John Kerry is Vague, Evasive and Apathetic?
Last week, I wandered into a conversation among some friends, good union
members all, sharing their disgust with Bush and their eagerness to see him
tossed out of the White House.
This was an "anybody but Bush" sentiment. Their endorsement of John Kerry
was tepid at best.
"What is Kerry's platform?" asked one.
"Why doesn't he speak out?" said another.
"Where's his passion -- his indignation" I heard.
So I butted in with another question: "Where did you get the idea that Kerry
isn't speaking out, has no proposals, and lacks 'fire in the belly'?"
"Well," I was told, "we just don't hear of his proposals, and we've seen no
evidence of his concern about the issues, or about the crimes of the Bush
gang."
"And where do you get this information and these impressions of John Kerry."
"Well, from the TV, the radio, the newspapers and magazines, I suppose."
"You mean the corporate media, right? The same media that told you that Al
Gore claimed to have invented the internet, and that he was a serial liar.
The same media that in 2000, gave Bush a free pass -- no reporting of his
business failures, his AWOL from the Guard, etc."
Strange to say, my friends shared my distrust of and contempt for the
corporate media. And yet, when their guard was down, they were absorbing the
media's characterization of Kerry.
So I advised them to search the internet for an alternative assessment of
Kerry -- the portrait that the mainstream media will not give them. Better
still, if they wanted to hear from Kerry himself -- his position papers, his
speeches, etc. -- they should visit his web site:
www.johnkerry.com .
But don't expect the whore media to offer a fair and accurate portrayal of
Kerry -- any more than it did for Gore, four years ago.
The Constitution as Scripture.
How often have we heard, "the expression 'separation of church and state' is
not in the Constitution."
Well, it happens to be true. It's not in the Constitution.
But so what? What you will find in the Constitution is the First Amendment,
which begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion..."
That means "separation of church and state." The phrase itself, "separation
of church and state," is found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James
Madison, and numerous successors.
The claim that "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution,
betrays a bewitchment with language that is typical of religious
fundamentalists and right-wing ideologues. (See our
"Newspeak Lives"). To people of
such a mind, its the words that matter, and not that to which the words
refer. And if the exact words, "separation of church and state," are not in
the Constitution, it is no matter that their meaning, in different words,
are in the First Amendment.
Apparently, we are asked to believe that if the magic words, "separation of
church and state," are not in the Constitution, then Presidents like George
Bush are free to tear down the wall between church and state, and set up a
theocracy.
The same sort of "word magic" is evident in the Right's use of the words
"liberal" and "commie" as weapons against their adversaries --
"thought-stoppers" which short-circuit the thinking processes of citizens
who would be far better served by thinking past the words, to examine and
assess the particular ideas of their opponents, and the evidence and
arguments presented in their support.
The Curse of the Monolingual:
I've often wondered if the typical American susceptibility to "word magic"
might be due, in part, to the fact that the vast majority of us speak and
read only one language -- English, of course.
A few years ago, while attending a conference in Germany, a friend told me a joke which, I understand, is
well known abroad:
"What do you call someone who speaks three languages?"
"Tri-lingual."
"And two languages?"
"Bi-lingual"
"And what do you call someone who speaks only one language?"
"An American."
Of course, he told it to me in English. In German, I would not have
understood him.
In order to earn my doctorate, I was required to acquire a minimal reading
capacity in two languages: French and Spanish, as it happened. And I have
acquired sufficient Russian to direct a Moscow taxi driver to the correct
address. But that's about it. Because I will never think, or even carry on a
conversation, in another language, I am just another monolingual American.
And I am ashamed of it. It is embarrassing to travel abroad, and to expect
others to always bear the burden of speaking to you in your language.
Unfortunately, some traveling Americans who aren't embarrassed, tend to be
arrogant instead.
Someone who fluently speaks two or more languages, can understand and
appreciate the separation of words from the things or concepts that they are
intended to refer to. That person is well aware that there is no one-to-one
correspondence between two languages -- that there are words that are
difficult or even impossible to translate into a corresponding word or brief
phrase.
In short, a multilingual person is more likely to agree, with Thomas Hobbes,
that "words are wise men's counters; they are the money of fools."
There is an urgent need for the public schools to re-introduce foreign
language instruction, and to begin it at an early age.
But there is little political will. After all, why should politicians want
to relinquish the advantages gained from addressing a public that is
susceptible to word-magic?
June 14, 2004
"The Wheels are coming off the Bush Administration!"
