“JFK’s speech was to reassure Americans that he wasn’t a religious fanatic. Mitt’s was to tell evangelical Christians, ‘I’m a religious fanatic just like you.’”
That harsh judgment came from Jon Krakauer, author of Under the Banner of Heaven, a best seller about the Mormons, when columnist Maureen Dowd asked him about Mitt Romney’s 12/6 speech on religion in America.
Some may find his assessment simplistic, even a caricature of what Romney said. After all, a few commentators thought that Romney actually elevated the debate about the role of religion in our country.
And several suggested that Mike Huckabee, gaining in Iowa by telling every camera “Faith doesn’t just influence me, it really defines me,” challenged Romney to say the same about his Mormon faith—which was calculated to make Romney look bad no matter how he replied.
On the first page of his speech, Romney sounded like he was offering an alternative to Huckabee. Romney’s comeback was, “I do not define my candidacy by my religion...
“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin…
“As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution—and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.”
Like John F. Kennedy's words to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960, Romney’s seemed aimed at reassuring voters that he would never allow his church to tell him how to run the country.
He seemed to echo JFK: “I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office… I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”
As Romney’s speech went on, however, it became clear that he did not share Kennedy’s heartfelt belief “in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”
For although Romney agreed that churches should never impose teachings about their faith on the nation, he made a gaping exception for their teachings about morals. Indeed, Romney made the stunning assertion that “while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.”
To what extent this “common creed of moral convictions” actually exists is arguable. But insofar at it does, Romney has no problem imposing it on fellow citizens. He quotes John Adams’ opinion favorably: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”
When Romney says, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom,” he literally means that freedom requires government to impose at least the moral codes on which major religions agree. Citizens who deny this common creed or the government’s right to codify it in laws are dismissed as “the religion of secularism.” There is no room for the freedom from religion which the constitutional separation of church and state requires.
This is a far cry from JFK. When Kennedy said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” he meant absolute.
He explicitly cited a 1948 statement by the U.S. Bishops that strongly endorsed church-state separation—a statement issued less than a year after the courts officially adopted Thomas Jefferson’s model of a wall of separation between church and state as binding and normative.
Kennedy said, “I believe in an America…where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council or Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials…”
And among those church positions that government should never impose on the public he specifically included those on moral issues. He even made reference to birth control, divorce, censorship and gambling as explicit examples.
So Krakauer’s judgment appears not only warranted, but inescapable. Like the religious right that elected Bush and seems increasingly enamored of ordained Baptist minister Huckabee, Romney favors imposing religious moral values on those who disagree with them.
As president, he would see himself as the arbiter of our “common creed of moral convictions.” Those who disagreed would be dismissed as godless secularists—to whom the Constitution evidently gives no rights—even though some of the dissenters might be devout Episcopalians or liberal Catholics or followers of non-Christian world religions with millions of adherents.
In this light, it remains John F. Kennedy who elevated the discussion about religion in the United States. Mitt Romney did nothing to add to JFK’s insight, constitutional analysis, defense of religious tolerance and commitment to liberty in matters religious. In fact what Romney did was to detract from Kennedy’s achievement, by denying that the separation of church and state should protect us from the imposition of churches' moral views, including those of the religious right.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
The More Widely Government and Religion Are Separated, The Better It Is for Both
Two commentaries in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle charge that recent actions of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) on teaching evolution in the science curriculum violate the wall of separation between church and state—and suggest more to come.
The commentaries are significant, because they uphold the U.S. Constitution and current Texas education policy against attempts by a sizeable number of Texas Republicans to force conservative Christian religious doctrine on students in public schools.
The charges were leveled in a column by Rick Casey entitled “Why science needs history,” and in an editorial, “Bad science: Ouster of science curriculum chief suggests religious doctrine might be infecting education agency.”
Both take off from the case of Chris Castillo Comer, a veteran science teacher and for the last nine years TEA’s director of science curriculum.
Comer was suspended after she forwarded an email to some Austin contacts announcing a lecture by Barbara Forrest, professor of philosophy at Southeast Louisiana University and coauthor of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” which is critical of the intelligent design movement. The commentaries say Comer was then fired, or forced to resign.
TEA officials say that factors besides the email were involved in the termination, but no other grounds have been claimed.
What is certain is that less than two hours after Comer sent her email, Lizzette Reynolds—the TEA’s senior advisor on state initiatives for less than a year—fired off a memo calling for Comer’s termination. Reynolds said the State Board, the governor and legislators would not like the TEA supporting a criticism of intelligent design, and that recommending the lecture was “an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities.”
Reynolds’ prior positions reflect a strong dedication to conservative Republican positions: she was a legislative director for George W. Bush while he was governor of Texas, and then served in his U.S. Department of Education.
Casey asks: “So a science educator should be fired for promoting a lecture by a supporter of science? What kinds of ‘statewide initiatives’ does this senior advisor promote?”
The editorial adds: “Since Texas policy supports the inclusion of evolution in science curriculum, it’s hard to see how Comer was violating state policy by circulating an event notice sent out by a group that endorses teaching evolution.”
Both commentaries conclude that Comer lost her job because she agrees with Forrest’s position that any attempt to teach creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution is basically “to lie to students about evolution.”
Casey notes that “Promoters of creationism and intelligent design sometimes suggest that the biblical account deserves a special place in our schools (as opposed to, say, Hindu or Hopi creation stories) because the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.”
But he reminds us that the courts have consistently denied the authority of school boards to mandate teaching creationism, and that two years ago a federal judge in Pennsylvania, after listening to six weeks of expert testimony and legal arguments, ruled that intelligent design was nothing more than “creationism relabeled”—and that a local school board could not mandate teaching it.
The commentaries lament that Reynolds’ rationale and Comer’s subsequent termination make it appear that religious conservatives on the TEA and the State Board of Education want to head down the road outlawed in Pennsylvania.
Casey offers a lengthy, excellent analysis showing why the wall of separation is a practical necessity for U.S. democracy—and why injecting religion into the science curriculum is such a dismal, untenable idea.
He cites five examples, from 17th century Boston to 1869 in Cincinnati, of Christian groups trying use public agencies to force other Christian groups to follow disagreeable doctrines.
He argues that initially, at least, the doctrine of separation of church and state “was not a sop to Jews or Muslims or ACLU atheists. It was developed to keep some Christians from ruling the consciences of other Christians, just as for centuries they had attempted to do in Europe.”
I disagree with Casey that the doctrine is not found in the U.S. Constitution. As I noted in a post on 10/22/07, the First Amendment’s language about religion was distilled from Virginia’s “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” which Thomas Jefferson proposed as governor in 1779. It was Jefferson who coined the phrase “wall of separation.” It took him seven more years to get the Virginia legislature to pass the act, and three years after that for the language to be added to the Constitution. But Casey is correct in one respect, in that it was not until 1947 that the courts officially adopt Jefferson’s interpretation of religious freedom as binding and normative.
The point, which I have argued in several posts, is that the wall of separation between church and state is necessary to any democracy, not only to keep some Christians from lording it over other Christians, but to prevent any religious group from imposing its doctrines on others. That is why it is important not only for democracy in the United States, but also for civility between Jews and Palestinians and among various branches of Islam in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Casey recalls that in 1869 the issue in Cincinnati was which version of the Bible was best. The Cincinnati school board voted 22-15 to honor the request of Catholic parents to end the reading of the Protestant Bible in school. The Protestants sued, and a three-judge panel over-ruled the school board. But the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the school board’s decision, arguing in the strongest possible terms that the decision reaffirmed the necessity of separating church and state.
Casey finds the court’s wording persuasive and moving—and important for both church and state to ponder. So do I:
“When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine and not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.”
The commentaries are significant, because they uphold the U.S. Constitution and current Texas education policy against attempts by a sizeable number of Texas Republicans to force conservative Christian religious doctrine on students in public schools.
The charges were leveled in a column by Rick Casey entitled “Why science needs history,” and in an editorial, “Bad science: Ouster of science curriculum chief suggests religious doctrine might be infecting education agency.”
Both take off from the case of Chris Castillo Comer, a veteran science teacher and for the last nine years TEA’s director of science curriculum.
Comer was suspended after she forwarded an email to some Austin contacts announcing a lecture by Barbara Forrest, professor of philosophy at Southeast Louisiana University and coauthor of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” which is critical of the intelligent design movement. The commentaries say Comer was then fired, or forced to resign.
TEA officials say that factors besides the email were involved in the termination, but no other grounds have been claimed.
What is certain is that less than two hours after Comer sent her email, Lizzette Reynolds—the TEA’s senior advisor on state initiatives for less than a year—fired off a memo calling for Comer’s termination. Reynolds said the State Board, the governor and legislators would not like the TEA supporting a criticism of intelligent design, and that recommending the lecture was “an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities.”
Reynolds’ prior positions reflect a strong dedication to conservative Republican positions: she was a legislative director for George W. Bush while he was governor of Texas, and then served in his U.S. Department of Education.
Casey asks: “So a science educator should be fired for promoting a lecture by a supporter of science? What kinds of ‘statewide initiatives’ does this senior advisor promote?”
The editorial adds: “Since Texas policy supports the inclusion of evolution in science curriculum, it’s hard to see how Comer was violating state policy by circulating an event notice sent out by a group that endorses teaching evolution.”
Both commentaries conclude that Comer lost her job because she agrees with Forrest’s position that any attempt to teach creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution is basically “to lie to students about evolution.”
Casey notes that “Promoters of creationism and intelligent design sometimes suggest that the biblical account deserves a special place in our schools (as opposed to, say, Hindu or Hopi creation stories) because the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.”
But he reminds us that the courts have consistently denied the authority of school boards to mandate teaching creationism, and that two years ago a federal judge in Pennsylvania, after listening to six weeks of expert testimony and legal arguments, ruled that intelligent design was nothing more than “creationism relabeled”—and that a local school board could not mandate teaching it.
The commentaries lament that Reynolds’ rationale and Comer’s subsequent termination make it appear that religious conservatives on the TEA and the State Board of Education want to head down the road outlawed in Pennsylvania.
Casey offers a lengthy, excellent analysis showing why the wall of separation is a practical necessity for U.S. democracy—and why injecting religion into the science curriculum is such a dismal, untenable idea.
He cites five examples, from 17th century Boston to 1869 in Cincinnati, of Christian groups trying use public agencies to force other Christian groups to follow disagreeable doctrines.
He argues that initially, at least, the doctrine of separation of church and state “was not a sop to Jews or Muslims or ACLU atheists. It was developed to keep some Christians from ruling the consciences of other Christians, just as for centuries they had attempted to do in Europe.”
I disagree with Casey that the doctrine is not found in the U.S. Constitution. As I noted in a post on 10/22/07, the First Amendment’s language about religion was distilled from Virginia’s “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” which Thomas Jefferson proposed as governor in 1779. It was Jefferson who coined the phrase “wall of separation.” It took him seven more years to get the Virginia legislature to pass the act, and three years after that for the language to be added to the Constitution. But Casey is correct in one respect, in that it was not until 1947 that the courts officially adopt Jefferson’s interpretation of religious freedom as binding and normative.
The point, which I have argued in several posts, is that the wall of separation between church and state is necessary to any democracy, not only to keep some Christians from lording it over other Christians, but to prevent any religious group from imposing its doctrines on others. That is why it is important not only for democracy in the United States, but also for civility between Jews and Palestinians and among various branches of Islam in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Casey recalls that in 1869 the issue in Cincinnati was which version of the Bible was best. The Cincinnati school board voted 22-15 to honor the request of Catholic parents to end the reading of the Protestant Bible in school. The Protestants sued, and a three-judge panel over-ruled the school board. But the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the school board’s decision, arguing in the strongest possible terms that the decision reaffirmed the necessity of separating church and state.
Casey finds the court’s wording persuasive and moving—and important for both church and state to ponder. So do I:
“When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine and not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.”
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Spong: Purging Gays Would Decimate Catholic Clergy, Even Bishops and Cardinals
The 12/7 edition of the National Catholic Reporter has a letter from New Jersey reader Randy Kowalik praising its 11/2 editorial, which decried "the treatment of gay people in our church." But Kowalik says the editorial did not go far enough about the root cause of the mistreatment. Quoting a recent analysis, insightful and inciteful, by retired Episocpal Bishop John Shelby Spong, Kowalik suggests the most basic explanation is duplicity and dishonesty about the high percentage of Catholic clergy who are gay. The bulk of the letter follows.
Your editorial was one of the best statements I have read in years about the treatment of gay people within our church (NCR, Nov. 2). However, it still didn’t dare verbalize the root cause of the prejudice and spiritual tyranny: the actions of Pope Benedict XVI, both now and as the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
An eloquent analysis of the problem was given by retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong at a recent convention of Dignity. Quoting from Bishop Spong expresses the reality and truth that most of the Catholic media somehow fear stating. “When Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, one of his first acts was to announce his intention to purge gay males from the ranks of the Catholic priesthood. When the fine print was read, however, he limited himself to preventing aggressive or militant homosexual advocates from becoming priests. Even this pope knew full well that a purge of gay men from the ranks of the Catholic priesthood would decimate the clergy, to say nothing of culling significantly the members of the College of Cardinals, the archbishops and the bishops of that church. The duplicity and dishonesty surrounding this issue in the Catholic church is breathtaking.”
Has any member of the Catholic hierarchy had the courage to say this in public before? Did it take an Episcopal bishop to speak the truth?
