Constance's Diary

Monday, July 25, 2005

In the War on Terror (WOT), Truth is the First Casualty

Last Monday, July 18, 2005 the American terrorist Eric Rudolph was sentenced to life in prison in a Birmingham, AL courthouse. We didn't hear much about Rudolf 's conviction and sentencing in comparison to the Natalie Holloway disappearance or the Michael Jackson molestation trial. And yet Rudolf alone is responsible for killing over a hundred innocent Americans---mainly women and gay men---for how they live and who they are. Why wasn't Rudolph's conviction hailed as another victory in the war on terror?

The reason why is because Rudolph doesn't fit the definition of terror the federal government wants to portray.

According to the AP: "Rudolph, 38, pleaded guilty in April to setting off a remote-controlled bomb that maimed Lyons and killed police officer Robert "Sande" Sanderson outside the New Woman All Women clinic on the morning of Jan. 29, 1998.
He also faces sentencing Aug. 22 in Atlanta for the 1996 Olympics bombing that killed one woman and injured more than 100, as well as 1997 bombings at an abortion clinic and gay bar in Atlanta." See http://khon.com/khon/display.cfm?storyID=5568§ionID=1163

Indeed, the United States, like most modern nation-states, has a history of American terrorists---including the other anti-abortion extremists as well as such groups as the Ku Klux Klan---that have terrorized the country for years.

Terrorism---extremism, hatred and violence---is nothing new to America, although we have been told that, since September 11, 2001, the USA is engaged in a war on terror. Indeed, the "war on terror" has been misused by the Administration to justify the invasion of Iraq under false premises, the illegal indefinite imprisonment of detainees, and the U.S. Patriot Act.

In The Weekly Standard electronic newsletter Irwin M. Stelzer notes that "[m]yths are not the stuff of which sensible policy is made. So it is important to scotch the myth that Britain and America have similar and equally effective responses to the terrorist attacks they have suffered. The hard fact is that America has decided that it is engaged in a war, while Britain has decided that it is confronted with what the leader of the Tory party (historically the foreign policy tough guys) calls a 'criminal conspiracy' and the Economist calls a 'war on terror,' complete with quotation marks. Put differently, 7/7 has evoked a policy response very different from 9/11."

He goes on to explain: "One reason for the widely different responses is that America was attacked by foreigners, whereas Brits were horrified to learn that they had been attacked by fellow citizens. Americans know it is 'us' against 'them,' whereas Brits know that 'they' are also 'us'." Does Stelzer's understanding and vision of terrorism---that is his imagination---include Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols? Or is "terrorism" just a convenient ideological over-simplification for neo-conservatism?

Of course, Stelzer's argument only holds if one discounts and dismisses the ample evidence that "they" (i.e. the terrorists) are "us" (e.g. Eric Rudolph, Edgar Ray Killen, Russell Henderson, Aaron McKinney, Ted Kaczynski, Charles Guiteau, or Leon Czoglosz, etc.).

The war on terror has been used to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq by the United States government as is demonstrated by the President's continued insistence that America's confrontation with terror includes the deposing of Saddam Hussein (i.e. regime change) as he noted in his June 28, 2005 address to the nation. Were the over 100, 000 and rising civilian casualties maimed and killed in Iraq all terrorists?

Yet the bombings in London, Egypt, and Beirut this past week suggest that the violence may be spreading, not receding.

The 9/11 Commission noted that the underlying failure of US preparedness leading to the September 11th attacks was one of imagination. And the 50 or so casualties in Great Britain on July 7, 2005 is still a whole lot less than the thousands killed on 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission noted that intelligence failures led to the most lethal attack on the 48 contiguous United States since 1812.

Yet the U.S. President just last week changed his standard of tolerance for administration breaches of national security when he retracted his longstanding pledge to remove from the White House anyone involved in leaking the identity of covert CIA operatives to dismissal only if administration officials are convicted of a crime. This double standard is hypocritical and disturbing.

And if the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, and if it is supposed to make us safer, then what can we conclude about the bombings in Madrid, London, Beirut, and Sharm el-Sheikh?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

What would Lincoln do?

In rare moments through the ages figures emerge who through some force beyond comprehension overcome the ordinary obstacles that befuddle mere mortals and give us great wisdom. In American history Abraham Lincoln is such a person.

That Lincoln comes to mind is not so strange considering the famous quote attributed to the Sixteenth President of the United States:

"We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we would despise him."

