Posts Tagged ‘United States’

The Government Doesn’t Run Anything Well

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

“The government doesn’t run anything well,” according to conservative radio host, Heidi Harris. Her comment was made on Hardball on June 9, 2009, as a retort to the federal government owning a majority share of General Motors. Heidi is a sponsor of a faction who wants Americans to boycott cars from GM or Chrysler because they are now “socialist” organizations (of an unspoken but pointed barb that the United States is now a “socialist” country).

Encouraging people to avoid GM or Chrysler products is lunacy. It will only hurt those companies and their employees further. Worse, the government would have no chance to recover the money invested. Nevertheless, Heidi’s summation is a common sentiment among those who think that government shouldn’t run anything at all.

So, does the government run anything well?

This question is a smack across the face of Uncle Sam. Our uncle has provided for us in various ways, and while he has not been a perfect uncle, we’ve come to love and rely on him. Uncle Sam has run a government for over 232 years. Since 1776, he has grown a nation of 13 states into a thriving, bustling democracy that comprises 50 states, a federal district, several territories and over 300 million people.

Are there problems? Yep, there are. While we are the wealthiest nation, we are also the most indebted. Depending on how you view “standard of living”, we may not hold the title to the highest in the world, but we rank highly. If we aren’t the most educated in the world, we rank highly. If we aren’t the most innovative in the world, we rank highly. Since 1776, there have been no coups, although we had a nasty Civil War. We have the best-trained and most powerful military organization in the world – a volunteer organization, no less. We have successfully fought some wars and stupidly engaged in others without officially admitting failure.

Even with our foibles, we have attracted millions of foreigners to our shores, and most of them liked what they found so they happily remained here.

But, yes, I now agree with Heidi. Uncle Sam doesn’t know how to run anything well. Why don’t we just leave and go to Sweden or some other well-run place? Oh, I forgot, we can’t — they’re socialists! What about Britain, France or Germany? Oh, nope, I forgot again — they’re socialists, too! Besides, we also thought those Brits did a lousy job 200 years ago, and I doubt anything has improved since then. Okay, how about we go to a communist regime like China (self-proclaimed as socialist), non-socialist states like India, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Ethiopia? I’m sure they are better at running things than our federal government.

When Will Obama Go to an Atheist Meetup?

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

President Obama has not attended an atheist meetup, drinking skepchickally, skeptics in the pub, or other nonbeliever event since he took office, despite his inaugural address pledge to acknowledge nonbelievers, and his continued insistence on “reaching across the aisle” to acknowledge and respect those with different beliefs.

“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace,” Obama stated in his inaugural address.

Within his first few months in office, Obama has already reached that hand of respect out to all corners of the earth, from offers to speak with leaders of Muslim nations to actually visiting heavily Islamic countries , bringing offerings of peace, and an explicit assurance that the United States is not at war with Islam.

Domestically, Obama has reinvigorated the controversial faith-based initiative, favoring religious discrimination in organizations that receive federal funding, and stocking his advisory panel with a heavy majority of theists.

Despite this overt and frequent outreach to religious organizations domestic and foreign, Obama has made no effort to connect with the non-believers he pledged to treat with the same respect and attention as believers. His reference to non-believers seems, in hindsight, to have been nothing other than a hat-tip to the often left-leaning fifteen percent of the nation, most of whom helped him get elected.

Obama has also pledged to seek a new church for himself and his family, subjecting his minor daughters to indoctrination in dogma almost universally rejected by the scientists of the world, with details disagreed upon by nearly every other religious denomination or sect. He has yet to choose one, indicating that he must take into consideration the interference he would cause with church attendance of fellow church members. Why has he not taken into consideration the idea that by choosing to be an active practitioner of an ancient superstitious ritual, he interferes with the ability of both non-believers and those who believe in different superstitions to be treated with respect and equality in a nation founded with an explicit separation of church and state?

President Obama, pick yourself a church along with your wife. Let your children play in the White House playground, or have them tutored by someone who respects reality and can encourage them to be skeptical instead of dogmatic. And then make a surprise visit to a Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris lecture/debate, or an atheist meetup. You might get some shit from the fundamentalists, but didn’t you say something about reaching out to everyone, despite their beliefs? You reached out to one of the most hated homophobes, Rick Warren, for your invocation. What’s stopping you from reaching out to people who don’t happen to share your monotheistic point of view?

This article is a rebuttal to the Fox News Blog comment “BILL SAMMON: When Will Obama Go to Church?” by Bill Sammon, Managing Editor, Washington Bureau, FOX News Channel, which, out of all the things that someone could find fault about Obama over, chooses to attack Obama’s lack of church attendance since his swearing-in.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Creationism – Redux

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

Book Review- Monkey Girl, by Edward Humes

Book review by L.Grey, with permission.

In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, ‘And the sun stood still … and hasted not to go down about a whole day’ (Joshua x. 13) and ‘He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time’ (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.

Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Mind 59 (1950), 443.

Monkey Girl by Edward Humes ISBN: 9780060885489, ISBN10: 0060885483 Ecco (imprint of Harper Collins) Hardcover 400 pages, $25.95

What does it mean when proponents of Intelligent Design say “teach the controversy”?