How often have we heard that expression in the media -- and often from
pundits and reporters that are not particularly unfriendly to Bush and the
GOP?
There is a sense in the media, and presumably among the public, that events
are spinning out of control, and that the Busheviks simply haven't the
smarts to put things back together.
And there's a lot of grief coming their way -- that we know about. The Plame
investigation is moving into the final act, while the "buck" in
"torture-gate" goes higher and higher. Ashcroft has thoroughly
pissed-off the Senate -- including Republicans, etc., etc. And here's
something you might not have heard about: in a couple of weeks, the Supreme
Court is due to rule on the Guantánamo and Padilla cases, and Ashcroft's
legal team appears convinced that they are going to lose -- which means that
the Constitution will win.
Now that's a blockbuster!
As Juan Cole astutely observes
(in a blog cited today by Bernie Weiner), a sense
that the leader is in control -- let's call it "the charisma of confidence"
-- is essential to political success. FDR had it, Eisenhower had it, Kennedy
had it. Carter and Ford did not. But note this: LBJ and Nixon had it early
on, and then lost it: LBJ to Viet Nam, and Nixon to Watergate. Progressives
and astute observers of the federal government are well aware that Dubya is
way over his head, and has been from the get-go. Now its beginning to dawn
on some Congressional Republicans. If that realization begins to spread
among the populace -- and if it starts, all of Karl Rove's millions won't
stop it -- then you can stick a fork in The Shrub. He's done.
All this reminds me of Garison Keilor's story of the truck parked on the ice
in middle of Lake Wobegon as spring is coming on. Sooner or later -- it's
just a matter of time.
And Speaking of Public Relations Genius:
A couple of weeks ago, I happened to watch CNN's "Capitol Gang," as they
played old footage of "the Gang" within a week after the "Mission
Accomplished" stunt on the carrier deck. Everyone on that panel, covering
the political spectrum from center, center-right to far-out la la
right, saw Bush's performance as a "political coup," a master stroke by the
wizardly Karl Rove.
Little did they suspect just how much that dramatic production would
backfire.
They did, however, get one thing half-right: "we'll be seeing a lot of that
footage in the 2004 Campaign." They just misjudged which side would be using
it.
Keep this in mind whenever you yield to despair at the thought that Bush's
campaign gurus are miracle-workers.
Where are the Christians?
What do you call someone who launches aggressive war, takes money from
the poor and gives to the rich, impoverishes the next generation and the one
to follow, mocks prisoners that he has condemned to death, takes poses of
piety to attract votes, and lies without scruple.
A "Christian?" C'mon!
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God. (Matt. 5:9)
Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. (Matt. 5:7)
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor (Matt 19:21-2)
If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)
How in God's name (literally!) does such behavior reportedly attract 80%
support from evangelical Christians? Let me say that again: "Christians"?
This people honoureth me with their lips but their heart is far from
me. (Mark 7:6)
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matt. 7:15)
Christian clergymen and scholars throughout the realm see through this
charade, and are outraged. Unfortunately, for the most part, they are
silently outraged.
Why aren't they in the political mix, appealing to the authentic Christian
consciences of the public? Why have they abandoned the political arena to
the fanatics and the hypocrites?
Where's the outrage!
Jesus wept. (John 12:35).
I'm Back -- Mostly.
At my blog last Monday, I notified our readers that I would be distracted
from my editorial chores at The Crisis Papers for another week, because of
an overdue obligation to the National Science Foundation.
I am pleased to report that I've kept to my schedule and have finished the
assignment on time, and now can return to my Crisis Papers work -- almost.
For the next week, I will be traveling to Utah on family business, but with
laptop in tow so that I can still carry on Crisis Papers business.
When I return, my total effort and attention will be on The Crisis Papers,
on through election day.
By the way, for those that might be interested, that NSF assignment will be
uploaded tonight and can be seen at
www.igc.org/gadfly/ecology/nature.htm .
All the while that I was working on the NSF project (regarding the problem
of assigning value to ecosystems), I was obsessed with the thought, "what
will any of this matter if Bushism prevails into another term and beyond?"
Even today, scientific research into global warming, pollution control,
reproductive health, etc., is being pushed aside as fundamentalist
Christians and the corporate interests of GOP sponsors exercise veto power
over scientific research. (See the
report of
the Union of Concerned Scientists and our topic page on
Science). Due to Bush's restriction on
stem cell research, the leading edge of bio-medical research is moving
overseas. Our research universities are attracting ever fewer graduate
students from abroad. The era of American pre-eminence in science may be in
its twilight.