Matthew J. Franck, Professor and Chairman of Political Science at Radford University, in an article in the National Review has taken exception to the quote citing problems with its attribution.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/franck200507060812.asp

But if Lincoln had said it, the quote wouldn't surprise me since Lincoln himself was a lawyer. He would probably thought that was the way he would have answered under questioning before a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing considering a Supreme Court appointment. Lincoln was a good lawyer.

Professor Franck, if I am reading him correctly, takes issue with the premise that Lincoln would have ruled out ideological positions and philosophical debates; there are known Lincoln quotes whose sourcing is not in doubt that would suggest he, in fact, would have encouraged them.

And Professor Franck makes an excellent point: an honest, forthright, reasoned, and principled discussion of ideological issues is overdue in the nation.

Democrats shall engage Judge Roberts on these issues and indeed they should. If we stand for anything, it is our principles after all. The Democrats will need to be courteous, respectful, poised, and rational. But they will also ask the pointed, fleshy substantive and procedural legal and philosophical questions that perhaps Lincoln would have approved.

The Democrats shall also---short of something catastrophic---allow this nomination to reach the Senate floor where it shall be voted upon with a straight up-or-down vote. Despite philosophical and political differences, Democrats will support a floor vote because that is how they would want progressive nominees treated.

Ultimately, the political contest that seems so often to divide us will be won on ideological grounds; not on political maneuvering. There is a place for procedural strategies in serving as the loyal opposition (e.g. CIA leak investigation). This Supreme Court candidate---unless some cataclysmic revelation suddenly appears---warrants an ideological strategy including a straight up-or-down floor vote in the Senate.

If the Democrats disagree with Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy they shall calmly, but vigorously pursue an impassioned colloquy with the nominee in committee. The Democrats may even vote against the candidate in committee, although allowing the appointment to reach the floor as was done with the Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice.

Democrats will take on conservative ideologue precepts, advocating the great cause of progressive democratic liberalism. Democratic people will advance the common cause of tolerance, pluralism, equality, opportunity, democracy, social justice, and respect for the law. Because ultimately, the Democrats will prevail in the war of ideas because of their principles, not because of politics.

What would Lincoln have done?

Roberts, Rove, and Dead Iraqi Constitution Draftees: Can Americans (and Democrats) Handle a Three-Course Meal?

I was amused recently when I read the following quote online from a Washington Post column:

"It was not just Wilson, but Democrats, reporters and a few former officials who were publicly wondering if Bush had led the nation to war based on flimsy, if not outright false, intelligence."
source: Washington Post article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8600106/.

Ah, the self-justification of the press corps; especially when they fail in their journalistic responsibilities.

This reporter, who manages to pen quite a few articles (with hopefully few grammar, spelling, and usage errors...LOL) despite working a full time and two part-time jobs, is bemused: I had not only been "wondering" whether the case to go to war in Iraq was "flimsy," I knew the premises on which the pitch for war was sounded were "outright false" and I said so. In fact, the case for war was so transparent, so weak, so incredible, and so misplaced it inspired me to pen my criticism out of frustration that the Congress, the media, and the electorate failed to properly question a decision by the Chief Executive to call on our nation's young people---some of whom sat in my classes---to answer this country's highest calling.

The President, Mr. Bush, has turned sophistry into an art form in his style of "honest" character-based governance. But what kind of man would send troops to die in battle based on untruths and false premises? That seems neither honest nor demonstrable of any kind of character I had learned in the Boy Scouts or Sunday school.

So it was interesting that this week---when Karl Rove---the mole who disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent (and there was nothing "muddy" about that) according to Matt Cooper himself, has come under fire for endangering a CIA agent's family, breaching national security by blowing the operative's cover, and exposing developed intelligence contacts around the world, was saved by a controversial Supreme Court nomination and a potentially contentious confirmation battle. It seems George W. Bush loves to play war when the going gets tough.

But Democrats need be concerned: the loyal opposition must recall it is in opposition. And they must not let the Rove story out of the steam cooker because, in the post-9/11 world---too much is at stake.

There will be a tough confirmation hearing over Roberts as indeed there should be considering the 50-something year old jurist will be auditioning for a lifetime appointment. That could mean a tenure of thirty or even forty years. So the Democrats need to be steadfast and ask Roberts the tough questions that need to be asked, providing the kind of oversight, or in the case of Roberts, "advice and consent," that the populace expects while simultaneously upholding their Constitutional duty to provide such questioning.

