Scraps of Time

But does Stephen Hawking exist?

2011-09-27T11:27:00.004-04:00

Dr. Ian Malcolm:
"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs..."

Dr. Ellie Sattler:

"Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth..."

"Jurassic Park" 1993

Has Stephen Hawking destroyed God?

In his opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, which is based on the book "The Grand Design" by Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow of CalTech, Hawking argues that according to the latest theories of quantum physics and gravity a universe can spring from nothing. In fact, existence is really a multiverse, many universes that each have their own laws of nature.

If I understood this correctly, he is saying that there are other universes in which the laws of physics work differently. Gravitational constants, the mass of a proton, the strong nuclear force, the electric force, all could be different in these other universes. Change any of these factors by just a small percentage and life could never exist.

We just happen to live in a universe where the laws of physics allow for the creation of heavy elements and planets that exist in the proper distance from stars to support life. We also just happen to live on a planet that is just perfect for the evolution and continued existence of used car salesmen, college professors, baseball players, flight attendants, massage therapists, lion tamers and Stephen Hawking. (Unless we destroy ourselves.)

Newton argued that because of the order of the universe that favors the creation of our world and human life that it demonstrated that the universe was created by God. This point of view was still reinforced after the development of the Big Bang theory.

When I was in Catholic school in the fifth grade, I remember my class talked about the Big Bang Theory. I believe we were told that at one point all that is now in the universe had once been contained within a space no bigger than a thimble. It exploded out and created existence.

But where did that thimble of very dense matter come from?

God was our answer.

I remember reading Hawking's earlier book, "A Brief History of Time." He talked about discussing the Big Bang with the Pope. The Pope told him science could explore any question up to the Big Bang, but not to go inside the Big Bang itself for that was the realm of God.

Hawking didn't tell the Pope that he was already theoretically probing the inner workings of the Big Bang.

Now, physicists have gone far beyond the Big Bang.

I remember the other side of the Big Bang theory was that eventually the universe might collapse into a Big Crunch, then maybe spark another Big Bang. But that doesn't seem to be the conclusion now.

Instead, the universe is projected to just keep expanding into a Big Rip. After several generations, stars will die out and new stars will no longer be born. The universe will get very cold in the distant future and matter will tear apart into atoms and then subatomic particles, all scattering further and further out. (The Buddhists have it right. Nobody gets to keep their toys.)

But even at this stage, there could be a rebirth.

I watched a documentary on this new theory of the fate of the universe. It explained that in quantum physics -- the physics of the very small -- the possibilities at the subatomic level can be endless. One of those possibilities could be the creation of a new universe.

A universe can be created from nothing.

Fine.

No God needed?

Well, humans may have a psychological need for God, but the existence of God does not rely on a human need for God. God exists or does not exist independent of our need for him.

Does the universe need God?

Well, the laws of physics have no psychological need for a higher being. But again, God can exist or not exist whether or not there is a need for God in the universe.

Just because it is possible the Big Bang happened without God does not mean he does not exist.

So, let's back it up even further and consider Hawking's and other physicists' concept of the multiverse.

How does the multiverse prove there is no God? Perhaps God's plan goes back farther than we ever imagined. We used to imagine that the world was created 6,000 years ago in a matter of six days.

We now realize that story was a fable. (Sorry creationists, but you're way behind the times.)

Then through science, we discovered how old our Earth is, how old our sun is, and how old our universe is, which is something like 14 billion years old. Science showed us this existence that we know came from a Big Bang.

So, those people of faith who saw the value of science concluded God must have created the Big Bang.

Now science has drawn back another curtain and said there's now a multiverse. God didn't cause the Big Bang. (We win, God loses.)

But to go back to that discussion in fifth grade, about where the thimble came from, what we were really talking about was the point where science ends and faith begins.

The whole problem with the debate between science and faith is that there is no common ground. There is no point where science and faith touch. No matter how much science discovers or understands, no matter how many curtains are drawn back on the origin and nature of existence, faith is never revealed to be a fraud.

Faith is not a matter of science, just as science is not a matter of faith.

A year ago, someone sent me a video about a scientific proof of God. The theory was rather twisted, but it turned on the so-called existence of polonium halos found in rock. Polonium is a very unstable matter, it exists very briefly as uranium decays into lead. The claim was that they had found evidence of polonium that had remained stable long enough to leave a halo in the rock. Such a transitory material could never survive long enough to leave a halo in rock, therefore God must have intervened and held the polonium in that state and created the halo. Therefore, God exists.

Nonsense.

I wrote back this guy and said "I do not need science to prove God exists."

I think it is as foolhardy to try to prove God exists through science as it is to try to prove that he does not exist. If you build your faith on God based on a scientific proof, then if that proof collapses or if science pulls back another curtain, then your faith is destroyed. Your faith is revealed to be false.

Hawking has not proven that God doesn't exist. He has simply given us a deeper understanding of our existence.

I also don't buy the idea that just because we live on a planet that is perfectly suited to human life that means that the universe was created only to suit humans.

When you consider the vastness of the universe, the possibilities of other life, and now the possibilities of other universes and the prospect of life there (in those universes where the laws of physics allows it), I am struck by the potential for how big God's plan may be.

Perhaps humanity does expand out into the universe and survives for billions of years. Perhaps we will discover that not only are not alone, but that we are just one of millions of species. That we are not the most important species, but that we have a role to play in the universe, a role to play in God's plan.

We shall see.

Hindsight

2011-09-25T21:54:00.000-04:00

For all the merits of the jobs bill proposed by President Obama, the entire effort suffers from a case of very bad timing.

It should have happened much earlier.

In the current political environment in Washington, such an initiative can nearly be considered dead on arrival just because it has the president's name on it.

That's easy to understand why, given that the opposition's No. 1 goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president. So anything that would make Obama look good -- disregarding the possible benefits to the country -- will not get GOP backing.

Since the T.E.A.-party-flavored Republican House swept into office, every bit of legislation that might have been handled in a more amicable and reasonable way in other administrations has instead been bitter, grueling death matches.

This year, legislation on the federal budget and the debt ceiling chewed up months in a conflict orchestrated by T.E.A. party radicals who bent the government agenda to their will and nearly forced the government to default on its loans.

They continue to play this game, endangering emergency relief funds for regions devastated by recent storms. And if they continue to make the kinds of cuts in government services that they want, they could even threaten our ability to respond to major storms like Hurricane Irene. A smaller government would not have to ability to bring federal resources quickly to bear during natural disasters. Average people could end up suffering more.

No wonder Obama had to wait until now to roll out a jobs program. This was just a moment when the T.E.A. party was not hijacking the agenda.

We will have to wait until November 2012 to find out who the voters will blame for this political quagmire. But the roots of this grim situation can be traced back to the hope and optimism of November 2008.

Obama had been elected on many promises, but I think he was elected so overwhelmingly because of his promise that we would not be Red States and Blue States but a United States of America. We so wanted an end to the divisive politics of the past that we threw our support behind this one man.

But electing one politician -- even if that one politician is president -- does not change the nature of politics. Even if that president truly and earnestly wants to change the way politics works, his election will not change the behavior of other politicians.

By nature, politics is divisive. It is driven by competition and conflict.

By nature, we are human. And we remain human even when elected to office. Some with more human failings than others.

When Obama came into office in January 2009, he was flush with the success of a landslide victory and a Congress that was fully behind the Democratic agenda. He may have taken office with every intention of negotiating and working with the Republicans.

But they didn't want to work with him.

And I think that Obama may have looked around at the potential he had with a Democratic Congress and a landslide victory and felt less of a need to work with the GOP. It was a human failing to allow the electoral success to put aside his ideals of compromise and unity.

To his credit, he pursued most of his campaign promises, chiefly health care reform. It was a piece of legislation that would not have happened with a divided Congress. He seized the opportunity and let go of some of the dream of political cooperation.

The GOP, if they had any interest, let go of the rest. The health care reform legislation was the trigger for the popularity of the T.E.A. party movement.

I support health care reform, but in looking back at this situation with the benefit of hindsight, we can see the bitter political cost that came with it.

It's easy to second guess someone else's strategy. It's like playing chess against a computer. Make a stupid mistake and lose your queen? Hit the undo button.

So, just for fun, let's do that. Let's look at what happened.

When he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination, health care was a major issue for Obama in the spring of 2008. Throughout the primaries, throughout the factory visits and chicken dinners and handshaking and canvassing of voters, health care would come up again and again. Obama promised to make it a priority of his administration.

He got the nomination in part because of that and other promises, along with a broader promise for "hope and change." That was in August 2008.

But that fall, everything changed.

The economy nearly collapsed.

Many of those workers who had told Obama that health care was a priority now were out of a job. Health care was probably still a big priority for these people, but in the meantime unemployment went up to nearly 10 percent.

I believe that the actions taken by the government in early 2009 helped to stabilize the economy and prevented a much deeper recession, even a depression.

The economy stabilized and finally began to grow. But it was a jobless growth.

Obama knew in 2008/09 that unemployment was going to stay high for some time, and that it would cost him politically in 2010.

It did.

What seems apparent to me now is that while health care was the big issue for the Democratic nomination, by late 2008/early 2009, the bigger issue was the economy and jobs.

And let's be frank, with all the blue collar and union support in the party, jobs should be a Democratic priority.

And for a Democratic president looking for common ground with a Republican opposition, jobs would have been the natural choice in early 2009.

More jobs means more money in the economy, stronger businesses, and a fiscally sound government. It's a Dem-GOP win-win.

C'mon, don't you remember "Dave," the movie where Kevin Klein gets to be president? He plowed through all the political nonsense and zeroed in on what he knew to be the most important issue: Getting everyone a job.

Could Obama have pursued an aggressive jobs package in early 2009 while also pursuing health care reform and the bailout packages? Maybe. Maybe not.

Could he have pursued jobs first and then brought in health care reform after some kind of precedent for political compromise had been established? Who knows?

In 2010, the voters sent one message that both sides should have understood: The American people were tired of a weak economy and 10 percent unemployment.

So, what if even right after the T.E.A.-party swept into office, Obama called Boehner and said, "Tell you what, Let's focus on jobs as our priority. That is what everyone needs." Would that have made a difference? I'm not so sure. This all is just theoretical. Like fantasy football and computer chess.

The reality is that for whatever reason, our 2008 hopes for a new way of doing politics was lost. Obama did not find the other side willing to help build his dream. He also learned too late the lessons of political strategy, that -- as Dana Milbank put it recently -- he should not begin "a game of strip poker in his boxer shorts."

For what it's worth, I still consider Obama to be an honorable president. He set out to achieve what he promised to achieve. I am grateful for the good he has done. I think he has had to bear some very unfair attacks from the other side, who have called him not a true American, a secret Muslim, a socialist and a Nazi.

He's really a moderate, and considering where we've come from -- the presidency of George W. Bush -- and where we might end up -- a presidency that serves the whims of T.E.A. party radicals -- I hope and pray that Obama finds his "inner Harry Truman" and survives the 2012 election.

My faith, once again, rests with the middle. It is my hope that the independent and moderate voters have been horrified with the positions spouted by the current crop of GOP candidates and that they realize that the T.E.A. party tactics of obstruction and radicalism are not good for the country.

It depends on whether Obama can find a new message that will resonate with the American people. Not a vague dream of "hope" but a concrete plan for his second term.

Panda pajamas

2011-01-11T10:37:00.000-05:00

John Stewart handles the Arizona shootings better than anyone else, as only he could handle it.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Arizona Shootings Reaction

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

The Daily Show on Facebook

The aftermath of the Giffords shooting

2011-01-09T14:38:00.001-05:00

When I first heard the news that a congresswoman in Arizona had been shot in the head at an event in Arizona, my first reaction was that this was likely an attempt by some crazed individual to influence legislation through violence.

Then as I read postings from my friends on Facebook, a more sinister possibility surfaced, the Sarah Palin ad, which I now repost:

What this ad shows was Sarah Palin's target list for the 2010 election. Gabrielle Giffords is one of the U.S. Reps on the list, with a gun sight targeted over her district. Giffords herself talks about the consequences of violence creeping into the political process in this video, and in particular about the Palin ad at about 2:20:

But as we have learned more about the suspected shooter, we get a picture of him from Internet postings and YouTube that he was an incoherent and deeply troubled individual. He included both "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto" as his favorite books. Think about that. One is an example of extreme right, fascist thinking and the other is the ultimate blueprint for the extreme left. Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies during World War II, remember?

More importantly, there is no evidence that this suspect was a supporter of Sarah Palin, did not seem to advocate for her political platform and does not seem to have been motivated by her ad or by any particular vote by Giffords as a congresswoman. (At least not as far as we know now.)

And yet, Palin should be ashamed of how she has conducted herself. "Violent rhetoric, when legitimized, will always trickle down to someone who is unstable enough to take the literal message to heart," as Derrick Stamos posted on Facebook. I don't know Derrick, but it rings with truth, especially when you remember how Glenn Beck's rhetoric presumably led to a shoot-out in Oakland:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html

We have the right to free speech, but violent rhetoric abuses that right. We can say what we want, but we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because it will get someone killed. It seems to me that Palin and Beck have been getting closer to crossing that line. It is a line that no sane American wants to see crossed.

On the day that politicians in this country are shot and killed because of their political views, that will be the day America dies. And the more this brand of rhetoric is used, the closer we get to that day.

In any event, if Palin has any conscience, decency or at least basic smarts, it will be a long time before she uses the phrase "Don't retreat, reload," or use guns and gun sights in her ads.

My hope is that we have reached a high-water mark for violent rhetoric in American politics. My hope is that most Americans have felt enough disgust over the shooting in Tuscon that we will no longer welcome such inflammatory and divisive politics.

Using the N-word

2011-01-09T13:36:00.002-05:00

Recently on Facebook a group of my friends were debating the new edition of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," which had been edited to change the n-word into "slave."

Overwhelmingly, we hated the idea. There were a lot of great points about it. The best point was that Twain's work gives us a window into a shameful period of American history, and we need to be able to confront that honestly.

I wrote: "You can definitely oversanitize history. The problem is that by sanitizing history, later generations don't even realize how offensive the words can be. They don't realize the history, meaning and pain behind words, symbols and actions. Twa...in's use of the n-word is an opportunity for a teaching moment with the kids, and it can be handled in a way that is not offensive or hurtful.
Editors: Put down that red pen and move away from the literature!"

But I have one additional point to make. When I read the full story about the new edition, the editor explained that he wanted to make the change because he had to deal with negative reactions from audiences when he read the book aloud.

I get it. I understand. I have to say I would have a great deal of trouble saying that word out loud to a group of people, even if it was in the context of one of the greatest works of American literature. It is a word that carries so much pain that I do not think anyone can give me sanction to say it out loud, even if Mark Twain were to rise from his grave and tell me so himself. (And he wouldn't have far to walk. He's buried in the next town over from me.)

Anyway, the debate is pointless. The sanitized edition is being published. It will be out next month. But it does not mean that this edition will replace, supercede or be superior to earlier editions. It is an option that is now available for audiences that had not been able to read this work before. It can go on library bookshelves and read in middle schools, where it had often been banned.

But it should be read with the understanding that the full, original version is out there and if someone wanted to have a complete experience and have a unsanitized version of this work, they should go out and find it. Perhaps it is not a book for middle schoolers (ironic because Tom Sawyer, Becky Thatcher and Huckleberry Finn were roughly middle school aged) but readers who are at least high school age should read the unchanged work.

What Hillary would have done differently?

2010-11-09T12:24:00.002-05:00

Hmmmmm ...

Why you should be wary of the right-wing propaganda

2010-11-09T10:08:00.005-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Doubtsourced

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Rally to Restore Sanity

Surviving the disaster

2010-11-03T12:30:00.001-04:00

Blood bath. Tidal Wave. Tsunami. Earthquake.

These were some of the ways that the pundits were using to describe the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. The largest switch of power in the House since 1948 was breathtaking to watch.

But election night was not as bad for the Democrats as you might think. The Republicans failed to win the Senate. Despite a very tough race with a favorite of the T.E.A. party movement, Harry Reid will remain as Majority Leader. And while promising to embrace an era of compromise in Congress, Reid also promised to defend health care reform.

The Democrats still hold the presidency and the Senate, and frankly I've woken up to much worse political news than that. Their control of the White House and both Houses of Congress -- including a near filibuster-proof majority -- was a political aberration. Apparently, they knew they would only have two years to enjoy such an advantage and they used it to get health care reform and other legislation passed. That is something that probably could not have been achieved under a divided government.

And according to the exit polls, the sea of red that has swept across the maps of the TV pundits does not mean that Americans will now embrace the entirety of the Republican platform. Elections are won in the middle, with independents. And the independents who backed Obama in 2008 switched to the GOP candidates in 2010.