Your editorial was one of the best statements I have read in years about the treatment of gay people within our church (NCR, Nov. 2). However, it still didn’t dare verbalize the root cause of the prejudice and spiritual tyranny: the actions of Pope Benedict XVI, both now and as the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
An eloquent analysis of the problem was given by retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong at a recent convention of Dignity. Quoting from Bishop Spong expresses the reality and truth that most of the Catholic media somehow fear stating. “When Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, one of his first acts was to announce his intention to purge gay males from the ranks of the Catholic priesthood. When the fine print was read, however, he limited himself to preventing aggressive or militant homosexual advocates from becoming priests. Even this pope knew full well that a purge of gay men from the ranks of the Catholic priesthood would decimate the clergy, to say nothing of culling significantly the members of the College of Cardinals, the archbishops and the bishops of that church. The duplicity and dishonesty surrounding this issue in the Catholic church is breathtaking.”
Has any member of the Catholic hierarchy had the courage to say this in public before? Did it take an Episcopal bishop to speak the truth?
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Oscar and Lynn Wyatt Dance Around the Potholes: How About a Pardon, George?
Houston socialite and philanthropist Lynn Wyatt said there are lessons to be learned from all events in life, even watching a husband of four decades plead guilty to conspiring to funnel illegal kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime.
"My philosophy is you have to dance around the potholes," Lynn Wyatt said, adding: "This was a particularly deep pothole."
The pothole in question was a federal indictment charging that Oscar Wyatt Jr., her 83-year old husband, paid illegal surcharges demanded by Saddam's regime to purchase Iraqi oil under the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program in 2001. Wyatt was accused of multiple felonies that could have resulted in lengthy jail time—including conspiracy, wire fraud and violating U.S. laws governing dealings with Iraq. He would not have survived the theoretical maximum, 74 years.
Wyatt did himself and his family a favor by agreeing to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy, acknowledging that he orchestrated a single $200,000 surcharge payment.
Defense and prosecution attorneys stipulated that under federal sentencing guidelines the plea meant imprisonment of 18 to 24 months. But in a move that may be unprecedented, Denny Chin, the federal judge on the case, reduced the sentence to a year and a day, citing an avalanche of support from admirers who spoke up for Wyatt’s multiple acts of generosity over several decades, often anonymously and to strangers.
With good behavior, Wyatt could actually reduce his confinement by about 45 days and spend the last 30 days in a halfway house.
Back in Houston yesterday to get his affairs in order before he starts his sentence in January, Wyatt said “I’m bearing up pretty well for an old man who’s going to jail.”
Given all that the Wyatts have done philanthropically and for Houston, it’s astonishing that some local official hasn’t suggested that a presidential pardon would be appropriate. Multiple justifications apply.
The case against Wyatt had some Martha Stewart aspects—in that several oil companies did what he did, yet so far only two oil executives have been convicted, counting him.
Wyatt never claimed to be a saint. He was sometimes regarded as the meanest Texas oilman. But his success in a cut-throat industry was attributable in part to a reputation for stretching regulations almost to the breaking point. He skated on thin ice often enough that sooner or later it was bound to collapse. In the Oil-for-Food abuses he seemed to be selected as an easy target (like Stewart for not fully disclosing her insider trading), even though there were certainly more egregious offenders.
In contrast with Ken Lay and several of the Enron perps, Wyatt at least had the fortitude and good grace to say in public that he had indeed broken the law, that he understood he was accountable for his actions—and to state candidly that he was settling because he was too old to waste what days he has left on earth on the futility of fighting an inevitable jail sentence.
Above and beyond the years of good deeds that influenced the judge, has the federal government ever truly thanked Oscar Wyatt for his pivotal role in December of 1990, when during a visit to Baghdad he secured the release of two dozen U.S. oil workers whom Saddam Hussein had captured in Kuwait and was holding hostage on the eve of Desert Storm?
At the time Wyatt succeeded where U.S. policy had failed. Certainly that experience colored his attitude that U.S. strictures about the Oil-for-Food program would not be very successful either. And the current Bush administration pretty much agreed with him when it pushed its own invasion of Iraq.
In other words, the country and the Bush family owe the Wyatt family big time on Iraq. Bush has cut himself, Cheney and other members of his administration a lot more slack on laws about Iraq than the government did Wyatt. It would be a nice touch for George W. Bush to pardon him.
"My philosophy is you have to dance around the potholes," Lynn Wyatt said, adding: "This was a particularly deep pothole."
The pothole in question was a federal indictment charging that Oscar Wyatt Jr., her 83-year old husband, paid illegal surcharges demanded by Saddam's regime to purchase Iraqi oil under the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program in 2001. Wyatt was accused of multiple felonies that could have resulted in lengthy jail time—including conspiracy, wire fraud and violating U.S. laws governing dealings with Iraq. He would not have survived the theoretical maximum, 74 years.
Wyatt did himself and his family a favor by agreeing to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy, acknowledging that he orchestrated a single $200,000 surcharge payment.
Defense and prosecution attorneys stipulated that under federal sentencing guidelines the plea meant imprisonment of 18 to 24 months. But in a move that may be unprecedented, Denny Chin, the federal judge on the case, reduced the sentence to a year and a day, citing an avalanche of support from admirers who spoke up for Wyatt’s multiple acts of generosity over several decades, often anonymously and to strangers.
With good behavior, Wyatt could actually reduce his confinement by about 45 days and spend the last 30 days in a halfway house.
Back in Houston yesterday to get his affairs in order before he starts his sentence in January, Wyatt said “I’m bearing up pretty well for an old man who’s going to jail.”
Given all that the Wyatts have done philanthropically and for Houston, it’s astonishing that some local official hasn’t suggested that a presidential pardon would be appropriate. Multiple justifications apply.
The case against Wyatt had some Martha Stewart aspects—in that several oil companies did what he did, yet so far only two oil executives have been convicted, counting him.
Wyatt never claimed to be a saint. He was sometimes regarded as the meanest Texas oilman. But his success in a cut-throat industry was attributable in part to a reputation for stretching regulations almost to the breaking point. He skated on thin ice often enough that sooner or later it was bound to collapse. In the Oil-for-Food abuses he seemed to be selected as an easy target (like Stewart for not fully disclosing her insider trading), even though there were certainly more egregious offenders.
In contrast with Ken Lay and several of the Enron perps, Wyatt at least had the fortitude and good grace to say in public that he had indeed broken the law, that he understood he was accountable for his actions—and to state candidly that he was settling because he was too old to waste what days he has left on earth on the futility of fighting an inevitable jail sentence.
Above and beyond the years of good deeds that influenced the judge, has the federal government ever truly thanked Oscar Wyatt for his pivotal role in December of 1990, when during a visit to Baghdad he secured the release of two dozen U.S. oil workers whom Saddam Hussein had captured in Kuwait and was holding hostage on the eve of Desert Storm?
At the time Wyatt succeeded where U.S. policy had failed. Certainly that experience colored his attitude that U.S. strictures about the Oil-for-Food program would not be very successful either. And the current Bush administration pretty much agreed with him when it pushed its own invasion of Iraq.
In other words, the country and the Bush family owe the Wyatt family big time on Iraq. Bush has cut himself, Cheney and other members of his administration a lot more slack on laws about Iraq than the government did Wyatt. It would be a nice touch for George W. Bush to pardon him.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
FEMA to New Orleans Aquarium of the Americas: Happy Thanksgiving, After All
My 11/14 post has a happy ending. After a 17-month dispute, the staff of New Orleans' Audibon Aquarium of the Americas got a letter yesterday from Carlos Castillo, FEMA assistant director of disaster assistance, saying that FEMA has reversed itself and would reimburse the aquarium for the cost of restocking after Hurricane Katrina.
FEMA had declined to pay for the new fish because the aquarium staff had caught them on their own instead of acquiring them from commercial sources--even though FEMA's approach would have cost five times as much.
Castillo said simply, "the applicant has demonstrated that it was more cost-effective to catch the replacement fish."
Melissa Lee, a spokeswoman for the aquarium, said the facility would use the money to help it rebound from nine months of closure after Katrina. A linchpin of the city's tourism-based economy, the aquarium is seeing only 70 percent of its pre-storm visitors and has been forced to lay off 80 percent of its staff. "We felt confident that our appeal would go through. But of course, it's a nice Thanksgiving."
FEMA had declined to pay for the new fish because the aquarium staff had caught them on their own instead of acquiring them from commercial sources--even though FEMA's approach would have cost five times as much.
Castillo said simply, "the applicant has demonstrated that it was more cost-effective to catch the replacement fish."
Melissa Lee, a spokeswoman for the aquarium, said the facility would use the money to help it rebound from nine months of closure after Katrina. A linchpin of the city's tourism-based economy, the aquarium is seeing only 70 percent of its pre-storm visitors and has been forced to lay off 80 percent of its staff. "We felt confident that our appeal would go through. But of course, it's a nice Thanksgiving."
Thursday, November 15, 2007
FDR vs. Citigroup: Managed Capitalism Beats Laissez-Faire, Over and Over Again
Businessman and philanthropist Sir John Templeton—as in Templeton Funds, the Templeton Foundation, and the annual, financially stunning Templeton Prize for Progress Towards Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities (the 2007 winner got $1.5 million)—once observed that the four most dangerous words in the English language are, “This time it’s different.”
This tidbit we learn from Robert Kuttner in an op-ed piece entitled “Painful truth: Free-market ideology has failed the test,” in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle and originally in the Los Angeles Times.
Kuttner, author of “The Squandering of America: How the Failure of Our Politics Undermines Our Prosperity,” is a fellow at Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy group.
What was supposed to be different this time? Starting in the 1970s, Kuttner says, “Free-market economists and financial elites convinced Congress and presidents of both parties that a deregulated economy would be a more dynamic one; that something new about technology or trade or ideology meant that markets were at last truly self-governing.”
But the subprime mess revealed this to be a “failed fantasy.” As Kuttner puts it succinctly, “We have just had a full field test of free-market ideology, and once again it failed.”
Not only did it fail. The failure involved some of the same mistakes that culminated in the stock market crash of 1929—and even more telling, some of the same players.
The repeated mistakes? “Revisit the financial abuses of the laissez-faire 1920s and you will find different details but the same essentials: deceptive claims about stocks, bonds and balance sheets; conflicts of interest on the part of insiders; excess leverage to finance speculative bets; financial engineering that extracts wealth and does nothing for the real economy.”
And who was one of the players in the 20s? National City Bank—of which Citigroup is lineal successor! Like Citigroup and other huge financial institutions today, National City Bank turned dubious loans into bonds.
Kuttner continues: “In the subprime affair, unregulated mortgage lenders threw away underwriting rules and made teaser loans to people with sketchy credit histories. In more than half the cases, they didn’t even ask for the borrower’s income.
“But in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of financial deregulation, a Wall Street bank could turn the loan into a bond; a credit rating agency using obscure alchemy could bless the bond with a triple-A rating, and some consenting adult could be found to buy it. At each step, bankers, brokers and bond-raters could conveniently extract fees.”
The whole episode shows anew that FDR was exactly right to build a system of managed capitalism. “Government mandated extensive disclosures and bank supervision, and it prohibited a broad range of conflicts of interest. Commercial banking was separated from the underwriting and sale of securities.
“That regulatory system anchored 30 years of broadly distributed prosperity after World War II, an era when the financial economy played its appropriate role as servant rather than master of the real economy.”
The final irony is that Congress passed a law in 1994 that should have headed off the entire subprime debacle. It required all mortgage lenders to use prudent underwriting standards. “But the Federal Reserve, a devout believer in the magic of markets, refused to issue regulations.”
Kuttner notes there is one crucial difference between 1929 and 2007—a difference that, hopefully, ensures “only” a bad recession and not another depression: the Federal Reserve is a lot better now at bailing out Wall Street’s speculative failures.
But even that has downsides: imprudently lower interest rates, which risk higher inflation, increase pressure on the dollar and enable more cheap money, to fuel “the next round of speculative excess.”
Cogently and wryly, Kuttner can’t resist noting that even this level of Fed activity “is one more piece of proof that markets don’t regulate themselves.”
Congress needs to reverse the dismantling of FDR’s managed capitalism. As the last 80 years of U.S. history have shown over and over again, it is the only system capable of saving capitalism from itself.
This tidbit we learn from Robert Kuttner in an op-ed piece entitled “Painful truth: Free-market ideology has failed the test,” in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle and originally in the Los Angeles Times.
Kuttner, author of “The Squandering of America: How the Failure of Our Politics Undermines Our Prosperity,” is a fellow at Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy group.
What was supposed to be different this time? Starting in the 1970s, Kuttner says, “Free-market economists and financial elites convinced Congress and presidents of both parties that a deregulated economy would be a more dynamic one; that something new about technology or trade or ideology meant that markets were at last truly self-governing.”
But the subprime mess revealed this to be a “failed fantasy.” As Kuttner puts it succinctly, “We have just had a full field test of free-market ideology, and once again it failed.”
Not only did it fail. The failure involved some of the same mistakes that culminated in the stock market crash of 1929—and even more telling, some of the same players.
The repeated mistakes? “Revisit the financial abuses of the laissez-faire 1920s and you will find different details but the same essentials: deceptive claims about stocks, bonds and balance sheets; conflicts of interest on the part of insiders; excess leverage to finance speculative bets; financial engineering that extracts wealth and does nothing for the real economy.”