But that does not, nor should it, absolve the press, the people and their elected representatives from fully, and thoroughly investigating and acting on the Rove scandal. The idea that the senior advisors to both the President and Vice-President of the U.S. misused classified, top secret information to discredit an American citizen and in so doing compromised national security is dastardly and criminal. If the administration could not, and still can not, make a legitimate case for war on its own merits, then that decision---to go to war---ought better be postponed.

The Democrats have a tough agenda to triangulate: Roberts nomination, the Rove affair, and the ongoing civil war in Iraq (two Iraqi constitution authors were just killed yesterday: imagine if James Madison or Benj. Franklin had been killed during the run-up to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution: what would American democracy look like, or not look like, today?

If Americans can handle the Aruban teen disappearance and the Michael Jackson case all on the same plate, then surely they can contemplate the Rove affair, a Supreme Court nominee, and a war in which more and more are dying for a less and less clear goal all at the same time. And Democrats need to strategize, organize, and not apologize for taking the lead on all three of those issues.
tems.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Why is Judith Miller in jail?

Why is Judith Miller in jail? and, other Insights into a Case of Leaked Identity

Ken Mehlman appearing on the Sunday morning news circuit took up the mantle of defending the White House---and in particular Karl Rove, the President's senior advisor and confidante, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice-President's former (?) chief of staff---against legal and political attacks because the administration's credibility on this matter is in tatters. Mehlman, an interesting political choice as chair of the RNC and decidedly outside the White House itself, skillfully evaded most of the questions pertaining to the outing of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, while referring to the gathering tide of news reports currently threatening the administration.

Mehlman did his best to defend a sinking ethical problem while noting a lower legal standard was now the appropriate bar by which to measure what looks like an increasingly diminished standard of character, credibility, and leadership.

But what was most absurd, and remains truly bizarre, is Mehlman's casting of Rove as a somehow victimized, blameless tragic figure who is assuredly free of guilt of the now lower standard set by the President himself.

To plead sympathy for Rove while a CIA secret agent's personal identity has been compromised endangering not only intelligence work and national security, but more significantly the life of Ms. Plame, Ambassador Wilson, and their young children is maddening!

Moreover, while Matt Cooper has thankfully spoken out publicly regarding his involvement in this entire tangled web, what is Bob Novak's role for initially revealing Plame's identity in print, and, even worse, why is Judith Miller sitting in jail? A serious matter indeed.

And the White House owes the public an explanation of what is going on here and whether what went on was not an intentional cover-up of a dishonest, untruthful case for war. That would appear to make the war unjustified and possibly illegal.

Scott McClellan, WH spokesperson, finds himself in the embarrassing position of being lied to, or perhaps mislead, by Rove and Libby, having made definitive pronouncements of the pair's innocence in the whole tawdry affair. The President today retreated on his former pledge to remove from the West Wing any personnel involved with the disclosure of a CIA covert agent's identity. And Dick Cheney's most recent explanations of his knowledge to the run-up to war has consisted of hair-splitting legalisms, parsing words, and advancing very broad re-definitions of past statements.

Some Republicans are incredulously trying to pull off a bait-and-switch by frivolously impeaching the integrity of Ambassador Joe Wilson---who editorialized against the administration's case for war based on false and misleading premises. Many of us at the time remember the President's anti-historical reference to yellow cake from Niger, and, so far as is commonly known, the first untrue allegations ever cited in a State of the Union Address, against Saddam Hussein, as justification for invading a sovereign nation. The yellow cake reference in the President's speech was simply not true and Wilson said so in his article raising the ire of the administration. At the time many of us were further perplexed that the White House's credibility was not immediately called into question given the gravity of the consequences to go to war, and remembering how,just an administration ago, another President had been held to what many believe was an even lower standard of accountability as a president.

Nevertheless, off to war the nation went and the media scarcely questioned what can be said that at the time was a weak rationale for a peremptory, unprovoked military invasion of another country.

Now some many billion dollars and too many thousands of American and Iraqi lives later, some big questions call for some meaningful, plain, and truthful answers.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Aftermath in Iraq

The advent of the Downing Street memo and other previously undocumented memos that have come to light only after long scrutiny and persistent, principled stands by a remarkable group of congressmen have launched public information sessions to bring to light evidence of apparent deception leading to the rush to war in Iraq.