You may think you know what the controversy is about, but you’ll never get a more thorough and up-to-date analysis of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial than Edward Humes’ book Monkey Girl. The 2005 trial was one of the latest episodes of the seemingly never-ending struggle for the hearts and minds of public school students. This is a fight between those who feel that Science describes nature pretty well, and those who believe that anything other than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible deserves a trip to hell and excommunication from polite society. The trial itself was a gripping account of small-town drama unfolding over the course of a year, of parents and children enduring intimidation and humiliation. Witnesses from both sides turned the courtroom into a fascinating arena of scientific evidence versus faith dressed in science’s clothing. At least three books have come out of the case (see further reading below for details), and Ed Humes’ Pulitzer Prize-winning writing style and even-handed coverage make Monkey Girl a compelling choice. Humes not only covers the case, he describes the town as the trial transforms it:

Dover sits firmly astride the front lines of America’s culture war, occupying the uneasy space between America’s religious faith and its longstanding fondness for scientific progress, between an idealized past and an uncertain future, between education and indoctrination, between the natural and the supernatural. For the next several months, the ninth floor courtroom in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building will belong to Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District, an unintentionally epic lawsuit filed by a group of parents against their evolution-doubting school board. The case does indeed have much in common with the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial, a public spectacle in which Clarence Darrow and the American Civil Liberties Union unsuccessfully challenged a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution. But unlike its illustrious predecessor (which, popular imagination and classic films notwithstanding, had exactly no impact on the law or educational practice at the time), the Dover case is positioned to define (or redefine) for decades just what children are taught about where we come from. [prologue, Monkey Girl]

The controversy has shifted a bit since the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, which first questioned the legality of teaching Darwin’s theory of Evolution in public schools. World War II and the Cold War demanded that the United States produce competent scientists. This demand seemed to effectively muzzle fundamentalists for a few decades. High School Biology classes approaching the Theory of Evolution would often involve an uneasy truce involving the words “changes over time” and neatly sidestepping the origins of life. Until reading this book, I assumed that all but the most extreme religious fundamentalists were fine with this truce. Humes’ book shows precisely how much this has changed.

While the book mostly focuses on the Dover trial, Humes also takes us to a similar trial in Kansas, the controversy involving the gift shop at the Grand Canyon, where Creationists have had some success in censoring information about the geological age of the national monument. Most importantly, Humes follows the trail of intellectual and legal deception to the pseudo-scientific think-tank called The Discovery Institute, a group of scientists who exclude any scientific evidence in conflict with Christian Scripture.

The Dover Trial is full of drama and bad debate, A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st century, or Inherit the Wind, Redux. Humes shows in the Dover case how Creationism in public schools, having been defeated in courts during the late 20th century under the Separation of Church and State clause of the First Amendment, evolved (pun intended) into the virtually identical Intelligent Design movement, to Dover, Pennsylvania among other places. Some of the most shocking moments of the trial feature the ironic displays of dishonesty which ultimately brought down the school board members who were trying to bring religion into the local biology classrooms. Humes covers the scope of the grand scheme of religious activists, who plan on infusing not only science classes with Christian dogma and bias, but History, Government, and other classes as well.

This very book elicits criticism from those whose definition of “Fair and Balanced” have been warped to Orwellian proportions by Fox News and today’s most hyperbolic propagandists. Humes compassionately portrays how the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs in this case, were attacked and their children mocked at school out of ignorance. The Dover case pitted one kind of Christians against another. Those who favored the separation of Church and State were attacked as “not Christian enough”, in a great example of how the separation of these two functions protects freedom of religion. Another surprising turn of events showed how the presiding judge, a Bush-supporting Republican was branded as a liberal judicial activist for defending the constitution.

While it is clear on which side Humes’ sympathies lie, the reader is necessarily confronted with the heart of the so-called controversy: regarding extreme religious views which by definition do not tolerate any opposing views, what are the limits of tolerance in society? How can a democracy defend pluralism from those whose religious beliefs clash so vehemently with the definition of reality itself by the rest of the world, both secular and religious? The Framers of the Constitution were historically not far away from centuries of religious wars in Europe which constantly threw governments into turmoil. They saw the value of the separation of church and state to both church and state. Back in those days religious persecution meant death or incarceration because of one’s beliefs, not what passes for persecution these days in the minds of some.

One gets the strong impression reading Humes’ insightful analysis, that this latest version of the old Darwin-vs.-God controversy is the product of the removal of Critical Thinking skills from the mainstream public school curriculum, and the lack of a Cold War Era push towards developments in Math & Science, supported by all but the most outspoken of Bible literalists, who constantly attempt to couch the debate as “God vs. Darwin”, when in fact, most religions don’t require people to choose between the two. In my opinion, this is a clear case of the old adage, “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”. Young-Earth Creationists might benefit from not ignoring the history of the Catholic Church’s censorship of Copernicus and Galileo hundreds of years ago, and ask themselves why the Pope doesn’t have a big problem with Darwin’s theories today.