But they did so not because they and other voters loved the Republicans so much, but because they were so very unhappy about the economy and needed to express their frustration. So, they backed the Republicans, but it is cautious support and it could switch back to the blue in another two years. They are on probation, and voters will be waiting to see whether they make things better.

I take comfort in the fact that the most extreme of the T.E.A. party candidates either lost or seem to be lagging behind in the vote counts at this writing. O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, Buck and Miller were the most outrageous in this campaign, and I would be glad to see their ambitions clipped. Apparently Murkowski is way ahead of Miller in Alaska, but because hers was a write-in campaign, we will need to wait as the votes are verified.

My other concern was Rand Paul in Kentucky, who made some questionable attacks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He had criticized the part of the act that required businesses to not discriminate against customers. He saved his campaign by reaffirming his support of the Civil Rights Act. However, I will have to wait and see what his record will be in the Senate. Paul is a ophthalmologist who has never held office before. However, his father is a former congressman and former candidate for president.

In the end, I don't think that the Republicans or the T.E.A. party candidates have the mandate or the means to conduct the kind of dismantling of governmental agencies, programs and the Constitution that had been bandied about in this election.

But they do carry the message to Washington that the economy is the No. 1 concern of American voters. They will also carry their core philosophy of smaller government and less taxes, which is a theme I respect but they had lost sight of under George Bush. So, the debate between the left and the right will continue. Hopefully, it will be a debate conducted with some sanity and reason.

The good news is that Democrats and Republicans now have a common enemy: unemployment.

We avoided falling into a second Great Depression in 2008. The economy stabilized and there has been some small economic growth. The problem is that it has been a jobless recovery. Nearly 10 percent of the workforce is still unemployed, and that was a major source of voter dissatisfaction.

So, this is the opportunity to show compromise is possible. The two sides need to work together on creating jobs in America. That is the mandate for both parties.

Here's a blog in the Washington Post that I thought was very insightful: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/11/voters_wanted_change_not_neces.html

Good interview on the Colbert Report with David Frum.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Indecision 2010 - David Frum

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

2010 Election

March to Keep Fear Alive

Where did Obama go?

2010-11-02T20:31:00.000-04:00

I'm watching the early results on the election, and of course it is not going well for the Democrats. Holding the Senate will be the big victory if the Dems can pull it off.

As I watch the returns, I'm asking myself why didn't Obama get out and campaign more to educate the public about all the good his administration his done.

After being elected with such soaring rhetoric in 2008, why couldn't he have brought those skills to bear to get out the story of the people who have been helped?

Perhaps he felt that deeds would speak louder than words. True enough. They often do. But we need to know what the has been done.

The only rhetorical refrain that has resonated was his analogy that the Republicans wanted the keys back after crashing the car into the ditch. It was an accurate analogy, but was not enough to push back against the tsunami of T.E.A. party rhetoric.

Part of what happened was that the T.E.A. party candidates were given free reign on the political landscape. Their rallies should have been answered with progressive rallies all along. The Democrats needed an image makeover, and they needed it much earlier.

It is probably fair enough to say that the impact of the T.E.A. party movement had not been anticipated early enough.

The Jon Stewart rally may have helped a little, but Stewart was not trying to save the Democrats. If he had been trying to save them, it was too little, too late.

Which is sadly the best way to sum up the Democratic campaigns this year.

But I'm watching the returns and waiting to see how it actually works out.

Marxism vs. Capitalism

2010-11-02T11:43:00.000-04:00

No, I'm not a Marxist or a socialist.

I'm a Democrat and a capitalist. It is not socialism that I want. It is capitalism with a conscience.

Capitalism works well as an economic system, unless you are those unlucky enough to fall between the cracks and you don't have money or a job. If you are poor or disadvantaged, capitalism can be cruel.

If you want to see what capitalism is without a conscience, check out Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as well as the works of other journalists and writers at the beginning of the 20th Century. We've come a long way from those days. Let's not fall back into them again.

Thoughts before the voting

2010-11-01T23:12:00.004-04:00

The brilliance in Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity was that it was performed without making a plea to vote for either political side. He delivered a message that will still be relevant no matter what the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. He does not have to rely on a political victory for his call for sanity to be answered.

However, it seems unlikely that sanity would be achieved if the T.E.A. party radicals achieve the kind of overwhelming victory that they are hoping for. And much as he claimed that his rally was not a response to Glenn Beck's Rally to Restore Honor, comparisons are inevitable. Stewart himself has said that he does not care what outcome or influence there may be from his rally, but I care. And I'll make some comparisons even though Stewart is not likely to.

I do so as a Democrat, so I am applying my own filter in interpreting Stewart's rally. So, I have to apologize to Jon because I am about to become one of those people who will tell you what I think the rally means.

The exact numbers from each rally are up for debate -- to a point -- but from every reasonable source I have seen, Stewart's rally had at least 200,000 to 250,000 people. That's a number at least double the size of Beck's rally. Those estimates on the sanity rally are probably safe guesses considering that they probably do not include the crowds that also milled about on the streets around the National Mall.

Aside from keeping score, what do those numbers mean? They mean that Jon Stewart has demonstrated more with action than with words that he is the better man. He has checked Glenn Beck from making any reasonable claim that he speaks for the majority of Americans. And even though the T.E.A. party candidates do have the momentum and the energy to win in this election, he has served notice that a large part of this country is not going to support the more radical of their plans.

His rally and his call for sanity was directed at the moderate middle. It was a call for making the kind of political compromises that allow government to work. It was a call for responsible commentary on the issues. It was a call to scorn the hot heads and not hire them as news analysts. (And maybe fire the ones that are working?)

Most of the audience that demonstrated a political viewpoint leaned to the left, and that is in part because the left has been taking more of a beating this year. In a way, Stewart is like the guy who comes upon two kids having a street fight. He runs to break up the fight and restore order, but in doing so he also saves the weaker kid who is losing the fight.

Critics of Stewart would say that his audience leans to the left because he is a tool of the liberal elite. But Jon Stewart is nobody's tool.

I respect him tremendously because he has the integrity as a comedian that many journalists today lack. He is fearless in directing his thoughtful and often biting commentary at anyone who deserves it. One of his favorite targets is Fox News, which shows the least integrity of any media organization. He attacks them so often because they spend 24-hours a day pumping their propaganda and nonsense into the political landscape. Of course they are going to draw more fire.

And I apologize if my criticism has become uncivil. I am striving to be a saner person since attending the rally.

It seems unlikely that the Rally to Restore Sanity will give the Democrats the kind of last-minute boost they have been hoping for. The pundits and pollsters seem to have concluded that it is all but certain the Democrats will at least lose the House. However, so many races are so tight and so tightly contested that now more than ever, every vote will count. Every vote will matter.

Of course, I am hoping for at least a close race in this election. If the Democrats lose the House, but just barely, or at least by only a respectable margin, perhaps that might create the atmosphere for political compromise that we need. The T.E.A. party candidates may put the Republicans in charge, but perhaps there will emerge a moderate coalition that can actually get some functional legislation passed. But that is likely be a faint hope.

To repeat my earlier blog, the key is to have both fiscal responsibility and a social conscience in government. To me, that is as obvious a solution as the two-state solution is for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the Israelis and the Palestinians do not see that as so obvious or as easy to achieve. Neither would this kind of compromise be for Democrats and Republicans.

Still Democrats and Republicans should have an easier time in finding compromise because they do not have years of actual bloodshed to overcome. They just have years of name calling and bitter rivalry to deal with.

So, it comes down to the voting on Tuesday. The results may include some surprises for us. Stewart may have energized the middle more than the pundits expect. After all, this was not just one rally of nearly a quarter of a million people. It was a series of satellite rallies held all over the country. For every person who actually stood on the National Mall on Saturday, there were who-knows-how-many others who wanted to be there but couldn't.

And how will this energized middle vote? We'll have to wait and see. But even though the Rally to Restore Sanity may come too late to have an impact on this election, its legacy may be felt on many elections to come.

I remember, too

2010-11-01T13:01:00.002-04:00

Jon Stewart, media prophet

2010-10-31T07:33:00.005-04:00

Because he asked us to, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in one spot to hear a man speak.

The man said what he felt needed to be said. He gave no direct instructions, no political endorsements, but he told a joke here and there. When he had finished what he had to say, he walked away.

Jon Stewart has evolved from late-night comedian to modern-day prophet.

"I can't control what people think this was. I can only tell you my intentions," was how Stewart began his final speech at the Rally to Restore Sanity. He gave us a metaphor of America as one massive traffic jam, ten lanes of vehicles that must merge into one so that they can enter a mile-lone tunnel. It would be impossible without compromise, without concession. "You go, then I'll go."

Stewart ended his rally with a moment that was appropriately Zen.

"If you want to know why I'm here, and what I want from you. I can only assure you this, you have already given it to me. Your presence was what I wanted. Sanity will always be and has always been in the eye of the beholder. To see you here today and the kind of people that you are, has restored mine."

If we did help restore Jon Stewart's sanity, I'm grateful because he is the man who has kept me sane for 11 years, especially during the Bush administration. Apparently, he had been helping a few other people too.

As I drove by the National Mall and saw the crowds crossing the street, I didn't see anyone carrying signs. This worried me. I had put a lot of work into making a large sign in the shape of a tea mug. One side read, "Try a cup of sanity." The other read: "More reason, less fear." I had the feeling like I was showing up in costume at a party that was not actually a costume party.

I had nothing to worry about.

Actually, the rally was very much like a Halloween party. We loved to take pictures of each others' signs. Many were not political. "Up with boobs." "Down with panties." "Down with toilet seats." "I have a sign." "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." "Anyone for Scrabble later?" "Everybody poops."

Kids carried signs. People wore costumes, and dressed like bananas, as a gorilla in a Ghostbusters uniform, as a fox, as Darth Vader. One guy wore a dress made entirely out of candy. I think it was all Smarties. A lot were college-aged people, but every generation was represented. A couple I talked to in a Starbucks after the rally had come from Pittsburgh. The man said that it was the largest rally he had been to, and that included when he had been a protester during the Vietnam War.

But what united all of us was that we had shared that same moment of sanity each night, delivered by a man who gave us the news, but with a reality check. "Yeah, did you see that? Did that really happen? Did he really say that? He did, and it was crazy."

So, we came to Washington D.C. for one big national reality check. And we came away a little saner. Through the skits and video, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and the rest of the Comedy Central team showed us America through the funhouse mirror of media punditry. With Stephen Colbert's media assault, he showed us the fear and the ugliness.

And it was a balanced assault. The video clips included Fox commentators -- including some from Glenn Beck -- but also liberal pundits going over the edge. "Republicans are liars," one commentator screamed into the camera. It was an image that stayed with me. In this age of attack ads, I'm tempted to scream the same thing. Seeing that in the video montage helped me pull back.

That is what I hope came out of the rally, that we all as a nation could pull back from the brink.

There comes a time in an argument when we nearly say the things that we don't mean to say, but after we say them, we create a breaking point from which there is no return. After such arguments, people may stop talking to each other, sometimes not for the rest of our lives.

If that happens politically, then we lose the opportunity for compromise. Without compromise, government will not work.

Simplifying the situation

2010-10-28T21:51:00.000-04:00

To sum up my previous post, let me just say this:

Under politics without compromise, the extremes take control of the system. The more extremist the leadership is, the more bitter the opposition becomes. Government grinds to a halt, and nothing gets done.

Find the sane choice

2010-10-28T15:04:00.005-04:00

I’m going to the Rally to Restore Sanity. I’m going as a Democrat who has become seriously concerned about the swing to the right that this country is about to take. However, I know that this rally is not about supporting one political view. I’ve been reading the signs posted online, and it is clear that many of those who will be at the rally come from a variety of political opinions. However, all of us will be expressing a common theme: that we do not like the rhetoric, anger and lies that have been thrown about in this election.

Most of that is coming from T.E.A. party candidates and their supporters. Their movement owes its strength to Fox, a media organization whose owner, Rupert Mudoch, decided to use as an organ of the Republican Party and the conservative right. As a former journalist and a former journalism professor, I am saddened that a media company would choose to put a political agenda above the dispassionate reporting of the news.

Fox has given Glenn Beck a daily platform to spew an extremist view and connect the dots on nonsensical conspiracy theories that can be traced back to the John Birch Society. For more on that, I recommend an article in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/18/101018fa_fact_wilentz?currentPage=all

The article is seven pages long but spells out the history of Glenn Beck’s philosophy, and it is well worth reading. Know what philosophy you are supporting before you pull that lever.

As we try to restore sanity, I would say that much of the responsibility for the insanity we see today is because of Fox. I would also blame what I call the “wedgy Web” politics of today. And I would also put some blame on the Democrats political strategy, which is a result of the Wedgy Web politics.

First, to talk about Fox. While other media organizations try to play by the rules – such as banning their reporters from attending the Rally to Restore Sanity unless they have been assigned to cover it – Fox shamelessly works for the conservatives. And really, the strongest antidote to their propaganda has been Jon Stewart and the Daily Show.

Jon Stewart may only be a comedian, but he is a smart comedian and commentator on the news. He is also a thorough and fair interviewer, and he asks hard questions when hard questions need to be asked. That was very clear when he interviewed President Obama on his show Wednesday night.

I expect that many Democrats will not like everything that Jon Stewart has to say at the rally, but I know I will respect what he says and does.

The other part of the insanity comes from wedge politics, which I trace to Karl Rove and George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. The tactics that were used undercut John McCain’s bid for president included a phony poll to voters in South Carolina, asking “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" http://www.thenation.com/article/dirty-tricks-south-carolina-and-john-mccain. If you read the article, you get a sense that this incident not only cost McCain the nomination, but permanently changed his stance in the Republican party.

Rove may deny his involvement in the scheme, but it is his style of politics. It began a new era of win-at-any-cost strategies in politics, and it has reached a fever pitch today. In the current campaign, misleading and deceptive attack ads are running in Congressional districts with tightly contested races, without any check on accuracy and without having to declare where the funds for these ads came from. The more money you have, the bigger lie you can make in a TV ad.

Wedge politics goes to a new level on the Internet, what I call “wedgy Web politics.” During George W. Bush’s presidency, he bypassed the traditional media and communicated directly to his base via e-mail and the Internet. So, while most of the country did not know his positions or plans, his base had what they needed to do what was needed to keep him and the GOP in power. It has gone to new levels today, and both sides are using this tactic now.

I am on many e-mail lists from the Democrats, and I receive frequent e-mails with requests for money, updates on campaigns and inspirational memos from leaders. While I agree with and appreciate most of these e-mails, my concern is that so much of the political discourse is happening underground. Each side gets filled up on talking points from their leaders, and when we encounter someone from the opposing side we don’t so much discuss but spout a party line. That does tend to turn the political process insane.

It’s also not pragmatic. Elections are won by persuading the voters in the middle, the undecideds. Getting out the party faithful is part of winning an election, and it demonstrates a political strength. However, the true test in politics is in making a thoughtful and resounding argument to the nation as a whole.

I don’t hear thoughtful argument from the T.E.A. party candidates because they shout too loud without thinking out their positions. And the Democrats are making their own case so quietly they are not being heard. We'll know what the middle thinks on election day.

So, what has happened?

Wedge politics got George Bush elected in 2000 and 2004. The GOP used every political trick to hold onto and expand their power throughout his presidency. But he also abandoned key Republican principles such as fiscal responsibility. He expanded government and governmental spending and increased the deficit. (It was a surplus when Clinton finished.) GOP laissez-faire rules and and a lack of oversight also allowed greed on Wall Street to expand so that the entire system very nearly collapsed and almost caused a second Great Depression.

In response to the policies of the Bush administration, we elected Barack Obama as president and gave him an overwhelming majority in Congress. This also marked a collapse of the traditional center of the conservative movement, which has now been filled by T.E.A. party radicals.

But even after Bush left office, the wedge politics remained. Because either the Republicans wouldn’t cooperate, or the Democrats did not pursue it far enough, bipartisanship did not emerge. Instead, Democrats decided to go it alone, and pushed through their agenda on the bailouts and health care. What emerged was legislation without any Republican backing. Aside from Fox, the lack of bipartisanship has been another major driving force for the T.E.A. party movement. Check this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102502408.html

Were the T.E.A. party candidates to take charge, we would be no better off. We would just see more power plays, this time with the right in charge instead of the left. But it would be worse because these are candidates who have ideas that go beyond just cutting taxes. They actually want to dismantle major programs of the federal government and undo key principles of our constitution. Check this link: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how-tea-partiers-get-the-constitution-wrong.html

What do we need? We need a middle again.