Indeed, CNN reported that the partisan Republican leadership of Tom Delay sought to pressure the congressmen not to hold hearings: official or public: "The Democratic congressmen were relegated to a tiny room in the bottom of the Capitol, and the Republicans who run the House scheduled 11 major votes to coincide with the afternoon event." CNN http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/16/downingst.memo.ap/index.html

The basic problem with Mr. Bush's War, though, is less about the administration's misleading and deceptive tactics inciting the rush to war, as it is about the assumptions on which the war were based.

Under the lead of neoconservatives---like John Bolton---the U.S. assumed that the disposal of Saddam Hussein would lead to a groundswell of support for a sudden, miraculous demos in the Fertile Crescent. That assumption was not based on historical analysis and has proven misplaced. A much more probable analogy would be the "liberal" debates over the Iranian Revolution in 1979 between de Beauvoir and Foucault: not between Robbespierre and Murrat. The Iranian revolution is, in fact, still in the phases of revolutionary cycles as we note in viewing the upcoming Iranian elections. Iran is a much more likely vision of what democracy will look like in Iraq, and that is a troubling scenario. So in the final analysis the Downing Street memo provides evidence that the President misled the country into war based on faulty assumptions.

It seems to me that the White House doesn't understand the "true nature of the enemy in Iraq," not the American people. The American people see it all too well. Instead of explaining to us "the nature of the enemy in Iraq," they ought to be explaining how in the world they intend on "binding up the nation's [Iraq's] wounds" and getting us out of Frankly, if the administration hasn't been able to explain the nature of the threat in Iraq since March 2003 it is doubtful they will do well in explaining it now. Let's just hear about the strategy, the plan of action.....

The administration's plans and strategy must address these issues:

1. since Islam is a global religion, like Christianity, by its very history and civilization, have we put too much faith in Islamic creativity within a real politik situation on the ground?

2. since middle eastern governments tend to be dominated by religious factions, what would an Islamist democracy look like; and isn't Iran and the Iranian Revolution a better model?

3. Should Iraq be secular? Can it be secular? What religious doctrines---freedom to exercise and/or no establishment clause---will be included or excluded from the final Iraqi Constitution?

4. To what extent should the Shariah be the model for Iraqi civil law? Since Islamic law was closed by the 10th century; that is, the closing of the door of ijtihad;to what extent is it even desirable to allow Shariah precedents in the law? Or should Iraqi criminal/civil (secular) and equity/family law, etc (sectarian) be split between secular and sectarian institutions?

5. since the sources of authority in Islam are 1. Qur’an: direct word of Allah as revealed to Mohammed 2. sunnah: example of the Prophet (includes hadith, or sayings of Mohammed) 3. shariah: body of Islamic law as interpreted by theologians over the centuries (development of Islamic jurisprudence ceased about 10th c.) 4. ijma: consensus of Islamic scholars and theologians on a particular issue, to what extent should these influence Iraqi civil government? And how will the politics of the various Islamic groups play out given divergent interpretations and the unwillingness and narrowness of some religious groups to accept religious pluralism?

Republican attempts to downplay the Downing Street Memo will not water down the fall out from this damning document. The Republican House leadership's efforts to dampen the Democrats' forum---where witnesses were called, like former Ambassador Joe Clark---who Republicans have tried to discredit in the past raises important questions about this country's entry into a war which was predetermined to be launched by a White House playing the military card at a critical juncture in its first term half life. The consequences couldn't be clearer.

The President and his White House team are re-focusing their PR efforts away from domestic agenda items---proposals like Social Security reform on which the President has staked much of his political legacy--- to revive dissipating public support for a mismanaged, ill-conceived, and costly preemptive war. Already the President plans a major June 28, 2005 address on the Iraqi insurrection. The tide has turned however and the White House knows it. With midterm congressional elections threatening Republican losses--over the electorate's dissatisfaction with the economy, the war, and what they view as unwarranted intrusion into the realm of American privacy (e.g. Schiavo case), the Republicans are concerned they could lose not just the Senate, but the Republican-controlled House in a big way.

Ultimately, however, the real question does not concern politics: it concerns the lives of young Americans sent into a situation that has turned from a handful of rock-throwing insurgents to a full-scale civil war in Iraq. The President's invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived from the start: but, the Democrats to their credit are not asking for a cut-and-run exit strategy, but rather for an exit plan. Planning is something that has been sorely lacking in the administration's intentions in Iraq from the outset.