-Philadelphic

Further reading on the Dover Trial: (after the break…)
(more…)

Oath, Shmoath. Obama was President at Noon

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Yes, so some idiots are asserting that Obama is not President until he swears the correct oath. (And some not so idiots are still asserting that Chief Justice Roberts had no authority to modify the language of the oath with “so help me God,” and that could invalidate at least the oath, although there’s no prohibition against Obama adding his own bit at the end). Indeed, the Constitution states rather clearly in Article II, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— ‘‘I do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’’

That’s either modified or made obsolete by Section 1 of the 20th Amendment, which states:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Some experts and historians claim that as of noon, power automatically switches from outgoing to incoming presidents. To me, that makes the most sense. Better to have a president in office than have a hiatus where the question arises regarding whether the Vice President is temporarily the President, whether during the hiatus, the outgoing President is president, or whether there is no president.

I think, though, that this issue has already been considered and fairly determined by the Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution: Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States: Supplements to the 2002 Edition, found on the GPO Access website.

The annotations for the Oath:

What is the time relationship between a President’s assumption of office and his taking the oath? Apparently, the former comes first, this answer appearing to be the assumption of the language of the clause. The Second Congress assumed that President Washington took office on March 4, 1789, (107) although he did not take the oath until the following April 30.

That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to ‘‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,’’ might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions based on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution. (108) The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization. (109) And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory, but only in passing. (110) Beyond these isolated instances, it does not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to the President’s powers.

107: Act of March 1, 1792, 1 Stat. 239, § 12.
108: 2 J. Richardson, supra at 576. Chief Justice Taney, who as a member of
Jackson’s Cabinet had drafted the message, later repudiated this possible reading
of the message. 2 C. WARREN, THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY 223-
224 (1926).
109: 6 J. Richardson, supra at 25.
110: 2 TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON 200, 293, 296 (1868).

If that’s not clear enough, I think we would need a very strong reason not to assume Obama is and was President of the United States the moment the clock struck noon. Something stronger than a slip of the tongue.

Of course, if I were he, I’d probably recite it again for good measure. Can’t be too careful.

UPDATE: Obama retook the oath. With NO BIBLE! Doesn’t that invalidate it in the eyes of all Christians? An abundance of caution, indeed.

UPDATE: MSNBC interviews Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who indicates that the do-over was unnecessary, and that under the 20th Amendment, the successors take over immediately at noon. He also reminds us that Taft took an incorrect oath, and never retook it. Again, the reference to an “abundance of caution.” Professor Tribe humorously recalls that Chief Justice Roberts was a student of his, and shouldn’t be prone to making such a mistake. (Obama was also a student of his.)

President Barack Obama

Boycott “Homeland Security USA” on ABC

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

The Rights Working Group, an American human rights interest group, has targeted Homeland Security USA, a new ABC “reality” show which premiered on January 6, for its egregious depiction of immigration in the U.S. Specifically, the Rights Working Group asserts that the show is full of propaganda for official behavior that tramples human rights.

Rights Working Group’s Communications Director, Priya Doshi, distributed a template letter for expressing disappointment and disgust to ABC affiliates who broadcast the show:

Dear ABC Affiliate,

I am writing to express my concern over ABC’s new “reality” show called “Homeland Security USA.” Please consider what the show does not cover. The show’s Executive Producer said the show was “not investigative journalism” but what he doesn’t say is that the show is pure propaganda to promote a better image for a government agency whose practices routinely violate the human rights of people in this country.

“Homeland Security USA” has not, and based on what I’ve seen, will not air scenes from immigration raids where (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) ICE agents descend with helicopters and guns drawn and throw unresisting people to the ground. The program won’t show how those detained don’t get a phone call to their families or access to a lawyer before they are thrown in detention. It won’t take viewers inside overcrowded detention centers used to lock up immigrant detainees where access to basic medical care is often denied even to those with chronic and serious conditions. This reality series won’t show viewers the asylum seekers, pregnant women, mentally and physically disabled people, and families with small children who are among the hundreds and thousands currently in ICE detention facilities. And ICE agents aren’t likely to deliver on air apologies when they arrest and detain legal immigrants and even citizens because they fit a certain ethnic or religious profile.

Please express my deep objections over the reality that is missing from this so-called “reality” program to the ABC network.

Regards,

Learn more about the group’s campaign to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable by visiting the Rights Working Group website and signing a petition or helping educate others about the human rights violations of the DHS, which, according to RWG, include:

-Warrantless and aggressive raids on homes and workplaces, often without granting detainees the right to a phone call or counsel.
-Detainees being held in inhumane and overcrowded conditions, often without charges, and for months and even years.
-The backlogging of naturalizations due to FBI security name checks linked only to race, religion, or natural origin.

image from Rights Working Group
(image from Rights Working Group)

Related Articles:

Bush Administration Makes Last-Ditch Effort to Diminish Women’s Rights

DC Metro “Random” Searches are Unconstitutional – And They Pretty Much Admit It

Spreading Democracy?

Dark Chambers: The Escalating War on Photography