So why bother? Well, I did. But if more than a few scholars and scientists
share this sentiment, and it affects their work, or even provokes them to
resettle in more hospitable countries, then we Americans will be in deep,
deep, trouble.
June 7, 2004
An Apology
For the past two weeks I have been at work attending to a woefully neglected
debt -- research and writing that I owe the National Science Foundation. The
NSF awarded me a research grant, for which I promised published papers and a
book. My concern about the emerging political crisis, and my resulting work
with The Crisis Papers, has distracted me from the NSF project. The
Project Director at NSF has been extraordinarily patient with me, but now I
simply must supply evidence of good-faith continuing effort on the project.
Work on that evidence, a scholarly paper, is now well advanced, and the end
of this week, I expect to post it on my personal website,
The Online Gadfly.
With that, I will again put aside the research project until November -- the
Presidential Election -- after which I will resume work on the NSF project.
Whatever the outcome of that election, I expect that the The Crisis
Papers will continue, but with diminished intensity. My entire working
life will be then devoted to research and writing in my areas of scholarly
interest -- environmental ethics, moral philosophy, and their implications
for public policy. Because that work is directed both to the scholarly
community and the general public, The Crisis Papers will be an
important part of my activity. I trust that I will still have much to say to
those of you who have expressed interest in my writing.
The week after next, I must travel to Utah for family business. Even so, I
will be able to devote some time and attention that week to The Crisis
Papers.
From Monday, June 21, on through the election I anticipate no further
distractions, and intend to devote my full attention to The Crisis
Papers.
To my profoundest regret, I realize that I may have lived long enough to see
the end of the American Republic. I am dedicating the full measure of my
time, my mind, and my energy to prevent this terrible national tragedy.
Media Notes
When we first encountered Bill Moyers' PBS program, "NOW," we were both
amazed and delighted at the boldness and bluntness of its critique of the
Bush Administration and its "sponsoring" corporate establishment.
"How can they get away with this," we wondered. "Surely it can't last!"
And apparently, it won't.
We learned this week that "NOW" will be cut from one hour to a half-hour,
and we strongly suspect that this is the first stage of a two-stage process
of elimination.
In the meantime, PBS will be introducing shows hosted by right-wing
celebrities Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal.
Public Broadcasting, it seems, has taken a sharp turn to the right.
And if you don't believe it, consider the unchallenged comment by a member
of Friday's PBS "Washington Week" panel: "This has been a good week for the
President." WHAT?!?! Reflect back on the past week, then ask
yourself: what planet are these "reporters" covering?
Why am I not surprised?
For more, see Chellie Pingree's
"Public
Broadcasting Veers to the Right".
Then tell PBS, or the parent company Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
what you think of these developments.
Public Broadcasting System
901 E Str., NW, FL. 3.
Washington, DC 20004
www.pbs.org/
Kevin Dando, PBS Media Relations, kdando@pbs.org
But not all news from the corporate media is grim.
CBS' 60 Minutes has recovered some of its former moxie, and is
offering a platform for many dissident voices: Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke,
Bob Woodward, John Dean, JosephWilson, several dissenting CIA veterans, and
many more. They also have interviewed Bush supporters, like Condi Rice --
who, as it turned out, was no help whatever to her cause.
As we've said many times before, we progressives do not need, or
particularly want, a mirror-left image of FOX or Rush-bo. Just an
authentically "fair and balanced" presentation of news and opinion.
Responsible journalism will do quite nicely.
Because, as we surely know by now, George Bush and his gang "can't handle
the truth!"
Let 60 Minutes know that you appreciate and support their public service.
They are at: www.cbs.news (Select
"Contact Us"). Or:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
Is it time for the Dems to do unto Bush as he has
done unto them?
In the June 4 "Capitol Hill Blue,"
Doug Thompson
reports that George Bush
may be buckling under the pressure.
"Going besmirk," as a late uncle used to put it.
Thompson writes:
President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood
swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately
express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.
In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President
goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the
media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”
Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge,
increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public
that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.
“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political
consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy;
everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”
In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to
talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has
emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and
then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of
the administration.
So now he's making up an "enemies list." Has he started talking to the
Presidential portraits in the White House?
We've read this sort of thing about the Bush "bonkers-factor" nowhere else.
It's the stuff of maverick journalists like the denizens of "Capitol Hill
Blue." The corporate media won't touch it -- at least not yet.