And who was one of the players in the 20s? National City Bank—of which Citigroup is lineal successor! Like Citigroup and other huge financial institutions today, National City Bank turned dubious loans into bonds.
Kuttner continues: “In the subprime affair, unregulated mortgage lenders threw away underwriting rules and made teaser loans to people with sketchy credit histories. In more than half the cases, they didn’t even ask for the borrower’s income.
“But in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of financial deregulation, a Wall Street bank could turn the loan into a bond; a credit rating agency using obscure alchemy could bless the bond with a triple-A rating, and some consenting adult could be found to buy it. At each step, bankers, brokers and bond-raters could conveniently extract fees.”
The whole episode shows anew that FDR was exactly right to build a system of managed capitalism. “Government mandated extensive disclosures and bank supervision, and it prohibited a broad range of conflicts of interest. Commercial banking was separated from the underwriting and sale of securities.
“That regulatory system anchored 30 years of broadly distributed prosperity after World War II, an era when the financial economy played its appropriate role as servant rather than master of the real economy.”
The final irony is that Congress passed a law in 1994 that should have headed off the entire subprime debacle. It required all mortgage lenders to use prudent underwriting standards. “But the Federal Reserve, a devout believer in the magic of markets, refused to issue regulations.”
Kuttner notes there is one crucial difference between 1929 and 2007—a difference that, hopefully, ensures “only” a bad recession and not another depression: the Federal Reserve is a lot better now at bailing out Wall Street’s speculative failures.
But even that has downsides: imprudently lower interest rates, which risk higher inflation, increase pressure on the dollar and enable more cheap money, to fuel “the next round of speculative excess.”
Cogently and wryly, Kuttner can’t resist noting that even this level of Fed activity “is one more piece of proof that markets don’t regulate themselves.”
Congress needs to reverse the dismantling of FDR’s managed capitalism. As the last 80 years of U.S. history have shown over and over again, it is the only system capable of saving capitalism from itself.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
FEMA Punishes New Orleans Aquarium—For Saving Taxpayers a Half Million Dollars!
Once more with FEMA in New Orleans, no good deed goes unpunished.
Here’s some math even a fifth-grader would find bizarre:
What FEMA pledged to restock the New Orleans Aquarium after Hurricane Katrina: $616,000.
What the aquarium actually spent: $99,766.
What FEMA will reimburse: $0.
So reports the Associate Press in an article posted on the WWL-TV website.
What did the Audibon Aquarium of the Americas do wrong? It showed too much ingenuity and creativity in getting the job done as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible!
Before FEMA bothered to share some critical bits of red tape with them, the aquarium staff went out and replaced the dead fish the old fashioned way, with hooks and nets!
But FEMA’s reading of disaster recovery laws is that they required the aquarium to buy replacement fish of the same age and size as those in the tanks when Katina killed the power—and buy them only from commercial sources.
It would have made no sense to apply these rules even if FEMA had properly communicated them. With 900,000 annual visitors before Katrina, the aquarium was a money-maker that wanted to reopen as early as possible. Audibon sent a team on an expedition to the Gulf of Mexico, the Florida Keys and Bahamas, where they caught 1,681 fish for $99,766.
About a dozen aquarium staffers went fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving between January and May 2006, catching tiny highhat fish, yellowtail snapper, jackfish and others. The staffers worked 12-hour days but put in for only eight hours a day, according to invoices.
The catch was placed in a 1,000-gallon tank fitted to a flatbed trailer for the trip to New Orleans. TV crews and a local newspaper reporter tagged along on some trips but paid their own bills.
Most of the fish were caught in Florida waters for one-fifth the price charged by online vendors and specialty stores—suppliers FEMA recommended using.
The aquarium has appealed to FEMA offices in Texas and Washington. It would serve FEMA right if the dispute winds up in federal court, where a judge may tell the agency that stupidity is not much help with disaster recovery.
Here’s some math even a fifth-grader would find bizarre:
What FEMA pledged to restock the New Orleans Aquarium after Hurricane Katrina: $616,000.
What the aquarium actually spent: $99,766.
What FEMA will reimburse: $0.
So reports the Associate Press in an article posted on the WWL-TV website.
What did the Audibon Aquarium of the Americas do wrong? It showed too much ingenuity and creativity in getting the job done as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible!
Before FEMA bothered to share some critical bits of red tape with them, the aquarium staff went out and replaced the dead fish the old fashioned way, with hooks and nets!
But FEMA’s reading of disaster recovery laws is that they required the aquarium to buy replacement fish of the same age and size as those in the tanks when Katina killed the power—and buy them only from commercial sources.
It would have made no sense to apply these rules even if FEMA had properly communicated them. With 900,000 annual visitors before Katrina, the aquarium was a money-maker that wanted to reopen as early as possible. Audibon sent a team on an expedition to the Gulf of Mexico, the Florida Keys and Bahamas, where they caught 1,681 fish for $99,766.
About a dozen aquarium staffers went fishing, snorkeling and scuba diving between January and May 2006, catching tiny highhat fish, yellowtail snapper, jackfish and others. The staffers worked 12-hour days but put in for only eight hours a day, according to invoices.
The catch was placed in a 1,000-gallon tank fitted to a flatbed trailer for the trip to New Orleans. TV crews and a local newspaper reporter tagged along on some trips but paid their own bills.
Most of the fish were caught in Florida waters for one-fifth the price charged by online vendors and specialty stores—suppliers FEMA recommended using.
The aquarium has appealed to FEMA offices in Texas and Washington. It would serve FEMA right if the dispute winds up in federal court, where a judge may tell the agency that stupidity is not much help with disaster recovery.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Congress Hands Bush First Veto Override, But Funding the Water Bill Is Another Battle
New Orleans City Business reported yesterday that even though both houses of Congress voted last week to override President Bush’s veto of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)—the first veto override of Bush’s presidency—celebration is premature.
Rep. Richard Baker, R-Baton Rouge, told City Business that WRDA could exert a $77-billion impact on the Louisiana economy while preserving the eroding coastline.
But Mark Davis, director of Tulane University’s Institute on Water Resources Law, said the bill authorizes projects, but appropriates no money to begin construction.
“There’s a lot of critical stuff here but as valuable as many of these projects are, they carry with them no cash,” Davis said. “You can’t accuse Congress of being fiscally irresponsible for passing bills that don’t carry with them a nickel of expenditure. Passing this bill is like you’re qualifying for a race; it doesn’t mean you’re winning the race. This is a license to beg.”
Mark Ford, executive director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, said WRDA includes $1.9 billion in vital coastal restoration projects but it could take more than 10 years for any projects to be funded. Some may never receive any money.
“Occasionally we get projects authorized, and decades pass and they don’t get appropriated,” Ford said. “Everglades restoration was authorized in 2000 and there’s been no money appropriated to help with that project. All the money that has gone into restoration of the Everglades has been put up by the state of Florida. That’s what we’re worried about. We just hope we get some of the more important things like coastal restoration so we can get some meaningful work done in Louisiana in the near term, which realistically is five to 10 years.”
Baker said WRDA has gone six years without being passed largely because Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., put a hold on it every time. Baker said Lott cited as his reason an unfulfilled agreement with Louisiana to divert freshwater from the Mississippi River through Lake Pontchartrain and into the Gulf of Mexico to reduce salinity levels along the Mississippi coast.
Once Baker included language in the bill addressing Lott’s concerns, the Mississippi senator cleared the way for WRDA’s passage. Baker said it is unusual for him to break with Bush but WRDA was too important to Louisiana.
Davis said passing WRDA was essential, but the fact it has taken seven years and four congressional votes to secure passage does not speak well of the system. “This should not be celebrated as a victory, and it should not be taken as proof that the system works,” Davis said.
“To take seven years to come up with a bloated, vetoed water bill that depends on an override vote is not the kind of good news people should be celebrating. I think this was a critically important thing to pass but we need to recognize that this WRDA is just as important for teaching us the limits of what this system can deliver right now.”
Rep. Richard Baker, R-Baton Rouge, told City Business that WRDA could exert a $77-billion impact on the Louisiana economy while preserving the eroding coastline.
But Mark Davis, director of Tulane University’s Institute on Water Resources Law, said the bill authorizes projects, but appropriates no money to begin construction.
“There’s a lot of critical stuff here but as valuable as many of these projects are, they carry with them no cash,” Davis said. “You can’t accuse Congress of being fiscally irresponsible for passing bills that don’t carry with them a nickel of expenditure. Passing this bill is like you’re qualifying for a race; it doesn’t mean you’re winning the race. This is a license to beg.”
Mark Ford, executive director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, said WRDA includes $1.9 billion in vital coastal restoration projects but it could take more than 10 years for any projects to be funded. Some may never receive any money.
“Occasionally we get projects authorized, and decades pass and they don’t get appropriated,” Ford said. “Everglades restoration was authorized in 2000 and there’s been no money appropriated to help with that project. All the money that has gone into restoration of the Everglades has been put up by the state of Florida. That’s what we’re worried about. We just hope we get some of the more important things like coastal restoration so we can get some meaningful work done in Louisiana in the near term, which realistically is five to 10 years.”
Baker said WRDA has gone six years without being passed largely because Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., put a hold on it every time. Baker said Lott cited as his reason an unfulfilled agreement with Louisiana to divert freshwater from the Mississippi River through Lake Pontchartrain and into the Gulf of Mexico to reduce salinity levels along the Mississippi coast.
Once Baker included language in the bill addressing Lott’s concerns, the Mississippi senator cleared the way for WRDA’s passage. Baker said it is unusual for him to break with Bush but WRDA was too important to Louisiana.
Davis said passing WRDA was essential, but the fact it has taken seven years and four congressional votes to secure passage does not speak well of the system. “This should not be celebrated as a victory, and it should not be taken as proof that the system works,” Davis said.
“To take seven years to come up with a bloated, vetoed water bill that depends on an override vote is not the kind of good news people should be celebrating. I think this was a critically important thing to pass but we need to recognize that this WRDA is just as important for teaching us the limits of what this system can deliver right now.”
Monday, November 12, 2007
Armitage Says Blowing Valerie Plame's CIA Cover Was Foolish, But Not Ill Willed
Just back from Santa Fe, where Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson office in the same building as a friend, I was greeted this morning by a CNN article reporting that Richard Armitage told Wolf Blitzer in an interview on Sunday that he did not realize Plame was a covert agent when he discussed her with columnist Robert Novak in 2003.
Armitage, a former Deputy Secretary of State, said he was "extraordinarily foolish" to leak Plame's name, but that he did so in part because, seeing a memo that Plame had publicly chaired a meeting, he mistakenly assumed she did not have a covert status with the CIA. Armitage said that in 43 years with a security clearance he had never seen a covert operative's name in a memo.
At the end of July, discussing the importance of convicting Scooter Libby, I noted that Armitage, Karl Rove and others involved in blowing Plame's cover had never been held accountable in court--and that the Special Prosecutor had never made clear why.
If Armitage is being accurate about his own role, his self-judgment sheds some light on why it may have been impossible to prove criminal intent on his part when he told Novak that Plame was in the CIA.
It also tends to argue that Armitage, near the top of the diplomatic corps, may have been used by Rove, Cheney and others who were all too eager to sell the public on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, regardless of the consequences.
Armitage, a former Deputy Secretary of State, said he was "extraordinarily foolish" to leak Plame's name, but that he did so in part because, seeing a memo that Plame had publicly chaired a meeting, he mistakenly assumed she did not have a covert status with the CIA. Armitage said that in 43 years with a security clearance he had never seen a covert operative's name in a memo.
At the end of July, discussing the importance of convicting Scooter Libby, I noted that Armitage, Karl Rove and others involved in blowing Plame's cover had never been held accountable in court--and that the Special Prosecutor had never made clear why.
If Armitage is being accurate about his own role, his self-judgment sheds some light on why it may have been impossible to prove criminal intent on his part when he told Novak that Plame was in the CIA.
It also tends to argue that Armitage, near the top of the diplomatic corps, may have been used by Rove, Cheney and others who were all too eager to sell the public on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, regardless of the consequences.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Louisiana Slams Bush Veto of Critical Flood Control Projects; Historic Override Likely
President Bush carried out his threat, discussed here in a posting on 8/2/07, to veto the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA). It included more than $3.7 billion in specific hurricane recovery projects for Louisiana and up to $7 billion in total projects that would benefit the state—as part of $23.2 billion in water projects nationwide.
Bush’s callous action certainly merits the scathing criticism by the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) on 11/2.
LRA is the planning and coordinating body that Gov. Kathleen Blanco created after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to lead one of the most extensive rebuilding efforts in the world. The hurricanes devastated South Louisiana, claiming 1,464 lives, destroying more than 200,000 homes and 18,000 businesses. The 33-member body is charged with coordinating across jurisdictions, supporting community recovery and resurgence, ensuring integrity and effectiveness, and planning for the recovery and rebuilding of Louisiana.
LRA stressed Bush’s record of broken promises since Katrina:
"WRDA is undoubtedly one of the single most significant pieces of legislation passed by Congress to restore Louisiana's hurricane and flood protection infrastructure in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita.
"In 2005, President Bush delivered a historic speech from Jackson Square and declared that the Administration would 'do what it takes' to rebuild our devastated region.
"This August, when he visited us for the second anniversary, President Bush acknowledged again how important safety and flood protection are to our recovery, saying, 'We fully understand that New Orleans [and South Louisiana] can't be rebuilt until there's confidence in the levees.'
"When the Administration had an opportunity to back up rhetoric with substantive action to enhance hurricane protection for our communities, it did not deliver.