I believe government can be fiscally responsible and have a social conscience. If we are to have social programs that can save Americans from the crises that can destroy lives and keep people in poverty, we need to agree on how to pay for it. That is not easily done, and it is not going to be solved by shouting slogans or electing extremists. It could be done by having the moderates from each party work together. We need to honestly accept that there are social issues that need to be solved and find a reasonable way to solve them.

We can learn something from the Taoist symbol of the yin yang. The symbol is about the contrary forces in the world. Half the symbol is black. Half is white. On the white side is a black circle. And on the black side is a white circle. Our solutions are found on both sides of the equation.

So, I am going to the Rally to Restore Sanity. I do not know whether this rally will have any impact on next week’s election, but it is a message that I hope the country listens to. Let us hope we find the sane choices.

Term limits

2010-10-23T22:35:00.000-04:00

Term limits are being pushed for again. A friend recently suggested term limits for Congress on a Facebook post. "12 years for Senate, 10 years for House. Or maybe less."

Term limits and I have gotten off on the wrong foot. The first time I was approached about term limits was in the parking lot of the Ralph's supermarket on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. A group of women asked me to sign their petition so that we could get rid of the current group of elected officials on the city council.

Since I actually liked and voted for the Democrats on the city council, I would not sign their petition for term limits. It just seemed a way of me giving permission for them to take away my right to choose.

That is the problem I have with term limits. It seems to be an issue that is raised to attack whoever the incumbent is. Perhaps I want to vote for that incumbent because I consider them to be the best person to do the job, in part because they have the experience and the track record that is needed.

I liked an answer to term limits I heard years ago. "We already have term limits. It's called voting."

HOWEVER ...

I understand how naive that can seem. With the influence of money, power and prestige, we do have a system that can favor the incumbent and make it difficult for the newcomer.

Without term limits, our system has career politicians, whose entire set of skills and experience are limited to politics. It is easy to see how someone like that will get caught up in the pursuit of personal power and wealth rather than serving the public good.

I can see the argument that term limits would take that temptation out of the equation because if you know you are going to be in the job for only a short time, you can't use it for personal enrichment. You go into the job knowing that you have a short time to achieve what you promised, and that you will go back into private life when you are done.

I'm reminded of the story of Cincinnatus, a Roman who answered the call of duty to defend Rome. He became a general, defeated the enemy and could have used his position to continue with great power in Rome. Instead, when his war was won, he left the army and returned to his life on the farm.

The story of Cincinnatus inspired another general, George Washington, who became our president and left office voluntarily after serving two terms. He was also the first president of the Society of the Cincinnati. By tradition, Washington established the two-term limit for presidents, which was not broken until Franklin Roosevelt. After Roosevelt, it became law.

But my other reservation about term limits is that there is a value to having an elected official who has served on the job for decades. There is an institutional and historic knowledge that comes with someone who has been there for so long. Such a person can have a positive impact on the process, and can keep a legislative body from making the same mistakes as in the past. Such as person can be a ready resource on a variety of matters.

I might consider term limits if perhaps: 1) it was not applied to current office holders. (Yeah, I know that won't be popular.) and 2) That after you serve your terms, you don't have a lifetime ban, but instead can run again after being out of office for a while. I could imagine some bright, energetic 25-year-old getting elected, serving his/her terms and then coming back and running again in their 40s or 50s. Why not have someone like that come back??

I'm not entirely persuaded to support term limits. Perhaps the next time someone approaches me with a clipboard and asks me to sign a petition, I'll think about it.

Watching the disaster

2010-10-21T14:41:00.009-04:00

A Libertarian friend posted this comment to my Facebook page when a debate broke out there:

“The government since the 1960s has thrown billions of dollars at social programs for the poor and guess what? We still have poor people!”

True.

But we’ve spent billions of dollars on firefighting services, and we still have house fires.

And when your house catches fire, you expect a government-paid service of firefighters to show up and put the fire out.

We’ve spent billions on crime and crime prevention, and there is still crime. And when an intruder breaks into your house and attacks you, you hope that taxpayer funded police office shows up and saves you.

We pay for these and other services from the government to save us in these moments of crisis, make-or-break times when a timely rescue can spare us a lifetime of misery.

Where you draw the line between a necessary government rescue and unnecessary government waste defines where you are on the political spectrum.

Let’s say you work full-time as an independent contractor. Your house catches fire. The fire department shows up and saves your house, but you are seriously injured.

An ambulance takes you to the hospital, but you don’t have health insurance. You get hit with thousands of dollars of hospital bills. You lose work and income. This could be a worse disaster than if you had lost your house.

The health care system needed reform to save average people from having to face staggering medical bills on their own. And it needed reform not so that more money could be thrown at a problem, but so that people could get health care with less waste and greed from the insurance companies.

The execution of that reform is still being debated. The details can still be argued, but the need is undeniable. Something had to be done.

The common campaign theme of the T.E.A. party candidates seems to be borrowed from a JG Wentworth commercial – “It’s my money, and I need it now.” They have attacked or called for dismantling a variety of federal programs and services ranging from Social Security, unemployment, the minimum wage, the Department of Education and health care. One candidate has even attacked the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s in the name of resisting government control.

The call for smaller government and lower taxes is not new. And that’s a position I’ve always respected. After all, you can’t get something without paying for it or knowing from where it will be funded. Ignoring the costs of a program within a government budget will only lead to runaway deficits and economic disaster.

The philosophy of the tax-and-spend liberal of the 70s and 80s does not work. Government should be leaner. However, I believe government can be fiscally responsible and have a social conscience.

Give the T.E.A. party candidates the kind of changes they are shouting for, and you are sure to have more tax dollars in your pocket. But it will be a government without a conscience, without a means of helping those whose lives are in crisis.

In a way, we will be like the neighbors to that home in South Fulton, Tennessee, that the firefighters just let burn to the ground. The fire department made sure the neighbors' homes did not burn, but it left a bad taste in the mouths of many who watched. They followed the rules, but it was a rule with no conscience. No wisdom.

When our neighbors lives are hit with disaster, either financial, medical or otherwise, shall we have a government that will do nothing? Shall we stand by and watch as our neighbors' lives are destroyed?

Popping bubbles

2010-10-20T18:59:00.006-04:00

I’m feeling a bit like Rip Van Winkle. After just nodding off for a bit, suddenly the whole country has changed. It’s gone mad for tea – angry, angry tea.

Serves me right for not listening to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Fox News.

[shudder]

But then again, I made a choice that for my own sanity I was not going to watch Fox. I would rather have root canal than listen to Sarah Palin. (It’s true. I “liked” that on Facebook.) I tuned out the T.E.A. party rallies and their distortions, using patriotism as a weapon against their opponents.

After we overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama as president in Fall of 2008, I slowly retreated into my safe little progressive bubble. I tuned out the conservative right. Obama had been elected after promising to tackle health care reform, jobs and the economy, which had collapsed on the Republicans’ watch. As far as I was concerned, he was doing the job he had been asked to do.

So now, in Fall of 2010, I discover that many Americans believe Obama is a Muslim Nazi Communist bent on destroying a country who does not want health care reform. The Democrats are at fault for the economy, according to Republicans, who seem to have forgotten that in 2008 we all very nearly dropped into another Great Depression.

What happened?

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a piece of anti-T.E.A. party art on my Facebook wall. Before I had a chance to even make my own cup of tea, the posting drew challenges and sparked a debate between my conservative and progressive friends.
In the 20 postings that followed my piece of art, I not only got an earful of views, but a quick snapshot of the political landscape and what has changed in America in just two years.

Today, many Americans live in political bubbles of our own choosing. That’s because the mainstream media has lost its relevancy for them. A large segment of the population – on both the left and the right – can get up in the morning, surf the Internet, watch cable news programs all day and go to bed at night, all without seeing anything that challenges our political views. We can choose sources of information that already agree with our worldview.

But it is more than opinion and viewpoints that we find in our bubbles. It’s facts and history. Those change depending on which bubble you are in.
So, when someone in a political bubble on the left bumps into a someone from a bubble on the right, the debate quickly explodes because the two sides have few facts to agree on. They don’t even agree about previously unchallenged topics like American history and the Constitution. And since either side can choose to ignore the mainstream media, we have no moderator to help us sort through the realities.

Time to pop the bubbles. Including my own.

Hollywood, take note

2010-05-18T16:11:00.000-04:00

What a story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/opinion/02brooks.html

Answer to an e-mail from a high school student

2010-04-23T13:57:00.002-04:00

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
>From: NAME WITHHELD
>Subject: Re:
>To: ebond@ithaca.edu
>
> My apologies Mr. Bond. Thank-You so much for this.
> Even though I am still attending High School, I as
> well am a very busy young lady. Email will be fine
> for me, if only that is alright with you Sir. The
> things I wanted to ask was what inspired you to
> become a full-time professor? Did you always know
> you wanted to write? I will not lie, it has amazed
> me that you use to be a writer for the Star-Gazette
> in Elmira, Asbury Park Press, Indianapolis Star and
> the Los Angeles Times! What was that like? Were you
> able to write any and everything you wanted? What
> key tips can you share with me that will help me get
> to my goal of being a journalist? Once again I
> Thank-you for your time and consideration.
>

From: "ebond@ithaca.edu"
To: NAME WITHHELD
Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 10:01:51 PM
Subject: Re:

I became a journalist because I loved newspapers and I loved writing. I grew up with newspapers. I had a paper route as a kid, and I always read the comics first. Later on, I started reading the front page more and more.

I was drawn to the energy and fun of newspapers. I loved the deadline driven world. At 18, I used to cover city council and school board meetings in N.J., and I loved the adrenalin rush of making deadline.

I got to write all sorts of stories, met all sorts of people and learned a lot about all sorts of topics. The fun of working for a newspaper was that you never knew what the day would bring. One day it might be a teacher's strike, the next might be an interview with a famous scientist, the next might be a close encounter with a celebrity.

I didn't get to write every story I wanted to, but I'd say about 90 percent of the stories I wrote, I came up with on my own.

I got into teaching because I was once invited to speak to a high school class in Corning N.Y., and then I was invited back. Later on, when I was working at the L.A Times, I met a journalism professor at a community college in Los Angeles. I spoke to her class, and that started me on the path to being a professor myself. I would eventually replace that teacher in her job.

What I discovered was that I enjoyed standing in front a group of young people, eager to learn, and talk about why journalists do what we do. We are trying to improve the world, in a way, by giving people the news and information that they need to make decisions they will make. We don't make those decisions for people, we don't advocate for a cause, but we try to show people all sides of an issue. It's a role that is not always appreciated.

As to advice about becoming a journalist, the first piece of advice is to read: newspapers, magazines, books. Be familiar with the written word. Take an interest in the issues in the world. Get educated on the issues.

Secondly, you should know that the world of journalism that I entered years ago is very different from the world that you may enter. Newspapers are dying, unfortunately, but journalism is still going strong. It's now become multimedia. Reporters need to be able to not only write stories but to shoot pictures, shoot video, edit these materials and get them on the Web.

So, I would recommend you find ways to give yourself as much practice with these as possible. Join the student newspaper, take classes in technology, start your own blog. Learn how the world of media works today.

Well, I'd say that's it in a nutshell. I hope this helps you in your pursuits.

Good luck,

Ed Bond
www.edbond.com

Texas school board decision on textbooks

2010-04-21T13:46:00.002-04:00

A student flagged this on a blog, and I'm posting this for now to remind myself I want to blog on this later.

On being Catholic

2010-04-06T09:19:00.001-04:00

A good column my wife sent me.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125583443

Sharing a fundraising letter from James Carville

2010-03-26T11:49:00.000-04:00

I had to share this fundraising e-mail, ostensibly sent by James Carville. I say that with skepticism only because I often doubt that these letters actually come from the people whose names are on them. But this time I have reason to believe it. Just because the tone of it is so classically James Carville. For my friends who are Democrats, enjoy his salty language. No offense intended to my Republican friends.

Ed --

This is nuts. At a time when most of America is celebrating historic health care legislation that's been a century in the making, a few narrow-minded tea party nut jobs are trying to tarnish this great achievement.

But if you think these vile two-bit wing-nuts are just gonna slink back into whatever century they crawled out from now that health care reform is the law, think again.

The same uncorked tea party rage that we saw before the health care vote is now being used against the courageous House Democrats who stood strong and made it happen.

In fact, the slimy thugs at the Republican National Committee already raised $1,494,084 in their "Fire Nancy Pelosi" campaign. That's why I'm asking you to help my Democratic friends in the House by contributing to their Million Dollar Match campaign.

Contribute $5, $10 or more to support Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats before the critical March 31st FEC fundraising deadline and your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of committed Democrats.

This is the first FEC fundraising deadline since the House passed health care reform. And, Republicans and the media are watching closely to see whether we reach our million dollar goal.

We gotta take this fight right to those Republican special interests and right-wing extremists determined to bring back the failed policies of the past.

Contribute $5, $10 or more to support House Democrats before the critical March 31st FEC fundraising deadline and your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of committed Democrats.

We will not be intimidated by the lies, distortions and hate spewing venom from the mouths of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner and the other Republican gas bags. And, we're not about to back down in the face of the tidal wave of special interest cash pouring into the campaigns of our Republican opponents thanks to the radical decision by the Supreme Court.

The March 31st FEC deadline is a golden opportunity to demonstrate that Democrats are on the march. We already dealt those tea party crazies a big blow by putting health care reform into the history books. Now let's make it a double-punch by beating them on this big fundraising deadline.

Thanks,

James Carville

Don't read my ads

2010-03-22T09:19:00.000-04:00

I'm a Democrat and an Obama supporter. So, I'm dismayed at the anti-Obama and anti-health care ads on my blog this morning.

I don't have much time, but I just wanted to say, "Hooray for health care reform." It is probably not a perfect piece of legislation, but it is a start. It is better than nothing, and it can be improved an amended over time.

I'd like to see the Republicans try to repeal this. Taking away health care from people who need it? How does that help you politically?

The Image of God

2010-03-14T16:25:00.000-04:00

We had a priest visiting from Colorado in church today. His sermon was on the Parable of the Prodigal Son. He made the point that really it should have been called the Parable of the Benevolent Father. He said that this is the story that we should draw our image of God from -- one of forgiveness and love.

He took the opportunity to fire a blast at Pat Robertson, who had declared that Haiti was being punished by God for its past sins. He also attacked those who had claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing New Orleans.

This is not the image of God that we should have, he said, of a God that is vindictive and mean. He was actually fuming with anger over this idea of God as using nature to punish humanity for their sins. It was the wrong idea to have about God. For a Catholic service, this was probably the most emotional and energetic sermon I had witnessed ... ever.

God is love. God forgives, and let us be grateful for that.

Stumbled upon hate

2010-03-12T13:03:00.003-05:00

Here's some unfortunate proof that racism exists: I was just surfing through YouTube just now and found this message embedded across the bottom of a video: "We are establishing a sovereign and independent all-White nation in the Pacific Northwest, which shall serve as a Homeland of safety and freedom for all White peoples the world over. www.northwestfront.org/"

The video is dated from September 2006, but it has had more than 2 million views. (2,237,584 views as of today). The link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmbSupnmK8k.

The weird part is that if you click on the link from my blog, the racist green box is not there anymore. It must be an add on. You do see it if you go directly to the URL. Here's what it looks like:

The Web site it sends you to spells out a plan to a create a separate all-White nation in the Pacific Northwest. They even have a flag. So, at the very least, this is treasonous.

If it is a joke, it is a poor joke. If it is for real, it is to be condemned.

I skimmed through the Web site and found something more disturbing. They claim they support peace. But it is the brand of peace created by separating the races. They also complain about how the media has stereotyped their movement:

"When you say 'Northwest separatist' most people conjure up a vision of a religious nut living with multiple wives out in a cabin on a mountain, or else some shaven-headed, tattooed punk in a compound screaming 'White Power' and giving a Hitler salute with one hand while waving a can of beer in the air in the other. Like all stereotypes, these are mostly false and the creation of hostile government propaganda, but there is enough truth behind them to sting. We haven’t been as good at presenting ourselves as we might have been in the past."

So, what they are saying is that they want to carry on the ideas of white supremacy without the overt symbols of white supremacy. At best this is a brand of quieter racism, and a silent racism is as dangerous as an overt, offensive racism.

I might have just ignored this posting, but I couldn't. We need to look at this ugliness to know the evils that lurk out in the world.

Unlocking the problem of hate

2010-03-12T12:05:00.000-05:00

I was driving into work the other day -- heading up a steep, twisty hill that is part of the backroads shortcut that I take to the college -- when I started thinking about the old sayings: "You can't imprison an idea." "You can't kill an idea."

They come from a sentiment of the freedom fighters of history. A similar statement: "The pen is mightier than the sword."

For those of us who live in free societies, these are comforting thoughts. We take them as proof of the universal need for democracy and freedom. They are still comforting thoughts for those who today are locked up in prisons or house arrest because of brutal dictatorships. They offer hope that ultimately freedom will prevail over injustice.