And yet, it rings true. Thompson is simply describing the sort of behavior
reported earlier by such ex-insiders as John DiIulio, Paul O'Neill and
Richard Clarke. Indeed, it is the behavior we occasionally see during Bush's
unguarded public moments, such as the Tim Russert interview and his last
("can't think of any mistakes") press conference.
What Thompson is portraying here is a super-annuated adolescent who is way
over his head. Heretofore, whenever Bush has found himself in trouble, which
was quite often, his Daddy has bailed him out. This time the doo-doo is so
deep that even Poppy Bush can't rescue him -- and that ugly fact is finally
beginning to dawn on Dubya.
I picture "jet pilot" George being called to the cockpit of Air Force One,
after the entire crew is rendered unconscious, and being asked to fly the
contraption. No can do. Total panic.
So now he's hired a personal lawyer, and the Plame case is closing in. More
firings and resignations are likely, to be followed by inside info getting
out. And, at long last, his solid media support is collapsing.
If the Dems are smart and crafty, they will probe, provoke and nurture this
madness until it breaks into the open, discredits the whole rotten bunch
before the public, and brings an end to our national nightmare.
But they must be careful: the injured beast is most dangerous when cornered.
"Ruthless" you say?
Think Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.
And Tip O'Neill, who reminded us that "Politics ain't beanbag."
Why not the best?
When I was a youngster in grade school, I was told that "anybody can grow up
to be President."
Ronald Reagan and now George Bush have proven this beyond a doubt.
There was a time in the memory of many of us, when the Presidency of the
United States, the supreme executive office of the land, was regarded as the
most important and most demanding job in the world, worthy of only the most
qualified citizen among us -- a citizen in whom we were to entrust "our
lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor."
And so, appropriately, we sought out the best.
In our prospective candidates, we assessed the knowledge, experience
(preferably executive), and that ineffable quality "wisdom," which could
only be validated by an established record of public service. We demanded
moral probity, empathy and compassion. We also demanded a loyalty to the
political traditions of the country and a sense of responsibility toward all
citizens, including political opponents. As John F. Kennedy replied when his
supporters complained that he was neglecting their interests, "I was elected
President of all the people."
But now an additional trait has been added to the mix, rising to the top of
the priority list: "likeability."
After Gore decisively trounced Bush on substantial issues in the debates,
the media spin-merchants hammered on the "likeability" issue until Gore's
advantage was neutralized.
And it continues to this day, as John Kerry -- whose courage has been proven
on the battlefield, who has twenty-two years of continuous experience in the
United States Senate, who has acquired one of the highest ratings with the
liberal American for Democratic Action and with the the League of
Conservation Voters -- this same John Kerry, we are told, is unqualified for
the Presidency because he "looks" and speaks French, and because he pays too
much for his haircuts.
Instead, as we approach another Presidential election, shouldn't we be
asking Jimmy Carter's question: "Why not the best?" Why should we settle for
less?
In less than two hundred years, the leadership of the Roman Empire evolved
from Cato and Cicero to Caligula and Nero.
In approximately the same time, our leadership has evolved from Washington,
Jefferson, and Madison to Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
Is this the best that we can do?
Rather than close by speaking ill of the dead, here is a kind word for the
late Ronald Reagan.
Reagan had the good sense to appreciate the changes that were afoot in the
Soviet Union, and to make a correct assessment of the Soviet leader, Mikhail
Gorbachev. This, at a time when the hawks in his administration were
convinced that Soviet Communism was forever -- when George Will, for
example, was characterizing Gorbachev as "Brezhnev with a tailored suit and
a thin wife."
Reagan ignored all that, and thus facilitated the difficult dismantling of
the Soviet Empire.
But he did not, as the right wing insists, "win the Cold War." For this,
Gorbachev deserves equal if not more credit. But when the question is posed,
"who won the Cold War?," the greatest heroes of all are usually left out of
the equation. These are the people of Eastern Europe, and of Russia and the
other Soviet Republics. "Solidarity" in Poland, "the Velvet Revolution" in
Czechoslovakia, the throngs of ordinary citizens who filled the streets of
Vilnius, Lithuania. And the Muscovite citizens who stood fast in front of
the tanks and thwarted the counter-revolution against Gorbachev in August,
1991.
But for the will of the people, communism and the Soviet Union would likely
have survived to this day.
Something to think about, when the will of the people may be the only force
capable of saving the American Republic from becoming a theocratic
oligarchy.
More Ernest Partridge Blogs