"By vetoing WRDA, President Bush has denied the authorization of critical funds to establish the Louisiana's Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration (LCA) project, expedite closure of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), establish the Morganza to the Gulf hurricane protection system and other projects that will enhance our wetlands and protect our coastal communities."
WRDA passed House of Representatives 381-40 and the US Senate 81-12. LRA was hopeful that showed enough bipartisan votes to override the veto: "We all hoped it would not be necessary -- but it is -- so we urge Congress to take immediate action and override President Bush's veto of this bill."
It appears LRA is right. Yesterday the House overrode Bush’s veto by a vote of 361-54. Governor-elect Bobby Jindal returned to the House to cast his vote in favor of the override. The Senate could cast its override vote as early as today. If the Senate follows suit, it will be the first overturned veto of the Bush presidency.
Bush’s callous action certainly merits the scathing criticism by the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) on 11/2.
LRA is the planning and coordinating body that Gov. Kathleen Blanco created after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to lead one of the most extensive rebuilding efforts in the world. The hurricanes devastated South Louisiana, claiming 1,464 lives, destroying more than 200,000 homes and 18,000 businesses. The 33-member body is charged with coordinating across jurisdictions, supporting community recovery and resurgence, ensuring integrity and effectiveness, and planning for the recovery and rebuilding of Louisiana.
LRA stressed Bush’s record of broken promises since Katrina:
"WRDA is undoubtedly one of the single most significant pieces of legislation passed by Congress to restore Louisiana's hurricane and flood protection infrastructure in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita.
"In 2005, President Bush delivered a historic speech from Jackson Square and declared that the Administration would 'do what it takes' to rebuild our devastated region.
"This August, when he visited us for the second anniversary, President Bush acknowledged again how important safety and flood protection are to our recovery, saying, 'We fully understand that New Orleans [and South Louisiana] can't be rebuilt until there's confidence in the levees.'
"When the Administration had an opportunity to back up rhetoric with substantive action to enhance hurricane protection for our communities, it did not deliver.
"By vetoing WRDA, President Bush has denied the authorization of critical funds to establish the Louisiana's Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration (LCA) project, expedite closure of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), establish the Morganza to the Gulf hurricane protection system and other projects that will enhance our wetlands and protect our coastal communities."
WRDA passed House of Representatives 381-40 and the US Senate 81-12. LRA was hopeful that showed enough bipartisan votes to override the veto: "We all hoped it would not be necessary -- but it is -- so we urge Congress to take immediate action and override President Bush's veto of this bill."
It appears LRA is right. Yesterday the House overrode Bush’s veto by a vote of 361-54. Governor-elect Bobby Jindal returned to the House to cast his vote in favor of the override. The Senate could cast its override vote as early as today. If the Senate follows suit, it will be the first overturned veto of the Bush presidency.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Archbishop Tutu Challenges Catholic University to Uphold Academic Freedom
The 11/2 print edition of the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) has a follow-up article on the continuing controversy at a St. Paul, MN, Catholic university over its president's decision to bar Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu as keynote speaker for an on-campus youth conference on peacemaking, cosponsored by the university's Justice and Peace Studies program.
Tutu, a Nobel peace laureate for taking the lead in ending South African apartheid with minimal violence and broadly inclusive reconciliation, was invited to the University of St. Thomas to speak in April 2008 at an event called Peace-Jam.
But last May, Fr. Dennis Dease, the university president, revoked the invitation after the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, which lobbies in favor of the Israeli government, said Tutu's criticisms of Israel were "hurtful" to some in the Jewish community. Two months after Tutu was told of the revocation, a faculty committee dismissed professor Cris Toffolo as director of the Justice and Peace Studies program.
In October Dease reversed himself and reinvited Tutu to speak at the campus. However, Dease did not overturn the faculty committee's decision to demote Toffolo, even though 100 faculty and staff signed a petition calling for her reinstatement and 40 people attended a rally supporting her on 10/23.
After Tutu was disinvited, the 2008 Peace-Jam was moved to Metropolitan State University in St. Paul, with Tutu still the keynote speaker. NCR and the Minneapolis Star Tribune both report Tutu is open to accepting the new invitation to St. Thomas--but that he has told both Toffolo and Dease in writing that he will not do so unless Tofollo is reinstated and all negative documentation about the matter is removed from her record.
Like Tofollo's supporters, Tutu sees her demotion as a significant attack on academic freedom and reversing it essential to reassuring the faculty that they can take leadership roles on engaging significant issues without being penalized. Of course, accrediting agencies will also regard the university unfavorably if the demotion is allowed to stand.
But a new word of caution for all concerned. Archbishop Tutu has long been an outspoken advocate of gay rights and a vocal opponent of discrimination against gay people. His position on those topics is quite in contrast with several official positions of the Roman Catholic Church and the U.S. bishops.
That's no more reason to deprive a Catholic university community of his thoughts on peace than the qualms of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas. But it is the kind of objection that right-wing Catholics and evangelicals have raised against speakers at other Catholic universities. It should not surprise anyone at St. Thomas, including Fr. Dease, if someone raises it there.
Hopefully they have learned their lesson and won't again make the mistake of sacrificing academic freedom to political pressure.
Tutu, a Nobel peace laureate for taking the lead in ending South African apartheid with minimal violence and broadly inclusive reconciliation, was invited to the University of St. Thomas to speak in April 2008 at an event called Peace-Jam.
But last May, Fr. Dennis Dease, the university president, revoked the invitation after the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, which lobbies in favor of the Israeli government, said Tutu's criticisms of Israel were "hurtful" to some in the Jewish community. Two months after Tutu was told of the revocation, a faculty committee dismissed professor Cris Toffolo as director of the Justice and Peace Studies program.
In October Dease reversed himself and reinvited Tutu to speak at the campus. However, Dease did not overturn the faculty committee's decision to demote Toffolo, even though 100 faculty and staff signed a petition calling for her reinstatement and 40 people attended a rally supporting her on 10/23.
After Tutu was disinvited, the 2008 Peace-Jam was moved to Metropolitan State University in St. Paul, with Tutu still the keynote speaker. NCR and the Minneapolis Star Tribune both report Tutu is open to accepting the new invitation to St. Thomas--but that he has told both Toffolo and Dease in writing that he will not do so unless Tofollo is reinstated and all negative documentation about the matter is removed from her record.
Like Tofollo's supporters, Tutu sees her demotion as a significant attack on academic freedom and reversing it essential to reassuring the faculty that they can take leadership roles on engaging significant issues without being penalized. Of course, accrediting agencies will also regard the university unfavorably if the demotion is allowed to stand.
But a new word of caution for all concerned. Archbishop Tutu has long been an outspoken advocate of gay rights and a vocal opponent of discrimination against gay people. His position on those topics is quite in contrast with several official positions of the Roman Catholic Church and the U.S. bishops.
That's no more reason to deprive a Catholic university community of his thoughts on peace than the qualms of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas. But it is the kind of objection that right-wing Catholics and evangelicals have raised against speakers at other Catholic universities. It should not surprise anyone at St. Thomas, including Fr. Dease, if someone raises it there.
Hopefully they have learned their lesson and won't again make the mistake of sacrificing academic freedom to political pressure.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Survey Finds 67% of Parents Favor Schools Giving Contraceptives to Teenagers
MSNBC has posted an AP article about the recent poll results displayed at the left. The poll found that just over two-thirds of U.S. parents surveyed support schools giving contraceptives to students.The poll was conducted in late October after a school board in Portland, Maine, voted to allow a middle school health center provide full contraceptive services to students.
As the graphic shows, about half of those who favor of the idea would support it only after a parent gave consent. Minorities, low-income people and older Americans were most likely to want parental consent. Those favoring no restriction tended to be younger and from cities or suburbs.
Those saying sex education and birth control were better for reducing teen pregnancies outnumbered people preferring morality and abstinence by a slim 51 percent to 46 percent. Younger people were more likely to consider sex education and birth control a better way to limit teenage pregnancies, as were 64 percent of minorities and 47 percent of whites. Nearly seven in 10 white evangelicals opted for abstinence, along with about half of Catholics and Protestants.
In addition, 49 percent say providing teens with birth control would not encourage sexual intercourse and a virtually identical 46 percent said it would. Though men and women have similar views about whether to provide contraceptives to students, women are likelier than men to think it will not encourage sexual intercourse, 55 percent to 43 percent.
For perspective, it is important to note that less than one percent of middle schools and barely five percent of high schools make condoms available for students, according to a health scientist with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In other words, we are a long way from seeing this idea implemented on a widespread basis any time soon.
The survey shows clearly that a substantial majority of U.S. parents support schools providing birth control to students. But with just a slim majority grasping that it would reduce teen pregnancies, more efforts are necessary to document that is so.
Reducing teen pregnancies would in turn reduce the number of abortions by teenage mothers. It would add one more piece of evidence to support another recent finding, discussed in my 10/17 posting below: outlawing abortion is not effective for reducing it, but providing contraception is.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Fundamentalist Fred Phelps Pays Dearly for "God Hates Fags" Sign at Marine's Funeral
CNN reports that it will cost fundamentalist preacher Fred Phelps $10.9 million for using a military funeral in an attempt to further his bigotry against gay people.
A federal jury in Baltimore, Maryland, Wednesday awarded $10.9 million to a father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by members of a fundamentalist church carrying signs blaming soldiers' deaths on America's tolerance of homosexuals.
The family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder -- who was killed in a vehicle accident in Iraq's Anbar province in 2006 -- sued the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, and its leaders for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Church members showed up at Snyder's funeral chanting derogatory slogans and holding picket signs with messages including "God Hates Fags."
They've picketed the funerals of dozens of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming that God is punishing the United States because of its tolerance for homosexuality.
Al Snyder, father of the slain Marine, said he considered filing the lawsuit for a long time before going forward and that he hoped the judgment would make it harder for the church to continue such protests.
"It's hard enough burying a 20-year-old son, much less having to deal with something like this," he said, recalling that some of the other signs at the funeral included "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for IEDs."
"As far as their picketing goes, they want to do it in front of a courthouse, they want to do it in a public park, I could care less. But I couldn't let them get away with doing this to our military," Al Snyder said.
"Every day in court I would just think of Matt and have him on my mind and know that he was watching out for me."
Snyder's attorney told jurors to pick an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again," according to The Associated Press.
The award includes $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages, a clerk in the judge's chambers said.
Lawyers for the church members argued Matthew Snyder's funeral was public and the First Amendment protects all points of view, even offensive ones, the AP reported.
Church founder Fred Phelps said the church would appeal the decision, adding it would "take about five minutes to reverse that thing."
"This will elevate me to something important," Phelps told reporters. "This was an act of futility."
Later, Phelps said the case was about "putting a preacher on trial for what he preaches."
"All it was, was a protestation by the government of the United States against the word of God. They don't want me preaching that God is punishing the country by killing their servicemen."
The church had made a new sign to carry after the jury's decision, said his daughter, Margie Phelps.
"Our message is 'Thank God for 10.9 [million dollars],' " she said.
"By that mechanism [the award], the entire world will look over and see that America is doomed and that in doomed America there is no such thing as religious liberty."
The judgment would not change the message the group was carrying, said another of Phelps' daughters, church attorney Shirley Phelps-Roper.
"It's going nowhere," she said of the jury's decision. "This is a nothing. God is not going to stop killing your soldiers. He's not going to stop pouring his wrath out on this nation. America is doomed."
Church members were persecuted for their teachings and the court "mocked and scoffed at our religious beliefs," she said.
Phelps-Roper added that protests were planned later this week in Boston and Acton, Massachusetts, and in Norton, Kansas.
The group plans to protest a Veterans Day rally in Washington, she said.
Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church -- which has no connections with any mainstream Baptist organizations -- are longtime anti-gay protesters.
Before launching their protests at the funerals of American troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, they routinely picketed the funerals of gay people and those who died of AIDS.
Phelps and his followers also picketed the February 2006 funeral of Coretta Scott King, widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., because of her support for gay rights.
Several states have implemented laws about funeral protests and Congress has passed a law barring protests at federal cemeteries.
A federal jury in Baltimore, Maryland, Wednesday awarded $10.9 million to a father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by members of a fundamentalist church carrying signs blaming soldiers' deaths on America's tolerance of homosexuals.
The family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder -- who was killed in a vehicle accident in Iraq's Anbar province in 2006 -- sued the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, and its leaders for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Church members showed up at Snyder's funeral chanting derogatory slogans and holding picket signs with messages including "God Hates Fags."
They've picketed the funerals of dozens of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming that God is punishing the United States because of its tolerance for homosexuality.
Al Snyder, father of the slain Marine, said he considered filing the lawsuit for a long time before going forward and that he hoped the judgment would make it harder for the church to continue such protests.
"It's hard enough burying a 20-year-old son, much less having to deal with something like this," he said, recalling that some of the other signs at the funeral included "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for IEDs."
"As far as their picketing goes, they want to do it in front of a courthouse, they want to do it in a public park, I could care less. But I couldn't let them get away with doing this to our military," Al Snyder said.
"Every day in court I would just think of Matt and have him on my mind and know that he was watching out for me."
Snyder's attorney told jurors to pick an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again," according to The Associated Press.
The award includes $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages, a clerk in the judge's chambers said.
Lawyers for the church members argued Matthew Snyder's funeral was public and the First Amendment protects all points of view, even offensive ones, the AP reported.