But there is the other end of the gradient.

You may not be able to kill an idea like freedom, equality or justice. You may not be able to imprison such ideas. But it also is just as difficult to stomp out hate.

Those who hate the U.S. have attacked us, our soldiers and our allies. They continue to plan attacks.

And we have met their violence with our own.

But violence does not defeat hate, it creates more.

Violence results in martyrs and victims who can inspire a cause. When that cause is liberty, such victims and martyrs inspire freedom and democracy. When that cause is hate, they inspire more hate.

Have you not noticed that many terrorist attacks come not from al-Qaida itself but from "militants inspired by al-Qaida"? You could kill every single member of al-Qaida but still have a world-wide problem with terrorism.

Yes, we must answer our enemies with military force, but to truly defuse the potential force of our enemies we must unlock the problem of hate.

A final vote on health reform

2010-03-03T15:48:00.000-05:00

Reposting an e-mail sent from the president:

Ed --

Last Thursday's first-of-its-kind summit capped off a debate that has lasted nearly a year. Every idea has now been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and gets more dire each day. Today, I want to state as clearly and forcefully as I know how: Now is the time to make a decision about the future of health care in America.

The final proposal I've put forward draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans at last week's summit. It will put Americans in charge of their own health care, ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families need and deserve.

I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts.

Earlier today, I asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And now, I'm asking you, the members of the Organizing for America community, to raise your voice and do the same.

The final march for reform has begun, and your participation is crucial. Please commit to join with me to take reform across the finish line.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:

First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Never again will the mother with breast cancer have her coverage revoked, see her premiums arbitrarily raised, or be forced to live in fear that a pre-existing condition will bar her from future coverage.

Second, my proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. And my proposal says that if you still can't afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits based on your income -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for everyone -- families, businesses, and the federal government -- and bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. These savings mean businesses small and large will finally be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. With costs currently skyrocketing, reform is vital to remaining economically strong in the years and decades to come.

In the few crucial weeks ahead, you can help make sure this proposal becomes law. Please sign up to join the Organizing for America campaign in the final march for reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/commit

When I talked about change on the campaign, this is what I was talking about: coming together to solve a huge problem that has been troubling America for 100 years and standing up to the special interests to deliver a brighter, smarter future for generations to come.

I look forward to signing this historic reform into law. And when I do, it will be because your organizing played an essential role in making change possible.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Do tell

2010-02-05T16:52:00.000-05:00

So, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, came forward this week to tell Congress he felt it a matter of integrity that gays not be forced to lie about themselves so that they can serve in the military.

We may look back at this as a watershed moment in the cause of gay rights. And while the elimination of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule will end this kind of discrimination, it can open up other problems. I have two concerns to raise.

1) The one-year study on how the rule can be changed needs to go along with a moratorium on expulsions for homosexuals in the military. This only seems reasonable. How could you kick out someone for being themselves one year when you know one year later that will not be grounds for dismissal? Perhaps they can give someone who falls under scrutiny modified duty during that year? Or just put such investigations on hold? They should also give those who have been kicked out the option to be readmitted. (This issue may be resolved as events unfold.)

2) The worse problem, I'm guessing, will be the culture of homophobia within the military. Since I have not been in the military, I don't know this first hand, but the macho mindset usually generates a knee-jerk reaction against gays. Part of it is reaction to what is different and uncomfortable. My instinct tells me part of it is deeply routed misconception that all gays are out to convert you, to make you one of their own, to find a way to have sex with you. This may be the fear that drives the gay bashings and the hate crimes.

The problem is that even if the military authorities do allow gays to serve openly, they will have to work very hard to defuse the anti-gay prejudice within their ranks. This will take training, counseling and pre-emptive actions. But eventually, one would hope the majority of the military personnel will realize that 1) they aren't out to convert you (red rover, red rover, send Norman over) and 2) they aren't out to seduce you.

The truth

2010-01-20T14:09:00.001-05:00

When we die, the reward for a good life will be in knowing the truth of the universe and of God. A good soul will be free to learn and explore this truth. A wicked person will know only their own wickedness.

Who our enemy is

2009-11-17T14:34:00.001-05:00

"No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor."

President Barack Obama, honoring the memories of those slain at the Fort Hood shootings. Nov. 10, 2009.

His words are a reminder that our enemy is not a people, not a faith, but hate itself.

Why I teach

2009-10-06T09:13:00.003-04:00

Patrick Swayze said it at the end of "Ghost.":

"The love inside, you take it with you."

But it occurred to me this morning. You may not take all your knowledge with you. Perhaps your knowledge dies with you. That's why you must share and spend it, spread it around while you are alive. Knowledge is meant to stay in this world, to make this world better. It does not help the next.

That's why I teach.

Using new tools

2009-09-30T12:02:00.004-04:00

Remember in my last post, when I said, "we may also be uncomfortable about what we find out, but that's a good thing."

Get ready for uncomfortable.

Dianna Brewer-Jackson is pushing forward with a planned meeting on racism in the Elmira School District. What's even better is that she now says, "I get tired of people saying I don't have proof," she told [the Star-Gazette] on Tuesday. "I choose not to provide proof. But for this meeting, I'm going to give what I have."

She is going forward despite those who are asking for a cooling off period. The Elmira school board will be undergoing diversity training later this year. What's impressive to me is that it sounds like the state is creating the diversity training program for Elmira, which could then be used at other districts.

The diversity training would deal with one of her concerns. But she doesn't want to wait to hold a public hearing, and that's fine with me. She wants to offer the public the proof that she has.

Good. We need to see it. We need to hear what others have to say about racism in Elmira.

Let's hope for a civilized meeting, at least. I find it a little ominous that there is a question about who will be in charge of the meeting. The board president wants to be in charge. And there may be a question that Brewer-Jackson wants to be in charge because she is the one who called for the meeting. A skilled politician would resolve the question with the board president ahead of time.

Let us also hope that she learns from the adage I posted yesterday: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."

Quote of the Day

2009-09-29T13:25:00.000-04:00

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." Abraham Maslow, 1908-70, US psychologist.

Teachers demand apology from school board member over Holocaust claims

2009-09-29T09:18:00.003-04:00

After reading this morning's story on Dianna Brewer-Jackson, I grew outraged.

"Dianna Brewer-Jackson does owe an apology -- to all of us," I wrote. "If, as an elected public official, she has evidence of racism and anti-Semitism within the Elmira School District, it is her responsibility to share that evidence, to demand an investigation and to bring it to light so that we can understand what happened, how it happened and why. If what she says is true and she does not pursue an investigation, then she guilty of protecting racists and anti-Semites. An accusation that there is a Holocaust denier teaching students in Elmira is a serious charge, and it cannot be ignored. Such hateful ideas must be opposed."

I still think this. But then, I read her letter, and I calmed down:

http://www.stargazette.com/article/20090922/VIEWPOINTS03/909220307/1121/Don+t+ignore+the+signs

Then I realized something. I think she is misguided, and she lacks the skills needed for public office. Her letter not only offers any specifics about where this happened or by who, but also no sense of when this happened. Was this recent, or was this months or years ago?

She throws memories around as facts and without realizing the responsibilities she carries as a public official. She could have said this as a private citizen and drawn no attention to herself.

But when she became elected, her words acquired more weight and as such she had a responsibility to not only speak, but also to act effectively. To not only listen and observe, but also take notes and follow up. To document what she claims.

But she has a responsibility to see the realities around her, to understand that she might have more allies than she realizes if she would only stop bashing those she serves with, calling them all racists. With such tactics, she does not serve anyone and she does not help anyone. These tactics do nothing to reduce the platform from which racism works.

She owes her constituents better.

However, despite her flawed approach, we should support diversity panels, community forums and an investigation into discrimination.

Charges of racism and anti-Semitism have been raised in the Elmira School District. They have been raised in a clumsy and awkward fashion by someone who does not know what she is doing, but she has raised an issue that must be explored.

So, why not bring in a group like the Anti-Defamation League or the NAACP to investigate, explore and establish where Elmira really stands on the issue of anti-Semitism and racism? Set up a committee, conduct hearings, ask questions, get the stories from the students, the parents the teachers. Draw conclusions about where we are. We may find that Dianna Brewer-Jackson's accusations may or may not be well-founded, but we may also find out something we didn't know.

And we may also be uncomfortable about what we find out, but that's a good thing.

Shoe-Throwing Reporter Tells Tale Of Torture

2009-09-15T20:35:00.002-04:00

From NPR:

"The journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush during the president's final visit to Iraq last December was released from prison Tuesday and says he was tortured by Iraqi officials during his incarceration. ... "

Now the guy lives in fear that the U.S. will hunt him down. The man has been through enough.

If I had the chance to meet him, I'd shake his hand and reassure him that all Americans are not like George W. Bush. I'd also apologize to him for what happened to his country and because Americans allowed W. so much power that the opposition could not stop him from invading and conquering Iraq.

I do not blame him for his outburst, and he did not deserve torture. The fact that he was tortured tells us that the Iraqi leadership learned the wrong lessons from us about democracy. We taught them it was OK to have a democracy and to torture.

He was rightfully angry and frustrated at what had become of his country, and he is looked upon as a hero across the Arab world because he did what many wish they could have done.

Until we understand that anger that we unleashed, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

Someone should invite this man to the U.S. for a speaking tour. We could learn much from him.

Keeping it simple

2009-09-04T05:22:00.002-04:00

I've been wanting to blog about health care for a long time, but the complexity of the issue has been daunting.

So much hangs in the balance. So many people could be helped by health care reform. But the opposition is turning it into a bitter political fight. They aren't seeing the big picture.

Finally, today on Facebook, someone posted this simple little status that boiled the issue down to the essentials:

"Let me put it this way: There are few things I feel this strongly about. No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."

'Nuff said ... for now.

Testing out Dipity

2009-08-30T22:05:00.000-04:00

Ed Bond on Dipity.

Imagine the world

2009-08-27T09:49:00.003-04:00

As we were leaving N.J. on our last visit, we stopped for gas. In N.J., you can't pump your own gas. So, ours was pumped by a man who seemed to be of Middle Eastern origin. The gas station was busy, and he was working hard.

For all I knew, he could have grown up in N.J., but looking at him I saw the classic story of the immigrant. A man comes to America, works hard so that his children could have a better life.

We've seen so many success stories of the children of immigrants. Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor to name two. It occurred to me that the the story of the success of the immigrant and person of color is about to accelerate.

In the not to distant future, white people will no longer be the majority in this country. In one generation, the children of the current immigrant population could be running things.

Imagine a country like the United States, founded on the principles of freedom and equality, without a white majority to dominate the political landscape. And what if this will be a time when no ethnic group has a majority.

Then, if we have not embittered the population with the legacy of hatred that has dominated our history, we might have a real chance at living with true justice and equality.

On the death of Ted Kennedy

2009-08-27T09:46:00.001-04:00

I just wanted to share the e-mail I got from Barack Obama on the death of Ted Kennedy.

ED --

Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy.

For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts.

His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education's promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me.

In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy.

I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom.

His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives.

For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today -- to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family.

Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still.

Sincerely,

President Barack Obama

Big Mistake

2009-08-23T21:24:00.003-04:00

I'm late in getting this on the record, but I just had to say that the release of the Lockerbie airline bomber was a big mistake.

Perhaps it was pushed as a way to heal the wounds between the Muslim and Western worlds, and perhaps there is reason to do that. However, to release someone responsible for the deaths of 270 people - including several from upstate New York - does not make sense.

This does not heal wounds. It aggravates them, especially for the families of the victims. And the Libyan celebrations of his release only underscore how foolish the British were to let him go.

If he were so sick that it warranted a release on humanitarian grounds, then he should have at least been carried off the plane on a stretcher.

He should have died in prison.

I wonder whether the U.S. could pursue him for prosecution.

On the other hand, I found it interesting that there was also a story in today's paper about William Calley apologizing for the My Lai massacre in 1968. He had been sentence to life in prison, but ended up serving only three years in house arrest. While there is some value in his apology - comparable to McNamara's apology for the entire Vietnam War - one must wonder how he managed to have such a normal life after this atrocity.

Good news and bad news

2009-08-11T04:40:00.005-04:00

The bad news: A Myanmar court found democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi guilty of violating her house arrest.

The good news: The head of the military-ruled country ordered her to serve an 18-month sentence under house arrest. So, it's more of the same for the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Why is that good news? She could have been sent to prison, where it would have been far too easy for the military junta to make her disappear or die under mysterious circumstances.

As reported by the Associated Press, the junta chief said she received a reduced sentence to "maintain peace and tranquility" and because Suu Kyi was the daughter of Aung San, a revered hero who won Myanmar's independence from Britain.

It is a small comfort that a even a brutal dictatorship can be reined in. The reduction of sentence is a small acknowledgment by the junta that it knows its own people and the international community care about the fate of this courageous woman.

The ruling re-establishes the status quo. But it gave the junta an excuse to extend her house arrest and keep her out of next year's elections.

As to the American, John Yettaw, who put Suu Kyi into jeopardy of going to prison, I was at first angry and dumbfounded that anyone would do something so reckless as to swim to her home. But with the reports of his seeing visions, having seizures and other health problems, he may not be as responsible. In America, he would probably be hospitalized and treated, not sentenced to hard labor.

But then again, in America, we wouldn't put democratic leaders under house arrest.

UPDATE: I was up in the middle of the night, watching the news reports on this decision. Commentators were saying that this was an unbearable decision for Suu Kyi, and they speculated that she would probably start a hunger strike.

In the struggle for freedom against a dictatorship, the status quo becomes unbearable.

Why you shouldn't talk to crazy people

2009-08-04T14:18:00.003-04:00

A friend posted this on Facebook today. Ordinarily I try not to deal with crazy people, but I had an issue I wanted to deal with.

Orly Taitz keeps going back to the point that Obama could not be a natural born citizen because his father was a Kenyan citizen. When she was on The Colbert Report, Colbert supported her saying it would mean going back to the days of Chester A. Arthur, whose father was not a U.S. citizen.

Then I wondered where she was coming from. So long as you were born in the United States, you are a natural born citizen and it does not matter whether your parents are. The rules for being a natural born citizen have some variation depending on where you where born. As territories joined the United States, laws were established saying who were the natural born citizens of the U.S.

For example, here is part of the U.S. code that deals with those born in Hawaii:

"A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900."

But it says nothing about what the citizenship of the parents must be.

So, what is Orly Taitz trying to say?

Well, here is the section of the U.S. Code that spells out natural born citizen. It defines a natural born citizen as:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

If Obama was born in Hawaii, he meets that requirement. I've seen the birth certificate online, I'm satisfied. Also officials in the Hawaiian and federal government, as well as key Republican leaders have been satisfied with the documentation. (By the way, Happy Birthday, Mr. President!)

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe ... (doesn't apply here.)

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

OK, now this might be an issue, if it were proven that Obama was born outside the U.S. This criteria would not be met because his father was not a U.S. citizen.

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

No help for Obama under the Kenya birth scenario here. By the way, you can be a national of the U.S., but not a citizen. "A person whose only connection to the U.S. is through birth in an outlying possession (which as of 2005 is limited to American Samoa and Swains Island), or through descent from a person so born acquires U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship. This was formerly the case in only four other current or former U.S. overseas possessions^{[19]" (Sorry for the use of Wikipedia here.) But Obama's father had no claim of being a U.S. national.}

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

Again, no help for Obama if he was born in Kenya.

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

This one doesn't affect us, but it has the makings of a good screenplay. A four-year-old child, found lost somewhere in the United States, grows up to run for president.

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;

If I read this one correctly, Obama born in Kenya would meet the requirements of a U.S. citizen. His mother was a U.S. citizen who was present in the U.S. long enough.

and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

This one doesn't apply, but there's probably an interesting story behind where this rule came from.

So, what is the kindest way to express Orly Taitz' argument?

She has dismissed the documentation on Obama's birth in Hawaii, and is trying to make an argument that because Obama was born outside of the U.S., he had to meet one of the more difficult criteria for being a natural born citizen, which are listed above. However, she does not explain her position well and does not even understand the point of law that she is arguing.

I felt some sympathy for her during this interview because from one perspective, it would appear she is being badgered and not being allowed to make her point. But from the other side of it, the interviewers know that she has already made her arguments in the media. They were not there to give her yet another platform to state her case. They wanted to get her to respond to new perspectives, new questions. She wouldn't play it that way. She wanted to go to her standard stump speech, and she got stomped.

What I don't like is that because of all the air time she has acquired, the public is more confused about the standards for a natural born citizen. Some may actually think that to be natural born, you not only have to be born in the U.S., but also have both parents be U.S. citizens. That's just not true. Anyone born in the U.S. - even if the parents are illegal aliens - are natural born citizens.