A bipartisan group of House members have wisely called on the President to set strategic objectives for "success" in Iraq. Of course, only time and history will determine success in Iraq, but the administration has a responsibility to protect and preserve the Americans caught in the mired mess Iraq has become. The days of open-ended requests for troops, funds, and equipment are over. The administration is to be held to account for the President's decision to put American soldiers in harm's way. That sort of executive carte blanche, without appropriate and necessary oversight from the Congress, is finished.

Now the administration will need to set specific goals for winning the war in Iraq. And America will largely be accomplishing that task on her own thanks to the administration's Tough guy, gun-toting, do-it-alone approach to foreign policy that the White House actually wishes to reinforce with its nomination of John Bolton as UN ambassador.

Let's see a plan: 1. concrete, objective benchmarks for achievement in Iraq2. military performance objectives with timetables for completion3. the recruitment and involvement of five allies, for starters, that did not previously support the invasion to assist in stabilizing Iraq4. concrete objectives of US and other contractors for completing rebuilding tasks (e.g. such-and-such a neighborhood in Baghdad will have running tap water and electricitry by such and such a date5. a candid and honest---not optimistic----appraisal of training Iraqi forces to assume major operations

Representative John Conyers (D-MI), a stalwart of the U.S. House of Representatives having served in the Congress since 1965 Mr. Conyers, a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus and himself an army veteran, is to be highly commended for his decision to hold open public forums on Mr. Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq.

Indeed, these discussions and these questions were not asked in the "rush to war" in 2002-2003; and the fact that they were not asked is a blemish on the part of a large segment of the public and the press alike. The United States Congress is also culpable for their failure to provided the necessary oversight, inquiry, and probing questions that ought always be asked before any American Government calls upon its citizens to bear the measure of our nation's greatest sacrifice. Of course, that was not the case.

This war and the rush to it were fanned by the urgency of a radical neoconservative ideology of aggression that flew in the face of traditional American values and sought to dissuade the public from its true enemy---terrorism and protection of American borders and citizens from terrorists---by refocusing public and media attention on imperialistic,strong-arm tactics the White House hoped would cover up its own intelligence and security failures leading to 9/11.

From the pass to Saudi Arabia on the right to ignore transparent nuclear inspections in that despotic regime, makes one wonder exactly what lessons have been learned.

From the ease of the invasion, to the lack of protective armor, to the inadequate training of our own (e.g. Lindsay England, an apparently partially retarded, or at least low-level functioning, woman) and Iraqi troops and security forces, to the disgraceful and illegal operation of detention camps at Abu Grahib to Guantanamo Bay, to the Haliburton affair, to the firing of Arabic linguists because of their sexual orientation, to the cover-up of the killing of Pat Tilman, to the lack of preparedness for rebuilding and selling democratic reform, to the lack of new recruits and the current insurrection in Iraq, the "rush to war" in Iraq lays squarely on Mr. Bush's plate.

Perhaps had Mr. Bush been drafted and served in Vietnam rather than the Alabama National Guard, perhaps if he had been imprisoned and tortured like John McCain, perhaps if he had seen the ravages of war like John Kerry or Chuck Hagel, he would have been more deliberative, more probing, more thoughtful before exercising the ultimate presidential option: going to war. Mr. Bush and his cronies ought to be held responsible for the "rush to war" and its mismanagement, and they ought to be held accountable now.

In addition to running up unfathomable deficits that threaten our own economic and, hence national, security, and by embedding American soldiers in an apparently intractable conflict to which hundreds of young Americans will give their lives, he has done a disservice to his people and his nation. The least he could do is explain the Downing Street Memo to the American people, like a man--truthfully, and honestly---and accept responsibility for his hubris and folly. Mr. Conyers deserves much praise indeed. And, the Congress would be well-advised to follow his lead and hold hearings into the ""rush to war."

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Women & NJ: Not Perfect Together

That the State of New Jersey ranks last---at the very bottom of the barrel---for women holding public and elective office in the Garden State is a disgrace.
(See http://www.iwpr.org/States2004/PDFs/National_FactSheet.pdf and
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/columns/112304WOMENEDIT.cfm )

That comes as little surprise to me. A few months back, this writer received an email from the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, who at that time were on my list of recipients for my frequent letters on the spectrum of public issues.