Church founder Fred Phelps said the church would appeal the decision, adding it would "take about five minutes to reverse that thing."
"This will elevate me to something important," Phelps told reporters. "This was an act of futility."
Later, Phelps said the case was about "putting a preacher on trial for what he preaches."
"All it was, was a protestation by the government of the United States against the word of God. They don't want me preaching that God is punishing the country by killing their servicemen."
The church had made a new sign to carry after the jury's decision, said his daughter, Margie Phelps.
"Our message is 'Thank God for 10.9 [million dollars],' " she said.
"By that mechanism [the award], the entire world will look over and see that America is doomed and that in doomed America there is no such thing as religious liberty."
The judgment would not change the message the group was carrying, said another of Phelps' daughters, church attorney Shirley Phelps-Roper.
"It's going nowhere," she said of the jury's decision. "This is a nothing. God is not going to stop killing your soldiers. He's not going to stop pouring his wrath out on this nation. America is doomed."
Church members were persecuted for their teachings and the court "mocked and scoffed at our religious beliefs," she said.
Phelps-Roper added that protests were planned later this week in Boston and Acton, Massachusetts, and in Norton, Kansas.
The group plans to protest a Veterans Day rally in Washington, she said.
Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church -- which has no connections with any mainstream Baptist organizations -- are longtime anti-gay protesters.
Before launching their protests at the funerals of American troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, they routinely picketed the funerals of gay people and those who died of AIDS.
Phelps and his followers also picketed the February 2006 funeral of Coretta Scott King, widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., because of her support for gay rights.
Several states have implemented laws about funeral protests and Congress has passed a law barring protests at federal cemeteries.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Constitution Never Allows the President to Be Lawbreaker in Chief
I suspect he is the proverbial voice crying in the wilderness, but in an op-ed piece in the New York Times Jed Rubenfeld, professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School, says Attorney General Designate Michael Mukasey is going against at least three Supreme Court rulings -- and even the previous position of the Justice Department -- when he claims that the president can disobey a valid federal law to defend the country.
Contrary to Mukasey's testimony during his confirmation hearings, Rubenfeld writes: "Under the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, not execuative decisions in the name of national security, are 'the supreme law of the land.' It's that simple. So long as a statute is constitutional, it is binding on everyone, including the president.
"The president has no supreme, exclusive or trumping authority to 'defend the nation.' In fact, the Constitution uses the words 'provide for the common defense' in its list of the powers of Congress, not those of the president."
Rubenfeld says that Mukasey should not be confirmed unless he retracts his statement and says plainly that a federal statute is supreme when the president and the Congress, both acting within their constitutional powers, clash.
Contrary to Mukasey's testimony during his confirmation hearings, Rubenfeld writes: "Under the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, not execuative decisions in the name of national security, are 'the supreme law of the land.' It's that simple. So long as a statute is constitutional, it is binding on everyone, including the president.
"The president has no supreme, exclusive or trumping authority to 'defend the nation.' In fact, the Constitution uses the words 'provide for the common defense' in its list of the powers of Congress, not those of the president."
Rubenfeld says that Mukasey should not be confirmed unless he retracts his statement and says plainly that a federal statute is supreme when the president and the Congress, both acting within their constitutional powers, clash.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Special Olympics: From Eunice Kennedy's Front Lawn to Shanghai
I had forgotten that Eunice Kennedy Shriver basically founded the Special Olympics in 1962, when she invited some children with Down syndrome to compete on her front lawn.The following article, from the 10/12 edition of the National Catholic Reporter, says that at age 87 she is still promoting the Special Olympics around the world--and even traveled to Shanghai in late September for the Special Olympics World Summer Games 10/2-10/11. Even Yao Ming, the Houston Rockets center, was on hand to welcome the competitors to China, which until recently has had a difficult time acknowledging it has people with intellectual disabilities.
The article is quite a testimony to what one determined individual with a creative idea can contribute to humanity.
By COLMAN McCARTHY
Whenever I’ve been with Eunice Kennedy Shriver, I’ve always come away thinking, “I must become a better person.”
A similar thought may have entered the minds of some of the tens of thousands who gathered from Oct. 2 to 11 in Shanghai, China, for the Special Olympics World Summer Games. Some 7,500 athletes with intellectual disabilities from 160 nations competed in 23 sports.
The event could really have been called the Eunice Shriver World Games. For 40 years she has traveled the planet, to every continent except Antarctica, doing the hard labor of rousing governments, schools, corporations, volunteers and families to include “the special people” in all parts of life.
She did that in her Massachusetts childhood as the sister of the mentally disabled Rosemary Kennedy, and in the 1960s when she persuaded -- browbeat, some say -- her brother President John F. Kennedy to get on the legislative ball regarding the intellectually handicapped. She set out to prove, and eventually did, that the confidence Special Olympians gain through sports could be transferred to their academic and working lives, including acquiring marketable skills in the service industries.
What began in the spring of 1962, when Eunice Shriver invited a few children with Down syndrome to meet and compete on her front lawn, is now the world’s largest sports program, one involving several million athletes and coaches. A 1994 poll taken by the Chronicle of Philanthropy said that the Special Olympics ranked first as the nation’s most credible nonprofit venture, well ahead of the Girl Scouts, the Salvation Army and the American Red Cross.
Eunice Shriver left for Shanghai in late September. I have to think that all kinds of observers told her not to go, saying, “You’re 87. You had a stroke in July and doctors said you would never speak again. You’ve been hospitalized twice in critical condition. You’ve had two severe car crashes. You’ve grown old and now it’s time to get sedentary.”
Similar cautions have been thrown at Eunice Shriver for decades: “You can’t do much about retardation. It’s a genetic or prenatal defect for which early intervention or education -- much less winning medals in the 100-yard dash -- won’t help.”
“Baloney,” she barked. Or, in more stately language, as she said in a White House dinner in honor of her 85th birthday two years ago: “Let us not forget that we have miles to go to overturn the prejudice and oppression facing the world’s 180 million citizens with intellectual disabilities. ... As we go forward, all of us, may our numbers increase in this noble battle. May you overturn ignorance. May you challenge indifference at every turn. And may you find great joy in the new daylight of the great athletes of the Special Olympics.”
I came to know Eunice Shriver in the mid-1960s when I worked for her husband, Sargent Shriver. To describe him the word “ebullient” was invented. Maybe I’ve missed the others, but I can’t think of any other couple whose works of mercy and rescue for almost a half century have uplifted the lives of more people in more parts of the world.
For Sargent Shriver, it was the Peace Corps, Head Start, Legal Services, Job Corps, Foster Grandparents, Upward Bound -- all programs he started and then protected as Republicans in Congress and the White House attacked them. For Eunice Shriver, her lasting achievement was not only to give the mentally disabled the chance they deserve but to completely reverse the negative thinking of mental health experts about retardation.
More work is ahead. Timothy Shriver, who has succeeded his mother as the head of Special Olympics, tells of a recent Gallup poll in which 62 percent of Americans said they don’t want their child to be in a school with a retarded child.
I don’t know whether that’s true in China, but after the Shanghai games, those ideas may be changing.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Why the “Wall of Separation” Is Indispensable for American Democracy
National Catholic Reporter writer John Allen reported online 9/21 that at a recent Pittsburgh symposium, Thomas J. Curry, a Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop in Los Angeles, denied that U.S. Constitution mandates a “wall of separation” between church and state.
Curry acknowledged it was Thomas Jefferson himself who crafted the phrase “wall of separation” in 1802, as a handy synonym for the freedom-of-religion language that Congress adopted in 1789 and the states ratified in 1791. But Curry thinks the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to rule in 1947 that Jefferson’s interpretation is correct and normative.
Given the history of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, it’s quite astonishing that Curry could forget how closely they matched Jefferson’s views.
Seven different drafts of the First Amendment’s religious freedom language were distilled by Congressional committees or representatives from Virginia’s “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” which Jefferson proposed as governor in 1779. But the Virginia legislature didn’t pass its act until 1786, because it took Jefferson that long to overcome Patrick Henry’s competing proposal to make Christianity the state religion of Virginia, with all denominations given equal privileges. This was in a context where nine of the original 13 colonies had an established religion. Jefferson dedicated years to changing that, in Virginia and in the Constitution.
Curry says the First Amendment applies only to the state—so that churches are not bound by it and cannot violate it. He argues that the “wall of separation” image has led to mistaken conclusions that religions should stay out of public debates and that government has a positive role as a promoter of religious freedom.
The opening 16 words of the First Amendment read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Since Congress is the entity barred from establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion, Curry may be correct in saying that churches cannot violate the First Amendment all by themselves. However, it is the basic ground rule for religions operating in the United States: churches here are bound by it, and they have tried repeatedly to get government entities to violate it.
A typical example is the “Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act,” passed by the Texas Legislature last spring. In a recent analysis, Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, says the law requires that schools turn public events like morning announcements, football games and graduation ceremonies into “limited public forums,” which allow student speakers to promote their own religious beliefs and even try to convert other students.
While the act purports to shield students from discipline for expressing religious beliefs and to protect schools from lawsuits under state law, it hardly leaves the public school a neutral actor under the First Amendment. On the contrary, the school will be acting as a government agency forcing all students to participate in functions that promote specific religious views they or their families do not share. Miller envisions some real-life conflicts that might ensue:
“When a Wiccan student council president closes morning announcements each day with a prayer to the Mother Goddess, will Christian families object? What happens when the captain of the football team decides to use his pep rally speech to mock the faith of opposing players and, potentially, the faith of some students in his own school?”
I might add the very likely scenario of a conservative Christian valedictorian who asks the graduates and their families to praise Jesus for getting them to this milestone, when Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu or agnostic students might think Jesus had little to do with it and find their own religious views denigrated by the claim.
In my 8/24 posting on CNN’s series on religious extremists, I observed: “The blood-thirsty insistence by 'God’s Warriors' that they must destroy anyone who disagrees with them is the strongest present-day confirmation that that the wall of separation is the perfect antidote to intolerant self-worship masquerading as faith—and that the sooner it is adopted in every nation on earth, the safer the world will be.”
Jefferson and the other architects of the Bill of Rights experienced the chaos and misery that result when any religion is allowed to lord it over others. It took them decades, but it was precisely a wall of separation which they built between church and state. Their wisdom has proved durable for over 200 years. And every year has its cast of religious crackpots to remind us why.
Curry acknowledged it was Thomas Jefferson himself who crafted the phrase “wall of separation” in 1802, as a handy synonym for the freedom-of-religion language that Congress adopted in 1789 and the states ratified in 1791. But Curry thinks the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to rule in 1947 that Jefferson’s interpretation is correct and normative.
Given the history of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, it’s quite astonishing that Curry could forget how closely they matched Jefferson’s views.
Seven different drafts of the First Amendment’s religious freedom language were distilled by Congressional committees or representatives from Virginia’s “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” which Jefferson proposed as governor in 1779. But the Virginia legislature didn’t pass its act until 1786, because it took Jefferson that long to overcome Patrick Henry’s competing proposal to make Christianity the state religion of Virginia, with all denominations given equal privileges. This was in a context where nine of the original 13 colonies had an established religion. Jefferson dedicated years to changing that, in Virginia and in the Constitution.
Curry says the First Amendment applies only to the state—so that churches are not bound by it and cannot violate it. He argues that the “wall of separation” image has led to mistaken conclusions that religions should stay out of public debates and that government has a positive role as a promoter of religious freedom.
The opening 16 words of the First Amendment read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Since Congress is the entity barred from establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion, Curry may be correct in saying that churches cannot violate the First Amendment all by themselves. However, it is the basic ground rule for religions operating in the United States: churches here are bound by it, and they have tried repeatedly to get government entities to violate it.
A typical example is the “Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act,” passed by the Texas Legislature last spring. In a recent analysis, Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, says the law requires that schools turn public events like morning announcements, football games and graduation ceremonies into “limited public forums,” which allow student speakers to promote their own religious beliefs and even try to convert other students.
While the act purports to shield students from discipline for expressing religious beliefs and to protect schools from lawsuits under state law, it hardly leaves the public school a neutral actor under the First Amendment. On the contrary, the school will be acting as a government agency forcing all students to participate in functions that promote specific religious views they or their families do not share. Miller envisions some real-life conflicts that might ensue:
“When a Wiccan student council president closes morning announcements each day with a prayer to the Mother Goddess, will Christian families object? What happens when the captain of the football team decides to use his pep rally speech to mock the faith of opposing players and, potentially, the faith of some students in his own school?”
I might add the very likely scenario of a conservative Christian valedictorian who asks the graduates and their families to praise Jesus for getting them to this milestone, when Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu or agnostic students might think Jesus had little to do with it and find their own religious views denigrated by the claim.
In my 8/24 posting on CNN’s series on religious extremists, I observed: “The blood-thirsty insistence by 'God’s Warriors' that they must destroy anyone who disagrees with them is the strongest present-day confirmation that that the wall of separation is the perfect antidote to intolerant self-worship masquerading as faith—and that the sooner it is adopted in every nation on earth, the safer the world will be.”
Jefferson and the other architects of the Bill of Rights experienced the chaos and misery that result when any religion is allowed to lord it over others. It took them decades, but it was precisely a wall of separation which they built between church and state. Their wisdom has proved durable for over 200 years. And every year has its cast of religious crackpots to remind us why.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The Very Rich Get a CLEW: Avoid "the Twinkiefication of Deluxe" by Giving It Away
In a column earlier this week, with tongue conspicuously in cheek, George Will lamented the lot of the very rich: “...they are getting diminishing psychological returns on their spending now that luxury brands are becoming democratized. When there are 379 Louis Vuitton and 227 Gucci stores, who cares?”