I fear that Orly Taitz' arguments will be picked up by the fringe and used by other more hateful minds who want to make a case about who are the "real Americans."

When Ann Coulter and Karl Rove say you are crazy, that should end the discussion.

Oh wait, they'd say I'm crazy too. Oh no! I have become Orly Taitz!

And that, finally, is why you should not talk to crazy people. They make you crazy.

The Death of Journalism?

2009-08-02T12:23:00.003-04:00

I had to take a break last week.

So, I'll get back into the groove of blogging by pointing you to an excellent article by Ian Shapira of the Washington Post about how an article he wrote was stolen by Gawker. What's worse is that because of current copyright laws, this kind of Internet thievery cannot be stopped. The laws that allowed news organizations to sue when their work is used without permission or credit disappeared in the 1970s.

My metaphor for the state of journalism - and newspapers - is that we are standing on a shrinking sheet of ice. And Shapira's article explains how the blogosphere is applying a blow torch under our feet. As Shapira explains, what I do in properly crediting and linking my readers to his story is fair. But what Gawker did was to summarize most of his story without properly linking to and crediting his work. They used so much of his piece that the typical reader would find no need to click on the link to the actual article.

Here's the article: The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition)

We share our lives, but live in different worlds

2009-07-24T12:32:00.003-04:00

I haven't been up for blogging much this week because my aunt passed away. I thought I'd share a column I wrote for the Star-Gazette in Elmira, N.Y., last year.

The sad part of it is that between the time that I filed this piece in early May 2008 and the time it was published June 1, Wendy Thibeault of Cortland was murdered by her husband, Randy. The couple were acquaintances of my wife and I. He was convicted in March and is imprisoned in Attica. The epidemic of domestic violence continues.

Here's the column:

We share our lives,
but live in different worlds

• Men may not mean to strike fear in women, but they do.

The woman slept soundly, alone in her bed.

A dark figure slipped into the room. The man crept closer, reaching out.

She awoke with a start. Fear flashed across her face as she coiled back. Adrenalin pumped into her veins.

Then, the face looming over her snapped into focus.

"Oh my God, you scared me."

"Sorry," I said. "I was just trying to get the remote."

That'll teach me to sneak up on a black belt, even if it is my wife.

But aside from the dangers of a potential backfist strike, seeing the look of fear and panic in the face of someone I loved, I had to ask myself: "Why have men and women become such enemies?"

It's a question that has taken me 10 years to learn to ask.

It was 10 years ago that my wife, Amy, took her first karate lesson. I remember the day she took the test for the lowest grade belt — yellow. She had been so nervous she wouldn't let me go to cheer her on. When she came home, she popped open a beer and relaxed, satisfied to have made the cut. She had started her journey, and I was happy for her.

While I've never taken a formal karate class in my life — running had been my athletic passion — Amy's journey into martial arts and self-defense became my journey, too. In the years that followed, I watched many belt tests. I made friends with her instructors. I heard stories of women who had been attacked and the fears many women face constantly. I skimmed through the books Amy used for self-defense classes that she left around the house.

Before all this, I was probably like most men, unaware that women may share their lives with us, but live in an entirely different world. As Gavin DeBecker explains in his book, "The Gift of Fear," men very rarely worry that someone could hurt them. But a woman can feel that threat almost constantly.

That's because of men.

When I crept up to the bed to snag the remote, I had triggered one of the iconic fears for women — that of a man standing over them as they sleep, about to attack. There are lots of similar images: the man following the solitary woman on a jogging path, the man slipping a drug into a drink, the man staring through a window. For more of such images, check out the Lifetime Movie Network.

The media generate many of these images and sell them for a quick buck. Women are beaten, raped and abused on television for entertainment. At the end of the story, the bad guy usually loses but only after a celebration of his violence. I can't help but think there are some men who watch these images, taking notes, planning what they would do differently.

Now, this is why I am so impressed with Amy. Not only does she despise the images of violence on television, she has found a way to help women fight back against this culture of violence. She teaches women how to stand up for themselves, how to be alert to danger signals, how to escape and survive. What instructors of karate and self defense do is important, but it's only half the job.

To put an end to violence against women — either from a stranger or from a domestic partner — men must accept their responsibility. Because, sadly, if all women were to stand up tomorrow and declare violence against women must stop, it would still continue. But if all men also declared violence against women must stop, it would stop.

Could it be that simple? Let's try this. I ask that all men reading this column to promise to not hurt or threaten women. OK? Done.

No, it isn't that simple. Although many of you who read the previous paragraph might have shrugged and said, "Sure, no problem," there are some of you who are the problem. Some of you recently put that look of fear and panic into the face of your wife or partner. And when you did it, you felt satisfaction. You figured you were winning whatever conflict you were in. But what you must understand is that when you create that reaction in the face of someone you are supposed to love, it has nothing to do with love, but with power and control.

Some of you may even think you can make that promise but in weaker moments become the insistent, the obsessive, the stalker, the controller. You can't understand why the object of your desires just can't see how perfect your life together will be. And you are probably on an express train into a world of trouble. If you read "The Gift of Fear" — and all men really should — you might recognize yourself. And there are other men who just don't realize how dangerous the world can be for a woman.

No, ending violence against women is not as easy as just asking for everyone to make a promise. But doesn't it seem so wrong that it can't be?

So then, if we can't get the ideal of all women standing up against violence and all men standing up against violence, let's try something else. What if all those — men and women — who are willing to see the danger that must be faced, took a stand? That might make a difference.

At the very least, men and women wouldn't be enemies, but allies.

Ed Bond is a (former) copy editor at the Star-Gazette and an adjunct faculty member of the journalism department at Ithaca College. His commentary appears periodically on this page.

City:

State:

Section: Opinion

Page: 12

From: Staff

Source: Staff

Publication: Star-Gazette

Waiting for the other shoe to drop

2009-07-21T20:42:00.002-04:00

From the AP:

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska – An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees , in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.

"The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

"An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund ."

... But as I read this, it just sounds like yet another in a long string of ethical complaints against Palin. Surely it would be not more than a nuisance to someone who has battled in the public spotlight for a while. This can't be the big scandal on the horizon that may have prompted her to quit.

I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. The full story will probably emerge as she withdraws from Alaskan government.

Roots of democratic change

2009-07-17T22:47:00.003-04:00

I just found this passage from an AP story on Iran's political turmoil fascinating:

The cleric got tears in his eyes as he spoke of how Islam's Prophet Muhammad "respected the rights" of his people. He said the founder of Iran's Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, "would always say that if the system is not backed by the people, nothing would stand."

It is significant to me that the cleric, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, invokes the name of Khomeni, a man vilified for years in the United States.

That reminds me yet again, that if there is to be democratic reform in Iran, it needs to be IRAN's version of democracy, a version they struggle to create on their own, rather than one imposed on them by outside forces.

Highway philosophy

2009-07-13T10:24:00.002-04:00

A bumper sticker spotted by Amy during our drive back from New Jersey:

"Don't believe everything you think."

Makes you think ... again ... doesn't it?

Re: Contact Form Submission

2009-07-10T14:20:00.004-04:00

I'll be off line for a couple of days, but I just got an e-mail from state Sen. George Winner, so I thought I'd share it. Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?:

"I've heard from many of you over the past several weeks on the Senate leadership standoff -- in support and in strong opposition.

"While the leadership issue has been settled, for now, the more important (and more difficult) work of ensuring far-reaching changes in New York government remains ahead of us.

"So I'm glad for this chance to provide an update.

"First and foremost, please know that I've appreciated your participation. I'm grateful for your input, and I'm glad that we've had the chance to share some direct give-and-take during this important time in New York government.

"As I've said to you before, we're trying to dramatically change the longstanding culture of Albany politics and government -- in ways that many of you have been demanding for years -- and it's not coming easy.

"Most importantly, I'm glad that you've been paying attention. That's critical at the moment.

"Because now we need to pay attention to New York government like never before.

"The newly reconstructed Senate Democratic leadership means one thing for certain: We've returned to one-party, one-region, downstate control of New York government.

"That concerns me. This year's state budget -- the largest tax increase in state history, billions of dollars in new spending, no upstate job creation initiatives, you name it -- still stands as proof that upstate New York's taxpayers, employers, workers, and families don't get a fair shake in a state government under one-party, one-region, downstate control.

"Our communities can't afford to return to the kind of state government that we witnessed during the first six months of 2009 and that produced the last four weeks of standoff in the Senate.

"But now there's one real difference, which gives me hope. Our effort since June 8th to bring far-reaching reform to the Senate has given true momentum to enacting the kind of legislative changes that good government advocates have been demanding for years.

"Next week, the newly reconstructed Senate Democratic leadership has pledged action on the broad reforms we've put in motion since June 8th.

"Now we have to hold them to their word.

"We have the first chance we've ever had to remake the Senate -- to take power away from the leadership, to create a climate of cooperative action, and to ensure that upstate New York communities always have the voice in New York government they deserve.

"That's my No. 1 goal in the days ahead.

"You've told me that New York government needs to change, and I agree. We're trying, and I'll keep doing my best to keep you informed. I hope that we can stay in touch.

"It's been good to hear from you. Thank you for your interest, your patience, and, most of all, your willingness to share your own opinions and suggestions."

NYS Senate George Winner
53rd District

Hooray! It's over

2009-07-09T17:14:00.002-04:00

So, the man who started it all, freshman state Sen. Pedro Espada, has rejoined the Democrats to end the stalemate.

Doesn't seem like anybody got anything out of this crisis, except Espada, who has now won the title of Senate majority leader.

For all the damage that has been done, in the end this seems like the entire affair was coordinated to expand Espada's power.

I am grateful the crisis is over - except the looming battle over lieutenant governor - but am left with a bad taste in my mouth at seeing the ugliness our state legislators are capable of.

Why I write this blog

2009-07-09T09:40:00.003-04:00

As I've become more wrapped up in talking about the crisis in Albany, I had to step back a second and ask whether it was worth all the time and energy I was putting into this issue.

Then I was reminded of the two principles that I wanted my blog to bring into public discussions of the issues: compassion and reason.

So, as you skim through my blog postings you may notice the variety of subjects and wonder how I pick what I write about.

My hope is that my allies in these discussions are compassion and reason. So, therefore, my enemies are hatred and stupidity.

I believe Albany fits into the second category.

Paterson's move to pick Lt. Gov.

2009-07-08T20:45:00.005-04:00

So, the Republicans are already promising to put up a legal fight over the move by Gov. Paterson to name Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor. That's too bad, only because it means this will just be another drawn out fight.

Paterson had some very good points to make as he announced this decision:

1) Without a lieutenant governor, we would not know who was in charge if something happened to Paterson.

2) The crisis in government is worsening an already dire economic situation.

3) He makes the astute argument that even though the constitution doesn't say he can do something doesn't mean he can't legally do it.

Paterson seeks to end this crisis through an action that he hopes will establish a precedent. Sometimes it is through actions taken in a political crisis that we are given the chance to define how government is supposed to work. See Marbury vs. Madison, where the concept of judicial review was established.

The idea that there should be a way to replace a lieutenant governor is entirely reasonable. However, Paterson seems to be trying to achieve this through direct appointment without seeking any review or support of the legislature. This is why, in my earlier blog, I suggested that a lieutenant governor be picked through some bipartisan means, such as a commission. My hope was that a replacement could be found that all sides could be comfortable with and avert another crisis.

However, within hours of his announcement, Paterson had Ravitch sworn into office and will attempt to preside over the state Senate this afternoon. However, the Republicans have already swung into action, taking legal steps to try to block the appointment.

Again, this is just more needless bickering that would be resolved if the constitution was clarified with an amendment.

At the federal level, when the vice presidency is vacant, the president can nominate a replacement, who then must be confirmed by both houses of Congress. This system allows for both sides to review, question, make comment and vote on such an appointment before a nominee takes office. New York doesn't have this system, and it really needs it to avoid such a crisis.

Breaking news: Paterson to name a lieutenant governor

2009-07-08T16:32:00.002-04:00

From the New York Times:

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson will name Richard Ravitch, a former chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, as lieutenant governor in a televised speech he has scheduled for late Wednesday afternoon, according to an administration official.

... But the governor’s move is sure to be highly debated. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, the state’s top legal officer, said this week that such a step would be unconstitutional and would entangle “the governor in a political ploy that would wind through the courts for many months.”

There is no provision in the New York State Constitution that provides for filling the office in the event of a vacancy, though some in Albany have pushed a legal theory that state law would allow the governor to name someone to the post.

...

Well, interesting solution, Mr. Governor. Let's hope Mr. Ravitch will prove to be an official who can work with both sides of the aisle.

If he's a choice both parties can work with, we may be close to an end to this fight.

If not, it's going to drag on even longer with suits and countersuits over the legality of this move.

I'm hoping this will help bring an end to this circus.

You're welcome, New York

2009-07-08T12:03:00.006-04:00

So, in my blog Tuesday, I finally waded in with an opinion about the New York state Senate stalemate. I filed the blog about 10:30 a.m., which included the line, "Either way, whoever it is who can reach across the aisle and find a solution to this crisis will have the gratitude of the voters." And I made some suggestions about the real problem I saw, the vacant lieutenant governor's office and the constitutional weakness that caused this crisis.

I also e-mailed my blog to state Sen. George Winner and posted it on the Star-Gazette Web site.

Then, that afternoon, the state senators announced that they were making progress on a deal to share resources and leadership. This announcement followed a meeting with Gov. Paterson, but clearly it was my blog posting that was the catalyst for the breakthrough. Even though they are not using my solution, I can't help but take the credit.

You're welcome, New York.

I'll pause now to give some of you time to realize that I'm kidding.

Paterson is scheduled to give a speech at 5 p.m. today, and we should pay attention. Perhaps there will be a resolution to this crisis after all.

By the way, this morning I actually got a response from George Winner. Here it is:

Dear Mr. Bond:

Thank you for your e-mail and for sharing the link to your July 7th blog post on the Senate leadership change. I appreciate having your input.

Your suggestion as to the joint selection of a Lieutenant Governor, while well thought out, would be unconstitutional as per opinion of Attorney General Cuomo.

Thank you again for sharing a few thoughts, and I hope that we can stay in touch on the issue of changing New York government.

Sincerely,

NYS Senator George Winner
53rd District

I'm grateful to get a reply, and if the Democrats and the Republicans finally have a power sharing arrangement, that's all I need to see for now.

However, I would still insist that by having no provision in our state constitution to replace our lieutenant governor there is a serious weakness in our government. Somehow that needs to be fixed before the next crisis arises.

And now for something completely different

2009-07-07T09:07:00.002-04:00

My neighbor suggested that my blog on the U.S. Senate on Monday should be sent to N.Y. state Senator George Winner. "You know, that part about engaging across party lines to get something accomplished? What a concept."

Agreed, something needs to be done to break the logjam in Albany. But on Monday I was addressing the issues of a functional political body. The state senate has not been functional since the Republican coup on June 8 made possible when two freshmen Democratic senators switched sides.

One of those rogue Democrats switched back, creating an even worse situation of a 31-31 tie. Since then the situation has degraded beyond dysfunctional into toddlerlike playground tantrums. One side even declared a quorum and passed legislation just because an opposing senator snuck into the chambers to get a drink. This was followed by debate that did not seem to rise above the level of "Am not!" and "Are too!"

It has been painful to watch and harder even to come up with any useful commentary about the situation. What can one say when the grownups act so childish?

OK, I will say this to the senators: This is not the reason we sent you to Albany. You are wasting your time, our time and our money. Important legislation sits and rots while you conduct a fight that has trademarks of the battle in Lilliput from Gulliver's travels over the proper way for one to crack an egg.

The state comptroller is seeking an opinion on withholding pay and expenses for senators, I hope he succeeds.

But the real problem is that New York has a serious problem in its constitution.

On Monday, the attorney general ruled that the governor cannot appoint a lieutenant governor to break the tie. The office has remained vacant since Patterson ascended to governor after Spitzer resigned in disgrace. And that is turning out to be a serious flaw in the constitution.

Here's my suggestion:

The two sides need to negotiate a way to select a lieutenant governor who can break tie votes and resolve the crisis. Perhaps for this one time that should be done through arbitration or a nonpartisan commission. I would hope that they could find someone who both sides would be comfortable with, who can break the logjam and allow the work of passing legislation to resume.

They would do this as a one-time deal with the understanding that this would be followed by a fully vetted amendment to the state constitution that would allow for a lieutenant governor to be replaced, perhaps in some sort of nonpartisan way.

Either way, whoever it is who can reach across the aisle and find a solution to this crisis will have the gratitude of the voters.