While I almost always enjoy reading Will, it’s rather rare that I agree with him. But I think he’s on to something here.
Will acquaints us with the Forbes CLEW index, which tracks the Cost of Living Extremely Well. Along with other “bling indexes”—Fortune magazine’s lists of stocks like Christian Dior and Richemont (Cartier and Chloe), and Citicorp’s “plutonomy” stocks such as Sotheby’s, Bulgari and Hermes—the CLEW shows how it is “increasingly expensive to be rich.”
The aspiring very rich used to achieve notoriety by acquiring so-called “positional goods”—luxuries that only people of immense wealth could afford. Sadly, when too many people become wealthy enough to purchase such luxuries, what was once exclusive and elite becomes common, and acquiring them ceases to satisfy. And so, says Will, envy increases in direct proportion to wealth, perhaps exponentially.
Thus the cul-de-sacs of “so much money sloshing around the world:"
“When 40 percent of all Japanese—and, Fortune reports, 94.3 percent of Japanese women in their 20s—own a Louis Vuitton item, its positional value vanishes…
“Now that Ralph Lauren is selling house paint, can Polo radial tires be far behind? When a yacht manufacturer advertises a $20 million craft—in a newspaper, for Pete’s sake; the Financial Times, but still—cachet is a casualty.”
We are witnessing what a University of Florida professors calls "the Twinkiefication of deluxe."
But Will sees a way out. The heavy burdens of the plutonomous might turn out to be a blessing for the rest of us: “…because the merely affluent are diminishing the ability of the very rich to derive pleasure from positional goods, philanthropy might become the final form of positional competition.”
And so Will suggests an outcome Adam Smith appears never to have envisioned: “When rising consumption of luxuries produces declining enjoyment of vast wealth, giving it away might be the best revenge.”
Of course, folks like Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett and Joan Kroc seem to have realized this a while ago. But perhaps those who aspire to outdo them will at long last learn to emulate their generosity too—learn to envy and enjoy the singular satisfaction that only comes from competing to improve the common good.
While I almost always enjoy reading Will, it’s rather rare that I agree with him. But I think he’s on to something here.
Will acquaints us with the Forbes CLEW index, which tracks the Cost of Living Extremely Well. Along with other “bling indexes”—Fortune magazine’s lists of stocks like Christian Dior and Richemont (Cartier and Chloe), and Citicorp’s “plutonomy” stocks such as Sotheby’s, Bulgari and Hermes—the CLEW shows how it is “increasingly expensive to be rich.”
The aspiring very rich used to achieve notoriety by acquiring so-called “positional goods”—luxuries that only people of immense wealth could afford. Sadly, when too many people become wealthy enough to purchase such luxuries, what was once exclusive and elite becomes common, and acquiring them ceases to satisfy. And so, says Will, envy increases in direct proportion to wealth, perhaps exponentially.
Thus the cul-de-sacs of “so much money sloshing around the world:"
“When 40 percent of all Japanese—and, Fortune reports, 94.3 percent of Japanese women in their 20s—own a Louis Vuitton item, its positional value vanishes…
“Now that Ralph Lauren is selling house paint, can Polo radial tires be far behind? When a yacht manufacturer advertises a $20 million craft—in a newspaper, for Pete’s sake; the Financial Times, but still—cachet is a casualty.”
We are witnessing what a University of Florida professors calls "the Twinkiefication of deluxe."
But Will sees a way out. The heavy burdens of the plutonomous might turn out to be a blessing for the rest of us: “…because the merely affluent are diminishing the ability of the very rich to derive pleasure from positional goods, philanthropy might become the final form of positional competition.”
And so Will suggests an outcome Adam Smith appears never to have envisioned: “When rising consumption of luxuries produces declining enjoyment of vast wealth, giving it away might be the best revenge.”
Of course, folks like Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett and Joan Kroc seem to have realized this a while ago. But perhaps those who aspire to outdo them will at long last learn to emulate their generosity too—learn to envy and enjoy the singular satisfaction that only comes from competing to improve the common good.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Outlawing Abortion Does Not Reduce Abortion Rates; Contraception Does.
The first time I questioned official Catholic teachings publicly was May 8, 1967. It was in the first issue of my stint as editor-in-chief of the student newspaper at Loyola University of Los Angeles (it became Loyola Marymount in the summer of 1968). I raised the questions in an editorial titled “Senate Abortion Bill: Do We Protest Too Much?”
The other staffers were so anxious about the position I was taking in an official publication of a Catholic college—just recovering from a run-in with the very conservative “James Francis Cardinal McIntyre, Archbishop of Los Angeles” over which direction altars should face—that they made me initial the editorial in print.
The editorial discussed a bill proposed in the California legislature by State Sen. Anthony Beilensen to liberalize the state’s abortion laws. Toward the start I said, “The manner in which parishes throughout the Southland have sought to mobilize opposition to the abortion bill has been particularly disturbing. Week after week prelates, pastors, and parish societies have engaged in a concerted effort to impose Catholic moral teaching on the non-Catholic people of California.”
Noting that the Episcopal Bishop of California testified before the State Senate Judiciary Committee that a permissive abortion law was not immoral, I concluded, “Only a law that allows members of both faiths to live out the dictates of their consciences and their religious beliefs is consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the spirit of Vatican II.”
As expected, reaction to the editorial was mixed, largely along liberal vs. conservative lines. Let’s say I didn’t change very many Catholic minds in 1967.
But the subsequent 40 years did not talk me out of it. If anything, the sustained drumbeat of official Catholicism, here and abroad, that abortion must be outlawed, has solidified my stand.
The U.S. bishops, of course, have persuaded the evangelical right and together they have coerced numerous right-wing Catholic politicians to toe the official line.
Still, other Catholic politicians, better educated in theology and constitutional law, have repeatedly told the bishops that what they want is a bad idea, because it cannot succeed in a society where people hold a whole range of beliefs about abortion. Of course, some of those politicians have paid a heavy price for abiding by their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Bishops have attacked them personally, campaigned for their opponents, and even denied them communion to deny the validity of their argument.
Well, those Catholic politicians just got some new ammunition. It turns out there’s another reason to oppose laws that outlaw abortion: they don’t work!
Research just published in The Lancet medical journal tracked abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, the largest study ever on the global incidence of abortion. It found that women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is illegal as they are where it is legal. This was true whether the country was rich or poor.
Globally there are about 205 million pregnancies each year, about 68 million unintentional. Abortions worldwide dropped from 46 million in 1995 to 42 million in 2003 (from 22.4% of pregnancies to 20.4%).
The only places abortion rates stayed noticeably higher were countries where the government had enthusiastically encouraged abortions. In eastern Europe, for example, there were 105 abortions for every 100 live births.
In western Europe, where abortion is generally legal, there were 23 abortions per 100 births. Yet in Africa, where most countries outlaw abortion, the rate was nearly the same: 17 abortions per 100 births.
Remarkably, in the United States, where the campaign to outlaw abortions has been longest and loudest, there were 33 abortions for every 100 live births. On the face of it, the western European model produces better results.
Two numbers from the study were the most damning. Half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe. And 97% of all unsafe abortions were in poor countries. About 70,000 women die each year from the unsafe abortions, and another five million are injured, some permanently. The study declared these results “a public health crisis and a human rights atrocity.”
The researchers found only one strategy that works to decrease the rate of abortions: increase the availability of contraception.
In an editorial about the study, the Houston Chronicle found two conclusions inescapable: “The evidence is crystal clear: if abortion is a woman’s only viable choice to limit her family, she will take it, regardless of laws or safety concerns. It is equally clear that in countries where contraception is widely available, abortion rates go down. That is a choice that is both reasonable and humane.”
The message is obvious: Those who oppose abortion and contraception need to seriously reconsider their position. Trying to deny women access to both does not reduce abortions. But promoting contraception does.
If the Catholic church and the evangelical right are truly interested in reducing the number of abortions, they need to use preaching and persuasion to sell their position that abortion is wrong—and stop the pretense that outlawing abortion and discouraging contraception accomplishes anything. All it really gains is more deaths from unsafe abortions. They say they have no appetite for executing mothers who abort. Then they need to stop pushing laws that carry a death penalty.
The other staffers were so anxious about the position I was taking in an official publication of a Catholic college—just recovering from a run-in with the very conservative “James Francis Cardinal McIntyre, Archbishop of Los Angeles” over which direction altars should face—that they made me initial the editorial in print.
The editorial discussed a bill proposed in the California legislature by State Sen. Anthony Beilensen to liberalize the state’s abortion laws. Toward the start I said, “The manner in which parishes throughout the Southland have sought to mobilize opposition to the abortion bill has been particularly disturbing. Week after week prelates, pastors, and parish societies have engaged in a concerted effort to impose Catholic moral teaching on the non-Catholic people of California.”
Noting that the Episcopal Bishop of California testified before the State Senate Judiciary Committee that a permissive abortion law was not immoral, I concluded, “Only a law that allows members of both faiths to live out the dictates of their consciences and their religious beliefs is consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the spirit of Vatican II.”
As expected, reaction to the editorial was mixed, largely along liberal vs. conservative lines. Let’s say I didn’t change very many Catholic minds in 1967.
But the subsequent 40 years did not talk me out of it. If anything, the sustained drumbeat of official Catholicism, here and abroad, that abortion must be outlawed, has solidified my stand.
The U.S. bishops, of course, have persuaded the evangelical right and together they have coerced numerous right-wing Catholic politicians to toe the official line.
Still, other Catholic politicians, better educated in theology and constitutional law, have repeatedly told the bishops that what they want is a bad idea, because it cannot succeed in a society where people hold a whole range of beliefs about abortion. Of course, some of those politicians have paid a heavy price for abiding by their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Bishops have attacked them personally, campaigned for their opponents, and even denied them communion to deny the validity of their argument.
Well, those Catholic politicians just got some new ammunition. It turns out there’s another reason to oppose laws that outlaw abortion: they don’t work!
Research just published in The Lancet medical journal tracked abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, the largest study ever on the global incidence of abortion. It found that women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is illegal as they are where it is legal. This was true whether the country was rich or poor.
Globally there are about 205 million pregnancies each year, about 68 million unintentional. Abortions worldwide dropped from 46 million in 1995 to 42 million in 2003 (from 22.4% of pregnancies to 20.4%).
The only places abortion rates stayed noticeably higher were countries where the government had enthusiastically encouraged abortions. In eastern Europe, for example, there were 105 abortions for every 100 live births.
In western Europe, where abortion is generally legal, there were 23 abortions per 100 births. Yet in Africa, where most countries outlaw abortion, the rate was nearly the same: 17 abortions per 100 births.
Remarkably, in the United States, where the campaign to outlaw abortions has been longest and loudest, there were 33 abortions for every 100 live births. On the face of it, the western European model produces better results.
Two numbers from the study were the most damning. Half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe. And 97% of all unsafe abortions were in poor countries. About 70,000 women die each year from the unsafe abortions, and another five million are injured, some permanently. The study declared these results “a public health crisis and a human rights atrocity.”
The researchers found only one strategy that works to decrease the rate of abortions: increase the availability of contraception.
In an editorial about the study, the Houston Chronicle found two conclusions inescapable: “The evidence is crystal clear: if abortion is a woman’s only viable choice to limit her family, she will take it, regardless of laws or safety concerns. It is equally clear that in countries where contraception is widely available, abortion rates go down. That is a choice that is both reasonable and humane.”
The message is obvious: Those who oppose abortion and contraception need to seriously reconsider their position. Trying to deny women access to both does not reduce abortions. But promoting contraception does.
If the Catholic church and the evangelical right are truly interested in reducing the number of abortions, they need to use preaching and persuasion to sell their position that abortion is wrong—and stop the pretense that outlawing abortion and discouraging contraception accomplishes anything. All it really gains is more deaths from unsafe abortions. They say they have no appetite for executing mothers who abort. Then they need to stop pushing laws that carry a death penalty.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Judge Halts Bush Attempt to Make Employers Immigration Cops
I strongly agree with the following editorial, originally in the New York Times and adopted today as an editorial by the Houston Chronicle:
A crackdown on hold
A federal judge has halted a reckless plan by the Bush administration to use Social Security records for immigration enforcement. This is good news, not just for the American economy, which would have been crippled by the attempt to force millions of undocumented workers off the books, but also for the untold numbers of innocent citizens and legal residents who also would have been victims of the purge.
The judge, Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California, ruled that the Department of Homeland Security could not enforce a new rule requiring employers to fire workers if their Social Security numbers could not be verified within 90 days. The assumption behind the rule was that workers whose numbers did not match the Social Security Administration's database were illegal immigrants using fake or stolen identities.
Breyer recognized that assumption as deeply flawed and the new rule as an unlawfully crude enforcement tool. The Social Security database is riddled with errors not related to immigration status. Many of the "no-match" letters — which call attention to database discrepancies — involve legal residents.
"There is a strong likelihood that employers may simply fire employees who are unable to resolve the discrepancy within 90 days," the judge wrote, even if the problem was caused by data-entry mistakes, misspellings or name changes. He warned that the rule would cause "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers."
Breyer also scolded the administration for imposing a policy change with "massive ramifications" for employers without a legal explanation or a required survey of the costs and impact to small businesses.