In the meantime, Wednesday is July 8 and will mark one month since the coup. If they still cannot find a solution, it will be an ignominious anniversary. More and more New Yorkers will join in the cry of "Throw them all out!"

Welcome to the Al Franken generation

2009-07-06T09:30:00.003-04:00

David Broder had a good column in today's paper that explained that even though the Democrats now had a filibuster-proof majority with the election of Al Franken to the Senate, they shouldn't go it alone without Republicans.

I have to agree.

Yes, now that the Dems have reached the magic number of 60, they could theoretically pass anything they wanted over Republican objections, but that is not practical nor is it reasonable.

For one, the Dems would have to stay absolutely in lock-step with each other for them to go it alone. Second, they would all have to stay healthy, and two of their Senators, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd are ailing.

Third, the achievement of absolute rule over a minority is not the aim (or shouldn't be) of American politics. We went through six years in which not only was the government tightly controlled by the GOP, but was tightly control by a small, petty faction within the GOP.

We don't need to see the government once again ruled by one party who plays hardball to the point that the other side cannot breathe.

Politics should be dynamic, with room to include ideas from all sides to make deals and shape a legislation that has the interests of common good in mind. You can't do that if you have shut out an entire political party.

It was through a perfect storm of political good luck that the Democrats have been able to seize so much power. However, the American public did not shift so far to the left to make it possible. The Dems just made a strong enough argument to the middle that the public bought it.

Conservatives, moderates and liberals/progressives still hold the same ratios within the electorate, and they will all be watching the Democrats who have taken charge and judge whether they rule with compassion and reason.

Thank you, Great Britain

2009-07-04T10:49:00.005-04:00

We have friends, a newlywed couple, visiting from out of town this weekend. The wife is one of my wife's closest friends, who grew up with her. Her husband is an Englishman from Yorkshire, who she met in New Orleans.

And today is the Fourth of July. This morning, as I was getting out the American flag, I said to myself, "I hope Jerry doesn't mind." Jack asked me why that mattered, and I explained that Jerry is British.

But then I told Jack, as I brought the flag outside, "Actually, in a way, we owe the British our thanks."

Why?

Because it was, in part, the British who taught us the meaning of freedom. Much of the American system government draws some of its inspiration from the British and the tradition of individual rights that can be traced all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215.

By the way, the backstory on that is that the King John who was forced to sign the Magna Carta is the same vilified Prince John who lost in his attempt the usurp the throne of Richard the Lionhearted. But then that pesky little Robin Hood upset his plans. What most people don't know is that later Richard died and John took the throne anyway.

Anyway, back to the American Revolution.

It was because of that tradition of freedom and a developing sense of democracy that the colonists in America saw themselves as deserving the full rights of other British subjects.

But when the Crown began to impose unfair taxes on the colonists - to pay the debts from the French and Indian War - the colonists cried "Foul!"

In a sense, our rebellion began out of a desire to restore fairness in an unjust system. At first, ours was not so much a revolution to change the world, but to restore a status quo.

But of course there was more to it than that. The influence of French thinkers, but also English thinkers like John Locke, inspired one of the great conclusions by a political body: "That all men are created equal."

Had we not had learned our lessons well from the British, through their democratic traditions and their period of unjust rule, we may not have reached that insight and we may not have become the nation we are today.

These are the times that test our souls

2009-07-03T09:39:00.006-04:00

From the Washington Post:

Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth yesterday canceled plans for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that marketing fliers offered corporate underwriters access to Post journalists, Obama administration officials and members of Congress in exchange for payments as high as $250,000.

"Absolutely, I'm disappointed," Weymouth said in an interview. "This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

... Another bad idea out of a newspaper marketing department.

To retain its integrity, a newspaper must maintain a firewall between its editorial/news side and its financial/advertising/marketing side. Too often, the public and, unfortunately, the marketing and advertising reps just don't understand why we need that firewall.

The first time I ran into this problem, I was a reporter in Corning, N.Y. The owner of a local scrapyard called up, upset because we had not done any news stories about him recently. "Well," I said. "What would the news story be about?"

He had no answer, but kept insisting that I do a story about his business. Finally, he said, "Look, I'll pay you to write it." (He didn't get his story.)

That's one of the most insulting things you can say to a journalist. To make a suggestion that you are doing it for the money betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what journalism is about. Yes, we get paid, but the pay scale is not what drives so many of us through years of J-school, freelance work, odd hours and working nights, weekends and holidays.

Most of us do it because we have been given a unique opportunity: To tell the truth.

But the public can't trust you to tell the truth if you are being paid by the newsmakers.

Unfortunately, so many of those who work on the business side of the newspaper do not understand this. Ten years ago, when the new publisher of the Los Angeles Times did not understand this concept, it lead to a scandal where the newspaper's magazine did an entire issue on the new Staples Center. The journalists at the Times did a dutiful job reporting on all aspects of the center, without realizing that the marketing and advertising departments had made side deals involving the newspaper in the sponsorship of the facility. "[The newspaper] sold ads with the assistance of the Staples ad staff -- and then planned to split the profits, allowing both parties to benefit from what was supposedly a pure editorial product."

This led to a near open revolt in the newsroom and a major investigative piece about how the scandal happened.

The upside on the Post situation is that they have a publisher who understands the importance of editorial integrity. These dinners were immediately canceled, and the marketing executive, Charles Pelton, immediately admitted his error.

I can't imagine how that meeting between Weymouth, Brauchli and Pelton must have gone. BTW, I find it interesting that Pelton had co-owned a firm that staged conferences before joining The Post two months ago. Someone should have put him through the paces about the firewall and journalistic integrity before he got to work.

But when these errors happen, the question is raised: "How can this happen?"

For newspapers and journalists, these are the times that test reporter's souls.

Newspapers are dying. Those that are not already closed or being sold are fighting for their very lives. The pressure to survive keeps climbing. In the drive to find new ways to generate revenue, newspapers are more often being offered Faustian deals.

One commentator says he was astonished that this plan had gone so far. But if you share a sheet of ice with someone, as that ice melts you are going to have to get closer to your companion on the other side.

And if you are standing on a melting sheet of ice, you are less likely to want a firewall.

As the world of journalism collapses, as newspapers close and more people turn online to get their news, journalism schools are in the midst of a shift: teaching aspiring journalists about the business of journalism, how to keep journalism a paying venture.

I keep hoping for some form of print journalism to survive, but it looks less likely. Let us hope that even if the melting sheet of ice - print journalism - does disappear that journalists will still find solid ground in other media.

But when we reach that distant shore, let's make sure we take the firewall with us.

National Sovereignty Day in Iraq

2009-06-30T06:46:00.003-04:00

This quote from Dhafir al-Ani, an opposition member of the Iraqi parliament and head of the largest Sunni bloc, puts the celebrations in Iraq today into perspective:

"Sovereignty means you are capable of free decision-making, defending your national soil, airspace and waters. Iraq is definitely far from achieving all this, I think the title of 'sovereignty day' should be reserved until we achieve the full sovereignty."

That day is not scheduled to come until December 2011, but today, June 30, is being celebrated as National Sovereignty Day.

My metaphor for the U.S. invasion of and eventual withdrawal from Iraq has been pulling out a knife. I wrote, back in the fall of 2007: "When we invaded, we stabbed Iraq in the stomach. Somehow we have to remove the knife without killing the patient."

In a followup post, I wrote: "Also, remember that Iraq cannot really heal until we pull out. We are the knife that has been driven into their body. Even after the doctors are able to safely remove the blade, the patient still may be in danger."

So here we are, today, finally the doctors are taking out the knife. The operation is not over, the wounds and incisions have not been closed. The tools of the operation stand at the ready. But the doctors stand back and wait for spurts of blood, leaks in the arteries. Did they do their job well enough? Or will they have to go back in again to stop more blood from being spilled?

But faced with the reality of this day, my metaphor doesn't fully hold up. For one, U.S. troops will now return only at the request of the Iraqi authorities. I can't imagine a surgeon waiting for the permission of patient to repair an artery that ruptured in the middle of surgery.

However, it cannot be denied that pulling out of the cities is a significant psychological and symbolic event. No longer will the majority of Iraqis wake up to see the uniforms of the invaders on their streets. Even if it that invasion had positive results - like the toppling of a brutal dictatorship - I don't think any nation on Earth can easily bear the humiliation of being conquered and occupied by another.

That is why sovereignty is so important to the well-being of Iraqis.

It has been a day of contradictions. As Iraqis celebrate with fireworks, like an old-fashioned American Fourth of July, the U.S. military reported that four soldiers were killed in Baghdad on the eve of the withdrawal.

The withdrawal was also celebrated with a parade, but it was held within the heavily fortified Green Zone. So, the general public could not attend. And many news organizations were barred from the parade.

But the barring of the reporters actually has an upside. The reason why the reporters could not get in was because the checkpoints are now run solely by Iraqis. When they were joint U.S.-Iraqi checkpoints, the American military often smoothed things over to let the reporters through. Now, the reporters can't rely on their American contacts, but must deal directly with the Iraqi authorities.

But that is what this withdrawal is all about, giving the Iraqis the power to control their own country.

Sovereignty.

We are all Africans

2009-06-28T13:56:00.007-04:00

The children were grateful their mother had returned to their little village in Tanzania. It was dark in the mud hut when Edith arrived after a seven-day trip.
They could not see her face, but they could feel her hug, smell her skin.
But in the morning, they looked in her face confused.
"Who are you?" they asked.
They did not recognize her because the cleft lip that had marred Edith's face since birth had been repaired.
"And that," said Father Damien Milliken, "is the story of Easter."
Just as Jesus had not been recognized by the disciples after the resurrection, so had Edith been transformed by an act of kindness, Milliken told the congregation Sunday at St. Mary Our Mother Church in Horseheads.
Milliken's life has also undergone a transformation. A native of Elmira, Milliken joined the Benedictine order and 50 years ago was assigned to missionary work in Tanzania. He had returned to thank Father Chris Linsler of St. Mary Our Mother for his support for the past 15 years in hosting African priests who were studying at Elmira College. The church took up a second collection to help Milliken's mission.
In Africa, the election of Barack Obama was an inspiration, Milliken said. However, what was even more inspirational was in watching how graciously John McCain conceded, saying that the better man must move forward and be president.
"This is democracy?" the people in Africa said to themselves. On a continent where those in power often hold on to it through force of arms, McCain concession to Obama was a timely lesson about the power of free government. Africa is watching us as an example of how democracy works, Milliken said, let's be mindful of that.

For all of the foreign aid sent to Africa, about 95 percent of it could be set out in a parking lot and set on fire for all the good it does for the average African, Milliken said. Most of the aid is siphoned off for the wealthy to buy luxury goods and build high rises, Milliken said.

Copies of a letter written by Milliken was made available to the parishioners. It read, in part:

"The African ... does not want, nor need a handout. He wants a fair shake and not a shakedown. Example: There is rice from Arizona, USA,, on sale in the Lushoto market today. (Lushoto is a town about 10 miles down the mountain from Mainde Juu -- where Milliken is based.) This USA rice undercuts the rice grown in our own river valleys. This is not because the Tanzanian rice is so costly to grow, but that the subsidy to the American farmer drives the price of US rice sold in Tanzania way below normal production costs for the Tanzanian farmer. 'Fair' trade not is what can get Africa off its knees and on the road to equal opportunity.'
"I have been in Africa now since 1960 and I am convinced that the school room will be the engine to bring peace and prosperity to this part of the world."

Tax deductible contributions may be made payable to:
St. Paul's Abbey
Benedictine Missionaries
Newton, N.J. 07860
Indicate on memo: Fr. Damian's Mission Work.

http://www.dioceseoftanga.org/offices/education/mazindejuusecschool/index.html

As I listened to Milliken's talk, I kept remembering a lesson from science:

The human race began in Africa, and then took thousands of years to spread around the globe. We spend a lot of time and energy establishing our heritage. But it is not that we are Irish or English, French or German, Spanish or Arab or Jew or Chinese or Japanese or American Indian.

In the end, we are all African.

Speaking truth to power

2009-06-26T22:48:00.003-04:00

I picked this up from Mousavi's Facebook group, which gave it this description: "Ayatollah Alikhani, a parliarment member known for his strong words against injustice giving his strong word to support and defend Mousavi."

It gives English subtitles, but what is amazing to me is that he gives this speech with a smile, even a glint in his eye. He is an energetic, enthusiastic speaker, who seems to enjoy his audience, even when it is a group of unfriendly conservatives.

This is the kind of public support that Mousavi will need to turn the tide.

However, as the comments point out on YouTube, he will likely be made to disappear within a few days. You just have to admire his courage.

It is yet another example of the crisis of conscience Iran faces: Are they a democracy or a theocracy? Can both systems survive without destroying each other?

Farrah Fawcett Dies of Cancer at 62

2009-06-25T13:48:00.003-04:00

I actually was never a big fan of Farrah. As a pre-teen/teenage boy, I liked "Charlies Angels," but I much preferred Jaclyn Smith. (I can't help it. I like brunettes.)

However, when I heard on the radio just now that she had died, I flashed back to a moment at Boy Scout camp. I must have been 11 or 12 years old. We were all in our bunks, with the lights out. Instead of falling asleep, the whole cabin - except me - spontaneously broke into song:

(Tune of Frere Jacques)

"Farrah Fawcett, Farrah Fawcett
I love you, I love you
You could leave Lee
It could just be you and me
Young me, Young me"

If anyone forgot, she was married to "Six Million Dollar Man" Lee Majors at the time.

Thank you Farrah, for being an inspiration for men and boys of my generation.

Supreme Court Says Strip Search of Child Is Unconstitutional

2009-06-25T12:10:00.002-04:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

The court ruled 8-1 on Thursday that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.

... Not much here but to say to the Supreme Court, "Thank you for being the guardians of reason on this case."

Highway justice

2009-06-22T21:51:00.003-04:00

In a move that King Solomon would have been proud of, Missouri officials have neatly side-stepped a hornet's nest of conflict between the free speech rights of Nazis and outraged Jewish leaders.

When the neo-Nazi group, the National Socialist Movement, adopted a half-mile stretch of Missouri highway, state officials realized they were powerless to stop them. They knew they could not legally deny the application, and that they would have to provide a sign celebrating their act of good citizenship.

But it was the the Jewish Community Relations Bureau/American Jewish Committee in Kansas City that offered a remedy: rename the road after Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who fled Nazi Germany and became a prominent Jewish theologian and civil rights advocate in the United States.

They were following an earlier example set when the Klan won the right to clean up a highway, that was then renamed for Rosa Parks.

This is a celebration of the free marketplace of ideas that makes America work at its best. Yes, give the hate mongers the freedom to say what they will, but let the side of reason and justice have their say too. Don't let the hate go unchallenged.

This is poetic justice, and a brilliant solution to the problem.

The name change for the highway the neo-Nazis are cleaning is expected to go into effect later this year. I wonder how well they will do their job of picking up trash then.

Iranian Guards Issue Warning as Vote Errors Are Admitted

2009-06-22T09:40:00.002-04:00

... The warning, on the Guards’ Web site, was issued despite an admission by Iran’s most senior panel of election monitors that the number of votes cast in 50 cities exceeded the actual number of voters ...

Um ... Oops!

It seemed to me until as early as this weekend, that the protests in Iran were not going to result in any major change in that country because those in power had too much ... well ... power. But they forgot an important rule:

If you're going to be a dictator, don't ever admit to voter fraud.

Yes, an outraged citizenry can make a big difference, but usually when a government is toppled, there is a need for either a military force to switch sides and join the protestors or for there to be a military power vacuum, as happened in Eastern Europe in 1989-90. Military power can trump political will, unfortunately, as we saw in Tiananmen Square 20 years ago.

The hard-line leaders of Iran have made a strategic mistake in effectively admitting voter fraud but still claiming legitimacy.

This will extend the crisis, embolden and enlarge the crowds in the streets.

Two possibilities:

1) This open example of fraud will inspire someone in power (military, perhaps) to switch sides. This may lead to any number of possibilities from bloodless coup to revolt and civil war.

2) There will need to be a brutal crackdown on the protesters on the level of Tiananmen. If the Iranian leaders do not have the stomach or means for such a crackdown, they could be toppled.

Let us hope there is an option found with limited bloodshed. That would involve serious election reform and a change to the Iranian constitution.

This is a crisis of Iran's national conscience. Their people are confronted with two conflicting ideas: free elections and hardline rule. If they have one, how can they have the other?

Good news for the New York Times

2009-06-20T21:29:00.002-04:00

International / Asia Pacific

Times Reporter Held by Taliban Escapes

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: June 21, 2009

A New York Times reporter who was kidnapped by the Taliban has escaped and made his way to freedom after more than seven months of captivity in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

... The wow factor in this story is when I first heard about this, I had to scratch my head and wonder. How had I missed the story of a NY Times reporter being kidnapped in Afghanistan? It had happened in November, and I was pretty busy then, so I may have missed it.