It is not the case — though infuriated hard-liners will insist otherwise — that millions of undocumented workers are now being let off the hook by a soft-headed judge. If the no-match crackdown had proceeded, many workers without papers would still have found jobs in the underground economy, perhaps worse ones or with better-forged papers.
The shadow economy would have adapted, as always. The world of on-the-books employment would have suffered greatly.
The federal government has embarked on a disastrously one-sided immigration strategy — pulling out one harsh enforcement tool after another without having repaired the broken system. We have already seen the results of runaway enforcement on the agricultural industry — a shortage of workers leading to rotting crops and farmers relocating south of the border. The trouble with crackdowns, like the foolish one involving "no-match" letters, is that they cause oceans of pain and havoc — not just for undocumented immigrants, but also for legal residents and the economy — without actually solving anything.
A crackdown on hold
A federal judge has halted a reckless plan by the Bush administration to use Social Security records for immigration enforcement. This is good news, not just for the American economy, which would have been crippled by the attempt to force millions of undocumented workers off the books, but also for the untold numbers of innocent citizens and legal residents who also would have been victims of the purge.
The judge, Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California, ruled that the Department of Homeland Security could not enforce a new rule requiring employers to fire workers if their Social Security numbers could not be verified within 90 days. The assumption behind the rule was that workers whose numbers did not match the Social Security Administration's database were illegal immigrants using fake or stolen identities.
Breyer recognized that assumption as deeply flawed and the new rule as an unlawfully crude enforcement tool. The Social Security database is riddled with errors not related to immigration status. Many of the "no-match" letters — which call attention to database discrepancies — involve legal residents.
"There is a strong likelihood that employers may simply fire employees who are unable to resolve the discrepancy within 90 days," the judge wrote, even if the problem was caused by data-entry mistakes, misspellings or name changes. He warned that the rule would cause "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers."
Breyer also scolded the administration for imposing a policy change with "massive ramifications" for employers without a legal explanation or a required survey of the costs and impact to small businesses.
It is not the case — though infuriated hard-liners will insist otherwise — that millions of undocumented workers are now being let off the hook by a soft-headed judge. If the no-match crackdown had proceeded, many workers without papers would still have found jobs in the underground economy, perhaps worse ones or with better-forged papers.
The shadow economy would have adapted, as always. The world of on-the-books employment would have suffered greatly.
The federal government has embarked on a disastrously one-sided immigration strategy — pulling out one harsh enforcement tool after another without having repaired the broken system. We have already seen the results of runaway enforcement on the agricultural industry — a shortage of workers leading to rotting crops and farmers relocating south of the border. The trouble with crackdowns, like the foolish one involving "no-match" letters, is that they cause oceans of pain and havoc — not just for undocumented immigrants, but also for legal residents and the economy — without actually solving anything.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Is Houston Judge Fit to Remain on the Bench?
I have the deepest sympathy for Elizabeth Shelton, the University of St. Thomas student who got very drunk with her boyfriend last October, went on a 2:00 a.m. joy ride with him hanging out the window, and then rear ended a truck on a major freeway at a high rate of speed, killing him. Anyone who has driven after having too much to drink can understand how awful she must feel and how jail time for intoxication manslaughter might be something she would find unbearable, on top of the guilt she must live with for the rest of her life.
And I sympathize with her parents' protective instinct to do and say anything that might spare their daughter more pain.
But I also agree with columnist Rick Casey, writing in today's Houston Chronicle, that as a State District Judge in a family court where nearly half the cases involve juveniles charged with crimes, her father Pat Shelton engaged in conduct during his daughter's trial that calls into question his fitness to remain on the bench. Casey's column follows.
State District Judge Pat Shelton isn't up for re-election until 2010.
I hope at that time voters don't visit upon him the sins of his daughter, who was convicted Tuesday of intoxication manslaughter.
He has enough sins of his own for voters to consider.
They are sins for which a father might be forgiven, but for which a judge should be judged.
In this case, his behavior is especially relevant since Shelton presides over a family court, with nearly half his caseload devoted to juveniles charged with crimes.
Elizabeth Shelton tested at three times the blood-alcohol limit last October after slamming her Lexus SUV into the back of a box truck at 2 a.m. on U.S. 59. Her longtime boyfriend was killed instantly.
Since Judge Shelton and his wife weren't tried for bad parenting, we don't have enough information to consider their share of responsibility. (And the humbling experience of being a parent would make me pray I wasn't chosen as a juror in such a trial.)
But Shelton did engage in conduct during the trial that raises questions about his suitability as a judge.
In an antagonistic exchange with the prosecutor, Shelton first attacked the driver whose truck his daughter hit.
He said his daughter told him at the hospital that night that the driver had swerved into her lane at the last minute. But a doctor at the hospital had a different recollection.
"When her mom and dad were there, she said, 'It's my fault, and I do not want to live,' " the doctor testified.
What's more, when a person is that drunk, it may have appeared that the entire highway was swerving all over the place.
An expert for the defense testified there was evidence the driver did swerve, but an expert for the prosecution said there was none. That's the nature of paid courtroom expertise: It almost always agrees with the people writing the check.
But Judge Shelton took it further. He accused the driver of having no insurance and of being the subject of a hot check warrant.
The judge had done at least some research. It turns out the insurance on the truck had lapsed. But it was a company truck and someone else at the company was responsible for paying the bills.
And the hot check warrant? Let's give the judge the benefit of the doubt: He was mistaken.
It's OK for fathers to be mistaken, although it's stupid from the witness stand since being caught hurts one's credibility.
But lawyers and judges should know to be very careful about making unfounded accusations in court.
The worst accusation Shelton made against the truck driver was that he should have been charged for leaving the scene of the accident.
"You should not cherry pick who you want to favor and who you want to put down," Shelton told prosecutor Paul Doyle. "No one is above the law."
But the driver explained that he pulled off U.S. 59 because it wasn't safe to stay in the middle of the freeway or to back up to where the wrecked car was.
"I got off at the Buffalo Speedway and made a U-turn and came back around as quick as I could," said Lance Bennett on Thursday.
"That man slandered me," he said. "He shouldn't be a judge."
Shelton also argued that Doyle should have prosecuted Federico Vasquez, who stopped to assist at the scene. He testified he was going about 60 mph when the Lexus sped by him, lost control and crashed into the truck.
Shelton alleged Vasquez was an illegal immigrant. There was no testimony as to Vasquez's citizenship, so we don't know if Shelton just assumed that anyone with that name who testified against his daughter must be an illegal immigrant.
But if Vasquez is, the last thing that should happen is to be deported because he stopped to give aid and stuck around to tell the police what he had seen.
Prosecutor Doyle responded by raising his voice: "The same man who stopped to aid your daughter, to do the right thing, you're attacking his citizenship status? Are you kidding me?"
But Shelton wasn't kidding. I don't blame him for not wanting his daughter prosecuted. It would be a cold father who did.
But to attack two innocent people whose "crime" was to be in her drunken path?
I'm with the truck driver. He shouldn't be a judge.
And I sympathize with her parents' protective instinct to do and say anything that might spare their daughter more pain.
But I also agree with columnist Rick Casey, writing in today's Houston Chronicle, that as a State District Judge in a family court where nearly half the cases involve juveniles charged with crimes, her father Pat Shelton engaged in conduct during his daughter's trial that calls into question his fitness to remain on the bench. Casey's column follows.
State District Judge Pat Shelton isn't up for re-election until 2010.
I hope at that time voters don't visit upon him the sins of his daughter, who was convicted Tuesday of intoxication manslaughter.
He has enough sins of his own for voters to consider.
They are sins for which a father might be forgiven, but for which a judge should be judged.
In this case, his behavior is especially relevant since Shelton presides over a family court, with nearly half his caseload devoted to juveniles charged with crimes.
Elizabeth Shelton tested at three times the blood-alcohol limit last October after slamming her Lexus SUV into the back of a box truck at 2 a.m. on U.S. 59. Her longtime boyfriend was killed instantly.
Since Judge Shelton and his wife weren't tried for bad parenting, we don't have enough information to consider their share of responsibility. (And the humbling experience of being a parent would make me pray I wasn't chosen as a juror in such a trial.)
But Shelton did engage in conduct during the trial that raises questions about his suitability as a judge.
In an antagonistic exchange with the prosecutor, Shelton first attacked the driver whose truck his daughter hit.
He said his daughter told him at the hospital that night that the driver had swerved into her lane at the last minute. But a doctor at the hospital had a different recollection.
"When her mom and dad were there, she said, 'It's my fault, and I do not want to live,' " the doctor testified.
What's more, when a person is that drunk, it may have appeared that the entire highway was swerving all over the place.
An expert for the defense testified there was evidence the driver did swerve, but an expert for the prosecution said there was none. That's the nature of paid courtroom expertise: It almost always agrees with the people writing the check.
But Judge Shelton took it further. He accused the driver of having no insurance and of being the subject of a hot check warrant.
The judge had done at least some research. It turns out the insurance on the truck had lapsed. But it was a company truck and someone else at the company was responsible for paying the bills.
And the hot check warrant? Let's give the judge the benefit of the doubt: He was mistaken.
It's OK for fathers to be mistaken, although it's stupid from the witness stand since being caught hurts one's credibility.
But lawyers and judges should know to be very careful about making unfounded accusations in court.
The worst accusation Shelton made against the truck driver was that he should have been charged for leaving the scene of the accident.
"You should not cherry pick who you want to favor and who you want to put down," Shelton told prosecutor Paul Doyle. "No one is above the law."
But the driver explained that he pulled off U.S. 59 because it wasn't safe to stay in the middle of the freeway or to back up to where the wrecked car was.
"I got off at the Buffalo Speedway and made a U-turn and came back around as quick as I could," said Lance Bennett on Thursday.
"That man slandered me," he said. "He shouldn't be a judge."
Shelton also argued that Doyle should have prosecuted Federico Vasquez, who stopped to assist at the scene. He testified he was going about 60 mph when the Lexus sped by him, lost control and crashed into the truck.
Shelton alleged Vasquez was an illegal immigrant. There was no testimony as to Vasquez's citizenship, so we don't know if Shelton just assumed that anyone with that name who testified against his daughter must be an illegal immigrant.
But if Vasquez is, the last thing that should happen is to be deported because he stopped to give aid and stuck around to tell the police what he had seen.
Prosecutor Doyle responded by raising his voice: "The same man who stopped to aid your daughter, to do the right thing, you're attacking his citizenship status? Are you kidding me?"
But Shelton wasn't kidding. I don't blame him for not wanting his daughter prosecuted. It would be a cold father who did.
But to attack two innocent people whose "crime" was to be in her drunken path?
I'm with the truck driver. He shouldn't be a judge.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Texas Is a State, Isn't It? Inquiring Justices Want to Know
The joke was on Texas yesterday at the Supreme Court.
A Mexican citizen is on death row after Texas failed to follow a treaty that gave him the right to contact his embassy after he was arrested. While quoting a sentence from the U.S. Constitution that says "the judges in every state" are bound by treaties, Justice Stephen Bryer drew a laugh when he said, "I guess it means, including Texas." The following is in today's Santa Fe New Mexican:
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, with a bit of dramatic flair in the packed courtroom Wednesday, whipped out his pocket-size Constitution and began reading to a lawyer from Texas the pertinent section on international treaties.
Treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state," Breyer said, pausing briefly, "I guess it means, including Texas, 'shall be bound thereby.' "
His little joke aside, Breyer was probing a question at the heart of a complicated dispute over the role of international law and claims of executive power in the case of a Mexican on death row for rape and murder.
Despite his support for the death penalty, President Bush has intervened in the case on behalf of Jose Ernesto Medellin.
Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz told Breyer and his colleagues that the international court ruling has no weight in Texas and that Bush has no power to order its enforcement.
The justices engaged in a spirited discussion of who gets the final say in whether Texas courts must give Medellin a new hearing because local police never notified Mexican diplomats he had been arrested, in violation of an international treaty.
A Mexican citizen is on death row after Texas failed to follow a treaty that gave him the right to contact his embassy after he was arrested. While quoting a sentence from the U.S. Constitution that says "the judges in every state" are bound by treaties, Justice Stephen Bryer drew a laugh when he said, "I guess it means, including Texas." The following is in today's Santa Fe New Mexican:
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, with a bit of dramatic flair in the packed courtroom Wednesday, whipped out his pocket-size Constitution and began reading to a lawyer from Texas the pertinent section on international treaties.
Treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state," Breyer said, pausing briefly, "I guess it means, including Texas, 'shall be bound thereby.' "
His little joke aside, Breyer was probing a question at the heart of a complicated dispute over the role of international law and claims of executive power in the case of a Mexican on death row for rape and murder.
Despite his support for the death penalty, President Bush has intervened in the case on behalf of Jose Ernesto Medellin.
Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz told Breyer and his colleagues that the international court ruling has no weight in Texas and that Bush has no power to order its enforcement.
The justices engaged in a spirited discussion of who gets the final say in whether Texas courts must give Medellin a new hearing because local police never notified Mexican diplomats he had been arrested, in violation of an international treaty.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Is the General Motors Contract a Good Deal?
Houston Chronicle business columnist Loren Steffy, historically one of the first in Houston to sound the alarm about Enron's bizarre business practices, has a clever column today questioning whether the agreement between GM and the UAW to offload GM's health care costs into a trust managed by the union will actually work.