But no, I had not missed it at all. It's just that no one wrote about it. In an incredible show of restraint as many as 40 news agencies had heard about this kidnapping, but all had decided to respect a request from the N.Y. Times to keep the story quiet. They did not want to endanger his life.

I keep remembering a story from when I was in L.A. There had been a home invasion robbery in the San Fernando Valley -- I think in Sherman Oakes -- where a child had been kidnapped. It was a big story and all of the news media descended on the scene.

The police had not told the full story to the media, and did not want it to get out. Heavy media reporting could, as with the Afghanistan story -- endanger the life of the hostage. So the LAPD police spokesman, I believe it was Lt. Anthony Alba, took a gamble.

He asked all the media present to meet him around the corner, but to leave behind their notebooks, tape recorders and cameras. He laid out the story, and then asked that they only report on the home invasion, not the kidnapping.

The gamble worked. It took some persuading among the reporters to decide as a group to go along with the police request, but they did.

The next day, the child was released by the robbers and safely returned. Only then did the story break.

What we saw with the Rodhe kidnapping was very similar to what happened in Sherman Oakes years ago, just on a much wider scale.

It is an example that despite the image journalists have as sleazy opportunists, that they are driven by a deep ethical core that often will override even the desire to be the first one to break the story.

They will languish in prison

2009-06-18T16:10:00.002-04:00

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty.

I was surprised when I heard this. Our entire court system is built around the idea of innocent until proven guilty, and that our courts will eventually do the right thing, that the wrongly accused would have a path to pursue their defense.

Also, as the article explains: "since 1992, 238 people in the United States, some who were sitting on death row, have been exonerated of crimes through DNA testing. In many of those cases, the DNA testing used to clear them was not available at the time of the crime."

Why shouldn't a defendant have access to such testing? It seems a simple matter of fairness. If there is a chance that the wrong man is sitting in a prison cell, that also means that the guilty is walking the streets, endangering the public.

But the bottom line is that this was the wrong case to try to prove this point. There were several factors that affected this decision.

1) The defendant already confessed guilt to the state parole board.

2) His other declarations have not been emphatic about his innocence.

3) He has already served his prison sentence.

So, basically, this defendant was trying to coerce the state to do a DNA test when there was little substantial at stake such as freedom from prison or a looming execution. It would at best save face, a little, and may lead to later civil action. And he was asking for a test when even he himself did not affirm emphatically about his innocence.

I understand why the Supreme Court made this decision. But I feel it does not serve the interests of justice. This was just the wrong case to rule on this issue of DNA access.

I keep remembering the story of Rosa Parks. She actually was not the only one who refused to move from a bus seat at that time. However, the leaders of the civil rights movement picked her case as the one to fight and promote because she was a person of strong moral character. Her character made it all the more apparent that their opponents were wrong.

In this case, this defendant did not display the kind of character that made him worth fighting for on this issue. And because of him, "a small group of innocent people — and it is a small group — will languish in prison.”

If Plastic Surgery Won’t Convince You, What Will?

2009-06-14T20:47:00.009-04:00

PRAGUE — When Petra Kalivodova, a 31-year-old nurse, was considering whether to renew her contract at a private health clinic here, special perks helped clinch the deal: free German lessons, five weeks of vacation, and a range of plastic-surgery options, including complimentary silicone-enhanced breasts. ...

- New York Times, June 14, 2009.

... To sum up the story in the Sunday New York Times, there's a shortage of nurses in the Czech Republic, a country with a health-care system so restrictive to nurses that they can't even prescribe an aspirin without a doctor's OK. Also, they are barely emerging from an era where nurses were just seen as not much more than room cleaners and bed changers.

Now, I think it's fine to offer perks to employees and potential employees, but this offer needs another look.

First off, the German lessons are not as popular as the plastic surgery options. However, I could see that for a Czech it would improve one's quality of life to be able to speak the language of a neighboring country.

But what I really want to talk about is the breast implants. (Big surprise.)

Now, Lord knows I could use some liposuction to improve my quality of life and boost my self-esteem (no implants for me, thanks), but it seems to me the offer of plastic surgery and implants is similar to what women say about the negligee men buy for them: "It's a gift that men give to themselves."

As the Times article explains, part of this offer has to do with how the culture has been wrapped up in the post-Communist decadence with new, intoxicating Western influences. And along with that comes the Western-driven pressure for women to be thin and beautiful.

I am someone who has unfortunately been in-and-out of the U.S. health care system in recent years, and while I will admit I don't mind having an attractive, shapely female nurse - it does cheer me up - that really isn't what I'm after.

In 2006, a clot in my liver put me in the hospital for most of two weeks. For much of that time, I had blood drawn from me at least every six hours. So I was getting awakened in the middle of the night and stabbed in the arm or the hand, often by someone who was still learning the skill. (They were starting to run out of places to stab me, too.)

I didn't mind too much when they botched it. Afterall, they have to learn somewhere, but over time I grew to appreciate the smooth professionals who could draw the blood from the vein with hardly any pain. You see, there are no nerves in the veins themselves, so if you can get right in at a point where there's not much skin to go through, it's really a snap.

I had nurses of varying ages, sizes, races and both men and women, and for me the thing I judged them on was how well they could perform that one task. Even today, I will compliment a nurse or a lab tech when they do it right. But this brings me to my point.

If the Czech Republic really needs more nurses, a better course of action rather than the "gift men give to themselves" would be to ensure that the nursing profession is a respected and fulfilling career.

And if they really want to solve their labor shortage, they can open up the field to the other half of their population - men. Let the men of the Czech Republic know that they can be nurses. As I said, there are male nurses in the U.S., and they do a fine job. They aren't just the punchline to a joke, as in Ben Stiller in "Meet the Parents."

Just tell them they can skip the implants, OK?

Sometimes, page layout says a lot

2009-06-14T09:27:00.005-04:00

This morning, I just found it telling how the New York Times positioned its story on the political turmoil in Albany on the front page, right below the coverage of the political turmoil in Iran.

There are some comparisons to be drawn by looking at both stories. The turmoil in Iran is driven by a hard-line dictatorship, unwilling to relinquish power.

The trouble in Albany is the lack of a power center. The towering mountains of power like Rockefeller, Carey, Pataki and Bruno have eroded away so that even a small hill of power, built by two freshman state senators, could lead a coup to take over the Senate.

Keep an eye on Hiram Monserrate

2009-06-12T09:46:00.005-04:00

Hiram Monserrate is the other Democrat who made the GOP coup in the N.Y. state Senate possible. But now he seems to be having second thoughts. There's a good column about his position in in the New York Daily News.

The column sums up by saying Monserrate has a conscience that won't let him rest. Deep down he must feel he's made the wrong move.

When I first heard about this coup, I shrugged to myself and say, "Fine, let the GOP have one branch of government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

But as this thing has dragged out, there is just nothing good in it. It has degraded into an infantile, playground fight over who owns the ball. And it comes at the worst time in the legislative calendar, when a lot of work needs to be wrapped up. State residents can only get hurt by this.

When I first read that not only had Democratic Sen. Pedro Espada (a freshman senator) switched parties but also claimed the leadership, this felt like just a grab for personal power.

Monserrate may actually switch sides again if the Democrats can pick someone better to be their leader. That would give the chamber a tie.

But, the political costs that both Espada and Monserrate will have to pay for creating this crisis may be greater than they can bear.

Digital TV Switch May Leave Some In The Dark

2009-06-12T09:35:00.002-04:00

AP, June 12, 2009 · Starting in the morning and going into the night, TV stations across the U.S. are cutting their analog signals Friday, ending a six-decade era for the technology and likely stranding more than 1 million unprepared homes without TV service.

... Here's my fanciful thought. Sorry, but many of you know I have a tendency for sci-fi as well as politics.

If anyone has seen "Contact", you know the story line: Aliens pick up our TV signals and send us a message.

What if all along, they've been watching our analog broadcasts? When we shut them off, the aliens will finally arrive, land in Hollywood and demand: "Hey, who canceled 'Gilligan'?"

What we needed to hear

2009-06-11T14:11:00.002-04:00

This column by Cecily Kellogg ran in my newspaper today. It spells out why late-term abortions, as those performed by the late Dr. Goerge Tiller, are important and necessary.

The pro-life movement would argue that these women are the most selfish. But it really is needed as a life-saving procedure.

"A dangerous fantasy land"

2009-06-11T13:59:00.003-04:00

That's how U.S. Holocaust Museum Fellow Deborah Lipstadt described where Holocaust deniers like James von Brunn live: "A dangerous fantasy land."

These people make up their own reasons to hate. It is almost impossible to be rational with them. All we can do is remain vigilant, stand up to them when we need to and demonstrate that they have nothing to offer but hate and violence.

Breaking news: Slain Kansas Abortion Provider's Clinic To Close

2009-06-09T13:26:00.002-04:00

AP, June 9, 2009 · The family of slain abortion provider George Tiller said Tuesday that his Wichita clinic will be "permanently closed," effective immediately.

In a statement released by Tiller's attorneys, his family said it is ceasing operation of Women's Health Care Services Inc. and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic.

"We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women's health care needs have been met because of his dedication and service," the family said.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Mao Tse-tung
Chinese Communist politician (1893 - 1976)

He writes with the power of a spinning crescent kick

2009-06-09T09:50:00.002-04:00

So, I opened my local newspaper yesterday and read a column by Chuck Norris about a pastor and his wife who were cited by San Diego County for holding a Bible study in their home.

After getting over my shock that 1) Chuck Norris is a writer and 2) He is writing for my paper, I actually found the story worthwhile. [OK, let me get this bit of sarcasm out of my system: Chuck Norris once shot down an airplane by pointing his finger at it and saying, "Bang!"]

After a major backlash against the government by conservative Web sites and stories reported on Fox News, the county has backed down and said they did not need a permit for a Bible study after all. Here's the full news story by the San Diego Union Tribune.

I have to back Chuck on this one. As a college senior, I took a class on Freedom of Religion. It was an intensive class that focused on reading and writing on case law. We wrote legal briefs and argued them before a mock Supreme Court for our final project. From what I've heard, it was very similar to what you might experience at law school. Throughout the semester, our professor kept on quoting the one line in the Constitution that sums up all we needed to understand about religious freedom, from the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That's it. Done and done.

To create a situation in which a government official comes to your home to ask whether you are saying "Amen" or "Praise the Lord" is intrusive and misguided. So long as you are not committing a crime or hurting someone else, the government can't even come to the door and ask if you are saying, "Praise Satan." It's your business.

Bottom line, this was a parking issue that was botched by the county. A car belonging to a neighbor's visitor was dinged. The pastor paid to fix it, but he feels that sparked the complaint. I lived in Southern California for nine years, and I remember how neighbors usually felt no qualms about reporting each other to the government. Parking is a big deal in SoCal, and anyone who seems to be taking more than his fair share is going to draw attention to himself.

The solution would have been for the pastor to work with his visitors to ensure they know where they can park, to be respectful and maybe even have them share rides.

Amen.

Bank Accused of Pushing Mortgage Deals on Blacks

2009-06-08T11:17:00.002-04:00

“They referred to subprime loans made in minority communities as ghetto loans and minority customers as ‘those people have bad credit’, ‘those people don’t pay their bills’ and ‘mud people.’”

Tony Paschal
former Wells Fargo loan officer

“We have worked extremely hard to make homeownership possible for more African-American borrowers. We absolutely do not tolerate team members treating our customers or others disrespectfully or unfairly, or who violate our ethics and lending practices.”

Kevin Waetke
spokesman for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.

This is a troubling story about how Wells Fargo may have targeted minorities for sub-prime loans even in situations when a white applicant would receive a prime loan. If true, Wells Fargo needs to do much more than have its employees attend cultural sensitivity training. If true, Wells Fargo may have been harboring some of the most dangerous forms of racist ideology.

I'm referring to the term "mud people." It is a code word used by the worst of racists. It is not just a slip of a tongue -- "Oops I didn't mean to offend." It is used by groups like the Aryan Nations as part of their twisted world view that whites are superior to other races and are destined to rule the world following an apocalyptic race war.

I found this blog called Real Eyes Realize Real Lies, which summed up a lot of the history:
"In the mid-1980s, many Aryan Nations members teamed up with other racists to form “The Order” — which is still memorialized on the Aryan Nations Web site. The Order robbed banks, counterfeited money, ambushed armored cars — and murdered — to finance a planned overthrow of the U.S. government."

I wish the NAACP luck in their class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo and other banks. Let us hope the truth comes out, that hidden racism is dragged into the sunlight and exposed for what it is.

Obama in Notre Dame

2009-06-06T10:08:00.003-04:00

After watching the president's speech in Cairo, where he traveled into one of the centers of a potentially hostile Muslim world, I decided to take another look at the president's speech at Notre Dame, where he ventured into the heart of the potentially hostile Catholic world.

Unlike in Cairo, Obama was occasionally jeered at by protesters at Notre Dame. "Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!" But then the audience at large shouted down the jeer with "We are ND! We are ND!" and "Yes, we can! Yes, we can!"

There are many parallels between the two events. Both were steeped in religious controversy, and Obama sought to do what he does best -- find common ground. In both situations, the actions and beliefs of religious extremists weighed heavily on the venue. But at Notre Dame, Obama sought a cease-fire with the extremists:

"A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life -- but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me. What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight 'right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.' The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, 'I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.'"

Obama had the 'right-wing idealogue' language taken down from his Web site. And he seemed to have done so to stop the escalation of dangerous rhetoric. He allowed that a reasonable, thinking person could conclude that abortion was wrong. To paint all opponents on an issue as 'right-wing idealogues' is insulting and can inflame the passions, and result in such as things as hecklers in the audience at Notre Dame.

He talked about more than abortion. He touched on the need for all of us to come together as one human family. He practically made Father Ted Hesburgh, president emeritus of Notre Dame, teary when he related how Hesburgh played a key role in the civil rights movement through a fishing trip. (Obama had dropped the emeritus in his speech.)

The biggest news out of the speech was when he called for "a sensible conscience clause ."
Although Obama did not define it in his remarks, "Conscience clauses protect doctors, nurses and pharmacists who refuse to participate in abortions or dispense abortion pills from being threatened or fired."

Obama has announced his intention to end Bush-era conscience-protection rules by the Department of Health and Human Services. So, the president seems to be saying he wants to replace the Bush rules with something that makes sense. However, it doesn't appear that he's clarified his remarks any more and there's been a lot of comments on the blogosphere about the word "sensible" and what that word is supposed to mean.

But whatever words he used in South Bend or in Cairo, one is reminded that while words can be powerful, they take time for their effects to be felt.

At the beginning of the speech, Obama asked "How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonetizing (demonizing?) those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"

Sadly the demonization of opposing sides on abortion continues. Two weeks after this speech, Dr. George Tiller was shot dead at his church in Kansas.

And so many on the "pro-life" side cheered.

Obama will have to wait a while longer for a cease-fire on abortion.

President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World from Cairo, Egypt

2009-06-05T09:02:00.004-04:00

This was a brilliant speech. It is probably the best attempt by an American president to defuse the hatred between the U.S. and the Muslim world. He made an open and honest assessment of the conflicts and did not back away from the difficult issues such as the subjugation of women. He made it clear that we backed Israel, but he pointed out that Israel had a responsibility for the injustices that the Palestinians have suffered. In short, he seems to understand one of my favorite quotes: "If you want peace, work for justice."

Hate is the fuel that empowers our enemies. If the U.S. is to defeat our enemy, we must conduct a strategy that goes not give our enemy more firepower, more recruits to their cause, more human bombs. This is what Obama is trying to do.

This is probably one of Obama's best speeches since the early stages of his campaign. It was a chance to explain the big picture and show us the path to peace.

Let us hope he has sowed the seeds of understanding.

Why won't Dick Cheney speak out more?

2009-06-02T12:43:00.001-04:00

What a reasonable and intelligent human being that Mr. Cheney is.

Why won't Dick Cheney go away?

2009-06-02T09:07:00.002-04:00

Yet again, Dick Cheney rears his ugly head, this time speaking at the National Press Club.

But because he is no longer in power, he has now resorted to the tactics of revisionist history. "I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11," Cheney says. "We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true."

No, Mr. Cheney. There never was a connection. The Bush Administration wanted to make that connection as soon as the towers fell, but you had to eventually give up that hope.

Why did we invade Iraq?

For years, I wondered this. It made little sense, except of course as open aggression against another country, a power grab for territory and control in an oil-rich region. Well, OK, that makes a lot of sense, but we're supposed to be the good guys. So, how did W. go to sleep at night, thinking he was doing the right thing, that he was serving a higher purpose and not just naked aggression? What justification did he give himself to settle the disquiet in his soul?