The column is entitled The GM settlement boils down to a matter of trust. It notes that Caterpillar set up a very similar arrangement in Peoria, but it ran out of money in six years, and Caterpillar's retirees are now having to pay a big chunck of medical costs themselves. GM hopes that the $24 billion they're putting into the UAW trust upfront, plus a few billion more in the next few years, will be enough to keep the trust solvent. Recalling the bad calculations and bad outcome when GM sold off its Delphi division, Steffy is very skeptical.
The clever part of the column is that Steffy pretends he is interviewing Howie Makem, the Quality Cat mascot that GM had walk through its Flint, Michigan plant at random intervals in the 1980s, weaing a long red cape with a giant Q for Quality, and purring slogans like "Quality is the backbone of good workmanship" and "Safety is safe" to bewildered workers. The character is featured with glee in Ben Hamper's 1992 book Rivethead: Tales from the Assembly Line.
Evidently GM had a contest to name the cat. Howie Makem won out over the likes of Tuna Meowt, Roger's Pussy, and Wanda Kwit. Howie, of course, is gung ho for the health care trust and thinks it will be a resounding success.
I'd love to post a picture of the Quality Cat. But apparently GM was quite successful in preventing one from ever being published.
The column is entitled The GM settlement boils down to a matter of trust. It notes that Caterpillar set up a very similar arrangement in Peoria, but it ran out of money in six years, and Caterpillar's retirees are now having to pay a big chunck of medical costs themselves. GM hopes that the $24 billion they're putting into the UAW trust upfront, plus a few billion more in the next few years, will be enough to keep the trust solvent. Recalling the bad calculations and bad outcome when GM sold off its Delphi division, Steffy is very skeptical.
The clever part of the column is that Steffy pretends he is interviewing Howie Makem, the Quality Cat mascot that GM had walk through its Flint, Michigan plant at random intervals in the 1980s, weaing a long red cape with a giant Q for Quality, and purring slogans like "Quality is the backbone of good workmanship" and "Safety is safe" to bewildered workers. The character is featured with glee in Ben Hamper's 1992 book Rivethead: Tales from the Assembly Line.
Evidently GM had a contest to name the cat. Howie Makem won out over the likes of Tuna Meowt, Roger's Pussy, and Wanda Kwit. Howie, of course, is gung ho for the health care trust and thinks it will be a resounding success.
I'd love to post a picture of the Quality Cat. But apparently GM was quite successful in preventing one from ever being published.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Impeach Clarence Thomas: Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut. Sometimes You Don’t.
It looks like Congress will have to impeach Clarence Thomas.
He has retaliated publicly against a former employee who accused him of sexual harassment.
That is a violation of the law and an abuse of his office as a Supreme Court Justice of the United States.
Not only does the retaliation bolster the original sexual harassment charge; it constitutes a new act of harassment based on sex.
The victim of the harassment, Anita Hill, may have remedies of her own. She might, for instance, file a complaint with the EEOC (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). That would be poetic, since she alleged in 1991 that Thomas had sexually harassed her while he was head of that agency. That and the age of the charges probably ruled out an EEO complaint in 1991. But now that Thomas, in print and in recorded interviews, has engaged in current acts of retaliation against Hill’s original charges, he may finally have opened a door to that administrative remedy.
If an EEOC complaint is unsuccessful, or impossible, Hill might also consider a civil suit. The grounds might include: the failure of Justice Thomas’s employer (presumably Chief Justice Roberts) to stop Mr. Thomas from violating EEO laws; the failure of the EEOC to enforce those laws; and perhaps libel or slander.
But even if Ms. Hill succeeded these pursuits, would it be a sufficient remedy for Congress, the citizens of the United States, or the rule of law under the U.S. Constitution? I suggest that it would not.
Congress, which had ample justification not to confirm the nomination of Justice Thomas in the first place, should face the consequences of the flawed decision it made in 1991.
Justice Thomas has had 16 years to prove his detractors were wrong. As Supreme Court watchers have observed repeatedly, his record reeks lack of judicial temperament in case after case. And now he resorts to judicial misconduct at its worst: he misuses his platform as a sitting Supreme Court justice to heap public abuse on a black female who questioned his commitment to following the law.
This latest behavior simply magnifies the assessment of Antonin Scalia, the only other justice whose conservative activism comes even close, that Clarence Thomas has more loose screws the Supreme Court can endure.
I close with the account of Scalia’s assessment, in this 10/1 post by Nicole Belle at crooksandliars.com:
60 Minutes: Clarence Thomas addresses abortion and Uncle Tom accusations
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was interviewed on 60 Minutes yesterday to promote his book, My Grandfather’s Son, and he had some just odd things to say about his critics. When asked why there was so much controversy about his nomination to the highest court in the land, his answer: abortion. Huh? While he is correct that there was an overriding concern amongst Democrats of the time that a conservative majority would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I think it’s a vast oversimplification to put the focus solely on that.
But then again, Thomas has a habit of making strange oversimplifications and assertions. As Marty Kaplan recounts:
But no less an authority than arch-conservative fellow Associate Justice Antonin Scalia told Thomas’ biographer, Ken Foskett, that Thomas “doesn’t believe in stare decisis, period.” If you think nutcase is too strong a word to summarize that view, listen again to Scalia, as quoted in this Terry Gross interview with Jeff Toobin about his new Supreme Court book, The Nine:
TOOBIN: Clarence Thomas is not just the most conservative member of the Rehnquist court or the Roberts court. He’s the most conservative justice to serve on the court since the 1930s. If you take what Thomas says seriously, if you read his opinions, particularly about issues like the scope of the federal government, he basically thinks that the entire work of the New Deal is unconstitutional. He really believes in a conception of the federal government that hasn’t been supported by the justices since Franklin Roosevelt made his appointments to the court. You know, I went to a speech that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue here in New York a couple of years ago, and someone asked him, `What’s the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?’ I thought a very good question. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, I’m a conservative. I’m a texturalist. I’m an originalist. But I’m not a nut.’
He has retaliated publicly against a former employee who accused him of sexual harassment.
That is a violation of the law and an abuse of his office as a Supreme Court Justice of the United States.
Not only does the retaliation bolster the original sexual harassment charge; it constitutes a new act of harassment based on sex.
The victim of the harassment, Anita Hill, may have remedies of her own. She might, for instance, file a complaint with the EEOC (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). That would be poetic, since she alleged in 1991 that Thomas had sexually harassed her while he was head of that agency. That and the age of the charges probably ruled out an EEO complaint in 1991. But now that Thomas, in print and in recorded interviews, has engaged in current acts of retaliation against Hill’s original charges, he may finally have opened a door to that administrative remedy.
If an EEOC complaint is unsuccessful, or impossible, Hill might also consider a civil suit. The grounds might include: the failure of Justice Thomas’s employer (presumably Chief Justice Roberts) to stop Mr. Thomas from violating EEO laws; the failure of the EEOC to enforce those laws; and perhaps libel or slander.
But even if Ms. Hill succeeded these pursuits, would it be a sufficient remedy for Congress, the citizens of the United States, or the rule of law under the U.S. Constitution? I suggest that it would not.
Congress, which had ample justification not to confirm the nomination of Justice Thomas in the first place, should face the consequences of the flawed decision it made in 1991.
Justice Thomas has had 16 years to prove his detractors were wrong. As Supreme Court watchers have observed repeatedly, his record reeks lack of judicial temperament in case after case. And now he resorts to judicial misconduct at its worst: he misuses his platform as a sitting Supreme Court justice to heap public abuse on a black female who questioned his commitment to following the law.
This latest behavior simply magnifies the assessment of Antonin Scalia, the only other justice whose conservative activism comes even close, that Clarence Thomas has more loose screws the Supreme Court can endure.
I close with the account of Scalia’s assessment, in this 10/1 post by Nicole Belle at crooksandliars.com:
60 Minutes: Clarence Thomas addresses abortion and Uncle Tom accusations
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was interviewed on 60 Minutes yesterday to promote his book, My Grandfather’s Son, and he had some just odd things to say about his critics. When asked why there was so much controversy about his nomination to the highest court in the land, his answer: abortion. Huh? While he is correct that there was an overriding concern amongst Democrats of the time that a conservative majority would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I think it’s a vast oversimplification to put the focus solely on that.
But then again, Thomas has a habit of making strange oversimplifications and assertions. As Marty Kaplan recounts:
But no less an authority than arch-conservative fellow Associate Justice Antonin Scalia told Thomas’ biographer, Ken Foskett, that Thomas “doesn’t believe in stare decisis, period.” If you think nutcase is too strong a word to summarize that view, listen again to Scalia, as quoted in this Terry Gross interview with Jeff Toobin about his new Supreme Court book, The Nine:
TOOBIN: Clarence Thomas is not just the most conservative member of the Rehnquist court or the Roberts court. He’s the most conservative justice to serve on the court since the 1930s. If you take what Thomas says seriously, if you read his opinions, particularly about issues like the scope of the federal government, he basically thinks that the entire work of the New Deal is unconstitutional. He really believes in a conception of the federal government that hasn’t been supported by the justices since Franklin Roosevelt made his appointments to the court. You know, I went to a speech that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue here in New York a couple of years ago, and someone asked him, `What’s the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?’ I thought a very good question. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, I’m a conservative. I’m a texturalist. I’m an originalist. But I’m not a nut.’
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Tilted Cross: How Architect Philip Johnson Kept Outdoing Himself for 60 Years
This Houston Chronicle photo shows the juxtaposition, at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, of two Philip Johnson architectural designs reflecting noticeably divergent creative styles and time frames. On the right is one of the sleek, black-steel, two-story walkways that connect Johnson's academic buildings, reflecting his subtle, minimalist style in the 1950s. But on the left is the Chapel of St. Basil, which, as a Chronicle columnist says today, is about as subtle as "Marilyn Monroe at a gathering of nuns." In her column entitled The perfect finish: Philip Johnson's final work in Houston is a billboard for St. Thomas Lisa Gray reflects on the parallel growth of Johnson and St. Thomas: "Over the years, both the architect and the university changed radically, but they changed in ways that kept them right for one another."
Through six decades the university transitioned from buildings facing inward and each other, to the very public Chapel of St. Basil and now Johnson's entrance "billboard." The evolution of campus structures reflected the church's transition from the wagons-in-a-circle siege mentality of the 1950s to Vatican II's landmark document Gaudium et Spes, with its stunning affirmation, "The joys and hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of people today, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ."
The same decades witnessed the maturing of Philip Johnson's architecture, from emulating the "Less is more" philosophy of his mentor Mies van der Rohe, then the "Less is a bore" mentality of postmodernist Robert Venturi, then finally distilling and outdoing himself, by designing a sign!
As I noted 9/27 about previous coverage of this "ultimate Philip Johnson work," today's analysis does not mention that Johnson was a gay man who had the same partner for 45 years. Two things remain remarkable about that. First, the maturation of his architecture seems to have gone hand in hand with the maturation of joy and hope in his personal life. Second, the university's outreach included adopting and celebrating the achievement of a man whose personal life was quite at odds with the official moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Both developments should be remembered. And be treasured. And be encouraged anew.
After describing possibly the greatest frustration of Johnson's career — how his design for the Rothko Chapel displeased Mark Rothko and had to be tweaked by others — Gray continued her homage to Johnson. Below is the second half:
Determined never to bore, Johnson appropriated any image, allusion or style that caught his eye. It was said that, though he wasn't original, he excelled in distilling other people's styles and ideas, boiling them down to their essences. He could out-Mies Mies, out-Venturi Venturi.
Transco Tower was the Empire State Building rendered in shiny blue glass. The University of Houston's architecture building, with its funny Greek temple on top, was so closely based on a design of French visionary architect Étienne-Louis Boullée that some called it a rip-off. For AT&T's New York headquarters, Johnson famously topped a glass skyscraper with what looked for all the world like the top of a giant Chippendale bureau — a wink at Venturi.
Those later buildings were "cartoons," as Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin put it, "two-dimensional corporate logos blown up to massive scale." Like good logos, they stuck in your brain, as catchy as pop songs.
Kamin's description fits the chapel that St. Thomas eventually got from Johnson: the va-va-va-voom Chapel of St. Basil. Other architects had conscientiously rendered the rest of the quad in a style that matched Johnson's original buildings, but he seemed delighted to break with his own past. Instead of brick and black steel, he designed the chapel's base in white stucco and topped it with a super-shiny gold dome. It presides over St. Thomas' quad like Marilyn Monroe at a gathering of nuns.
The chapel seems determined to be the life of the party. Its sexy dark entrance looks like a long slit in a woman's skirt. And the ball-shaped dome works quite literally as a logo: Its cross-topped outline looks great on T-shirts.
Just as logo-ready was the tilted glass cross on the chapel's west wall — the shape that Johnson reused on the new black-granite marker. Over on Montrose, that shape shouts that St. Thomas has lost its diffidence and now aims to stake out Catholic turf in a noisy world — or, in the words of its strategic agenda, to "assert our identity, academic brand, and image."
Over the years, Johnson had become precisely the right architect to do that. Accused of stealing other's ideas, he cheerfully stole the tilted cross from himself — a repetition that, like good advertising, strengthens the St. Thomas brand. Accused of designing buildings that are three-dimensional logos, he went one step further and designed ... a two-dimensional logo. A sign.
The Edward P. White Memorial Plaza is the ultimate Philip Johnson work — "ultimate" not just because it's among his last, but because after years of distilling other people's ideas, he got around to distilling himself. With this last doodle, he out-Johnsoned Johnson, and made a cartoon of his own cartoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