(I know, I'm giving them a lot of credit for having a conscience and a soul. But they still are human beings.)

Weapons of mass destruction? I never believed the pre-war evidence. Colin Powell's presentation at the U.N. lacked the smoking gun that Adlai Stevenson had during the Cuba missile crisis. I don't think the administration really believed that lie. They just had to find ways to prop up the barest appearance of good intentions when that story fell apart. (No weapons of mass destruction? Gee whiz, I coulda swore they were there. My bad.)

For a time, I wondered if W. sought to invade Iraq over the misguided notion that his father was a failure for not "finishing the job" in 1991. But of course the first George Bush had it right. He knew it would be a mistake to take over the whole country. (Because he understood basic principles that every college political science major learns about regional stability and nation building.) Saddam Hussein also was behind an assassination attempt on the elder Bush, but I don't think that was it.

Then, finally, years after the fact, I read that W. had been very excited before the invasion about the idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East. That if somehow Iraq could become a stable country ruled by elections, then democracy and goodwill for the U.S. could spread through the Mideast.

This is my best guess right now, that somehow on top of all the Machiavellian "positives" they saw by invading and conquering Iraq, that when W. went into his shriveled little conscience, when he wondered about his legacy and wondered how history would judge him, he would say to himself that all the hell that he had unleashed would be OK because he had brought democracy to the Middle East.

The problem, however, is that it is foolhardy to bring democracy to a nation through force of arms. You cannot force a people to be free. Countries need to be able to find a solution of their own, find out for themselves what works best. To impose our will on the people of another nation is just wrong.

My youngest son's preschool class is growing butterflies. One of the important lessons with a butterfly is that you have to let them get out of the cocoon on their own. If you break them out of the cocoon before they have the strength to do it, the butterflies won't survive. Let the other countries of the world find their own paths to freedom.

Suspect Held in Kansas Abortion Doctor's Slaying

2009-06-01T07:03:00.006-04:00

"Prenatal testing without prenatal choices is medical fraud."

-- George R. Tiller

To get some insight into this shooting, check out this link:

http://www.armyofgod.com/defense.html

Scott Roeder, the suspect in the case, was an enthusiastic supporter of this statement. He seems to have carried out its principles.

As for me, I think I'll have to just quote my earlier blog:

"I respect any person of faith who uses that faith to make the world a better place. We need more of you. But I am saddened by those who use their faith to spread prejudice, hatred, division, death and destruction. The most dangerous people in the world are often those who are sure they have all the answers and know that God is on their side."

Sotomayor Would Be Sixth Catholic Justice

2009-05-31T21:38:00.004-04:00

This was probably the most interesting NY Times article in Sunday's paper, at least to me. If Judge Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be six Catholic justices.

I had no idea there were so many. But the story also underscores how many different kinds of Catholics there are. It ranges from socially conservative churchgoing Catholics (like Scalia) to socially progressive nonchurchgoers (as Sotomayor may be).

Sotomayor is a product of Catholic upbringing and education. But she does not attend church, except for major family events. Her appointment underscores the disparities between Catholic church and a Catholic education.

When one listens to the Catholic mass, you are given a theology with no room for doubt. A truth is presented with no room to question it. (As in the Nicene Creed.)

However, in a Catholic education -- and I experienced 17 years of it -- the student is taught critical thinking skills and given an awareness of social justice. We are challenged to debate, doubt and wrestle with issues. We allow for other possibilities, other points of view. I liked the quote in the article from Judge Sotomayor's former schoolmate: "“We were asking, what’s wrong with the other religions, and why do you say everybody else is going to Hell?”

While the Catholic church may have little hold on Judge Sotomayor, the Catholic educational system should be proud to have helped inspire so many of our country's critical thinkers and greatest legal minds.

Don't call me a liberal, please

2009-05-29T09:34:00.003-04:00

Let's say you are at the beach. You ask your significant other to put some suntan lotion on your back. How much do you want to be squirted on your skin?

If you are liberal and too much is used, you are left with an icky mess and a waste of suntan lotion.

Use just enough -- conservatively -- and the job has been done well enough, and more lotion is left over for future applications or for others who need it.

This is why when political discourse is expressed as conservative versus liberal, the left loses traction. When Democrats allow the battle to be described in those terms, they immediately cede voters to the GOP. (Remember George H.W. Bush, who once simply used the refined argument of "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal!")

From the point of view of a social conscious, liberal means being open to new ideas, seeing injustices and fighting to correct them and using the government to help those who need help the most. "Favorable to progress or reform," as dictionary.com describes it. It goes on to say the word means: "Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible ... free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. ... open-minded."

These are fine values, and they are rooted in those ideals that made this country great. But still, the term comes with political handicaps. From a fiscal standpoint, liberal means wasteful, excessive and blind to the realities of how much something costs.

Now, the Democrats are overwhelmingly in charge, but it is not because somehow the liberal philosophy has overwhelmed the conservative side. Part of the reason that the Democrats won was because the Republicans lost sight of their core values of fiscal conservatism. George W. Bush lost the backing of many conservatives because he made government larger, more complex and more wasteful by throwing resources into a war effort that was corrupted by greed and cronyism.

What also happened is a rise of Blue Dog Democrats, who are fiscally conservative but liberal on social issues. The Democrats have stolen a key pillar from the Republican party.

And yet, liberal remains a problematic term for the left. It needs to be retired.

So, I would prefer to be called progressive, defined by dictionary.com as "favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters."

This is a great country, but it is unfinished. It is always being improved. That is what makes it great.

I like the way President Obama put it in his inaugural address: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

Scraps of Time resurrected

2009-05-28T11:17:00.003-04:00

Today, I’m restarting my Scraps of Time blog.

It was begun as a commentary on the news and issues of the day when I was working two jobs – as a newspaper copy editor and a part-time journalism teacher. I didn’t have much time for it then, that’s why I called it Scraps of Time. But what really killed it was that Gannett did not approve of one of their wire editors blogging about his opinions on issues. I kept it going as a private post, but only limped along with it. It became a place to write out ideas as I considered opinion columns for the paper.

Now that I no longer work at the newspaper, I am making this a public blog. Check out my old private posts. They are interesting, even if some of my ideas turned out to be outright wrong. (For example, I said it was a big mistake for Obama to not offer Hillary the VP slot.)

But allow me to repeat what I said when I first set out to write this blog back in the fall of 2007:

“I've realized that by sitting on the sidelines, I've allowed many ideas that need to be challenged to go unchallenged. I feel as if my silence can be taken as agreement with a host of misguided notions. So, I would like to speak out now, to clarify my views and to start a discussion.”

You may not agree with what I have to say, but please understand that my aim is to offer thoughtful, respectful commentary on the issues. I want to give people tidbits to think about as issues come up.

On the outset I should tell you about myself. I’m a Democrat, but I don’t like the word liberal. Progressive makes more sense to me. (More on that later.) I am happy with Obama as president, but I don’t agree with every move he’s made. I’m a Catholic who has recently returned to the church, but I don’t think my one religion has all the answers. (Yes, that’s an interesting journey.) I respect any person of faith who uses that faith to make the world a better place. We need more of you. But I am saddened by those who use their faith to spread prejudice, hatred, division, death and destruction. The most dangerous people in the world are often those who are sure they have all the answers and know that God is on their side.

I will back people who pursue their dreams, to do what they were meant to do. That’s one reason I will always support my wife’s endeavors in karate and self-defense, why I support my friend’s effort to start a business building treehouses. It’s also why I continue to fight for a canine distemper cure discovered by Dr. Al Sears. My favorite assignment as a writer was a column for the Los Angeles Times called “Personal Best.” It was a weekly feature on people who made a difference in the world. I was often inspired by those stories. These were people pursuing dreams or helping others achieve their dreams, and I learned much from them.

And finally, I will say that this will probably be the longest post you will see from me in a while. I’m out of work, but stay pretty busy, so my plan is to post short commentary on the news and issues.

Stop in and visit now and then.

Ed Bond

Here are some Web sites to check out:

http://www.edbond.com/amy/selfdefense/
http://www.nyshidokan.com/
http://www.edbond.com/distemper.html
http://www.peacemakertreehouses.com/projects/
http://savedogsfromcaninedistemper.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-you-need-to-knowdo.html
http://artlifenewsblog.blogspot.com/

Why a tree house matters

2008-07-05T16:34:00.006-04:00

The tree house means a lot to me because I made a promise. When he was 4 years old, Jack asked me, "Daddy, will you build me a tree house?" I told him I would, and then picked a time far enough in the future that I hoped would give me the time to learn how to do it. I told him I would build it when he was 8. I didn't learn before he was 8, but I was dramatically lucky to have met John Carberry.

With John's help (OK, I help him a little while he does all the real work and planning) Jack will get his tree house, hopefully close to or soon after his ninth birthday.

When it is done, I will explain to Jack that I did it because I made a promise, that it is important in life to keep one's word, and as he gets older that I would hope he would be the kind of person who could be trusted to keep his word.

Ah, now we see the stupidity inherent in the system

2008-06-30T19:10:00.002-04:00

From an AP story a couple of weeks ago, giving the White House response to Scott McClellan's recent congressional testimony:

... The White House dismissed Friday's hearing as unenlightening and McClellan, the president's former top spokesman, as uninformed. ....

Um, excuse me? Your top spokesman was uninformed? That would seem to be a problem, don't you think?

My Secret Life

2008-06-30T18:48:00.002-04:00

This has nothing to do with politics, but I wanted to talk about "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty."

I watched it as we fell asleep the other night, and it was a wonderful experience. Not because it was such a great story or a great movie (it wasn't) but whenever Danny Kaye went into one of his fantasy worlds, I was just amazed.

The reason is because I realized that the kind of imagination I saw there was the kind I used to have as a child. I'd actually forgotten how to use this type of imagination, or how it worked.

I want to watch this movie again (probably with Jack and Liam). I feel as if I'm on the brink of unlocking the hours (years, really) of imagination I once enjoyed.

Mixing metaphors with a purpose

2008-06-09T20:10:00.001-04:00

Overheard in the newsroom:

He's wrapping himself in the cross.

Clinched

2008-06-03T23:17:00.002-04:00

So, now that Obama has clinched the nomination, I am left with an irrestistable thought: If Hillary Clinton really does want the VP slot, it would be a terrible mistake if Obama did not pick her. Leaving her off the ticket would be a devastating blow to the incredible momentum the Democratic Party has enjoyed this year. Without her on the ticket, millions of potential voters could be lost to McCain.
McCain may seem old and doddering, but I wouldn't want to underestimate him. He is a maverick. He can shake off the George Bush legacy and give us a close election.

Yes, Obama's campaign has been exciting, but you can't deny how driven and how enthusiastic Hillary's supporters have been. For weeks now, the pundits have said the race was over, and still even into the last night of the primary, she still won races. There had to be a lot of people out there who believe in her. The Democrats may lose a lot of those good people if Hillary is not on board.

Great Scott!

2008-05-28T18:15:00.001-04:00

Can you believe the Scott McClellan tell-all book? He really lets his old masters have it. He is a sympathetic character because as I look back I could really see his discomfort up there. Obviously, he was being forced to give the media a story that he didn't really believe himself.

Onion headline

2008-05-28T18:14:00.002-04:00

Just popped into my head:

"New interstate bypass to be built entirely by suit-wearing officials with ceremonial shovels."

A good quote

2008-05-27T19:14:00.001-04:00

I came across the following quote during work the other day. I think it says much about what perspective one should have in writing commentary about the world.

"Great wisdom is generous; petty wisdom is contentious. Great speech is impassioned, small speech cantankerous."

Chuang-Tzu

Chinese essayist (c.369 B.C.-c.286 B.C.)

China vs. Myanmar

2008-05-20T21:25:00.002-04:00

Watching the disasters in Asia unfold offers a telling story about power.

In Myanmar, we see a regime that has held power for its own sake. It cares little for its own people and would rather see the victims of the cyclone die from disease, starvation and exposure than to seek outside help. The regime has power, but demonstrates no power as far as helping its own people.

They may stay in power, however, because they understand one simple fact: The key to holding on to power is their army. Keep the army happy, keep it in control and they will stay in power. The disaster actually has helped them stay in power because any dissident factions within the nation have been so terribly weakened they lack the strength to rise up.

In China, we see a regime that seized power from the bottom up, instead of from the top down as in Myanmar. The Communists came to power as a people's revolution. Then, when the people who lead the revolution seized control, they became institutions of the establishment. But as authoritarian as the regime is, there is a core philosophy of Communism that puts emphasis on the worker. That Marxist viewpoint has been superseded by the Leninist philosophy that the state comes first. But there is still an understanding that the state cannot exist without the worker. It was Mao who said that power grows from the barrel of a gun, and we saw that in Tianamen. But we have seen the benevolent side of that philosophy as the state has come to rescue its workers from the earthquake. More than 6,000 people were pulled from the rubble by rescuers this past week.

Outmaneuvered

2008-05-05T19:54:00.002-04:00

On the eve of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Barack Obama has allowed Hillary to flank his message.

Last week, McCain and Clinton announced plans for a summer gas-tax holiday, which Obama dismissed as just another political gimmick. He's right of course, but his initial criticism that such a move would endanger critical road projects and maintenance allowed Hillary an opening.

No, she said, don't leave the taxes uncollected. Collect them from the oil companies instead.

Obama stands firm in rejecting this position. Afterall, the oil companies could just raise their prices to cover the additional taxes they would pay.

But still, he's been put in a corner, forced to defend a position that says, "I don't want to help average Americans with outrageous gas prices."

When a politician stands between voters and the money they see as theirs - even as small amount like $30 for the summer - he (or she) just can't win.

Case in point: The tax rebates may not have been financially responsible. But the second the words were stated publicly in Washington, no one could oppose it. Once the words were said, everybody in the country knew how they wanted to spend/save that money. Anyone who resisted the plan, or slowed it down too much, would just be standing between voters and their money.

From The Observer

2008-05-02T14:59:00.002-04:00

I just liked this commentary on the Obama-Clinton matchups in Indiana (Go Hoosiers) and North Carolina:

http://www.observer.com/2008/time-expectations-work-obama

Pennsylvania primary

2008-04-22T20:35:00.002-04:00

I'm not sure where it was I heard it, but early Tuesday evening I caught a report on the Pennsylvania primary. In it, Barack Obama was quoted as saying he thought Hillary was going to win Pa.

Huh?

I think that was a mistake to make such a statement before the polls closed. By that statement, Obama not only conceded, but he also told voters who might have been on their way out to vote for him to not bother voting. If he had any chance at -- and it was remote -- he basically tossed it away.

Why would he make such a statement? Perhaps it was because he wanted to take the long view, to show voters in other states that he's the kind of guy who can see the truth of a situation, that if he knows he's beat, he's a big enough of a man to admit it. He's not so twisted by his ambition and political needs to see reality.

OK, that's fine, Barack. My advice for next time is just wait till the polls close.

Brilliant!

2008-04-15T19:42:00.003-04:00

We were just talking about the pope's visit. A fallen Catholic was saying how much he would hate to spend so many hours waiting to see the pope. He couldn't understand the appeal.

Then, Salle said she would just approach it like going to a big Star Trek Convention.

Brilliant. Star Trek is sort of like a religion to some, so the analogy works.

I told her I think she just found the solution to saving the church from its falling attendance numbers: combine Star Trek with the Church!

Instead of an altar, perform the Eucharistic rites on a stage built to look like the bridge. The altar boys would be dressed like crewmen. The priest would be dressed like the captain.

"The body of Christ."
"Make it so."

If you don't think science fiction and religion belong together, check out "Battlestar Galactica." It's the Cylons who are teaching the humans that there is only one true God.

Ugly past, brighter future

2008-04-11T22:02:00.002-04:00

My column on racism on the Opinion Page in Sunday's Star-Gazette has certainly made it an interesting week.

At first, I was nervous as the publication date approached, but it appears that most took the column in the spirit it was intended. I've received congratulations notes from my publisher, colleagues and neighbors. Some have been reserved in their reactions to it, which is understandable.

But what's been really good is how well behaved the Story Chatters - known for breaking into racist rants - have been. They've actually got a pretty good discussion going on off of my column.

The column is at:

http://www.stargazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/OPINION03/804060322/1004/Opinion

So, now that after writing about the white man's point of view on racism, I'll be following up with a column on a man's point of view about violence against women.

Then, if that works, I intend to try a column on the Iraqi perspective on the Iraq war.

Anybody see a pattern here?

Quote of the day

2008-04-09T19:52:00.000-04:00

No! Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.

Yoda

I got there first! Nah!

2008-04-09T11:37:00.001-04:00

http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/charlton_hestons_gun_taken