Their response asked that I remove them from my email list: it went something to the effect that there was nothing they (the LWV) could do about the public issues about which I was writing. Although it seemed more likely to me that the LWV in New Jersey simply disagreed with many of the positions I took in my letters.

I recall that at the time I was angry: here's a mainstream, supposedly civic organization saying there was nothing that they could do about a presumably unimportant issue like, say, the war in Iraq. No wonder that fewer women than men vote in New Jersey even though females represent a greater percentage than males in the overall state population.

The League of Women Voters used to sponsor debates between candidates. They used to organize voter registration drives. They used to be a real, potent organization. Unfortunately, that's not the case anymore. At least not in New Jersey.

And this despite this headliner on their website ( http://www.lwvnj.org/ ):

The League of WomenVoters
of New Jersey

a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose purpose is to promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government

There are reasons for organizations to exist in the world: to advance a cause, to help people who suffer from a disease, to advocate on behalf of a cause. Then, there are organizations who have frankly outlived their usefulness. They become more of a hindrance than a help. Their mission has been fulfilled and they need to pack up and go home content with the knowledge that their job is completed.

I have often thought that the endless arguments over why the Roman Empire fell in the West were similarly futile. Whether the Western Romans declined and then disintegrated because of failure to control their borders from barbarian incursions, political corruption and the inability to collect taxes, moral decadence, or lead pipes. All interesting theses. But can any historian honestly say that any one hypothesis was the ultimate cause of Roman decline? Maybe the Roman Empire simply fulfilled its mission of creating and maintaining a glorious empire that controlled the Mediterranean basin and the ancient world that surrounded it for a millenium. Maybe the organic, or natural, history of civilizations are not meant to last forever.

Sadly, the League of Women Voters in New Jersey has failed women and voters in New Jersey. It is inexplicable how this organization can otherwise explain the political disenfranchisement of women in the Garden State. And that being the case, it's time for the LWVNJ to move aside. Maybe they have outlived their usefulness.

I am always a bit suspicious of the many "non-profit" organizations that exist in this society and constantly ask for and are given money yet have little to show for all their hearty, heartfelt appeals. Take for example the American Cancer Society: what do they actually do? Does showing a few advertisements or handing out magnets for the refrigerator really assist people in stopping smoking for example? What's the American Cancer Society's Caseload of clients who smoke? Of that caseload, how many are engaged in smoking cessation programs that can be measured using objective, performance indicators? What is the success rate of ACS's caseload? It's like the vast tobacco settlements hat are being used, hypocritically and cynically, to fund underfunded state budgets, not to help the people of that state quit smoking.

New Jersey needs to do better in the way of more equitable representation of females in state and local governments. And the establishment organizations and parties, the politicians and fundraisers who stand in their way need to be shoved---quite literally---aside.

Democratic Ritual in an Age of Information & Technology

If the United States of America is premised on the idea of a social contract; that is, the notion that government derives its powers through the consent of the governed, and that the government, so constituted, is essentially an agreement between the people and the institutions and officers who govern them, then the one common value we as Americans all must respect and guard with vigilance and due care is the democratic ritual of voting.

But what does it mean to "vote" in an age of information and technology? And why should we as individual citizens care?

The answer can be found in three principles that support the social contract: popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and the rule of legitimacy.

Popular sovereignty is the idea that government is an expression, directly or indirectly, of the will of the people and is thereby responsible to them. The rule of law is the concept of a just society of ordered liberty where all people are equal before the law. And the rule of legitimacy is the reason or justification for a government and its officers to hold power by means of some equitable and verifiable process, like elections.

The issue of electoral integrity arises in an era of technological dependence and informational decentralization and strikes right at the heart of American democracy. If the electoral process is corrupted and the vote is in doubt, then popular sovereignty is compromised, the rule of law is violated, and the rule of legitimacy is called into question.

This is a situation that can not stand.

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida and in the 2004 contest in Ohio the possibility of voter fraud and unreliable outcomes has cast shadows on the integrity of the American electoral process. This at a time when we as a nation are desperately trying to forge a fledgling democracy, at least ostensibly, in Iraq and see democracy of the move throughout the world.

Florida 2000 demonstrated the inherent flaws in an election that was not verified. Ohio 2004 is the product of a vote that can not be verified. In both cases the very nature and foundations of democracy are at stake.

In an age of space exploration, nuclear weaponry, digital communication, and wireless networking, it is inconceivable that the best science and engineering can not devise an electronic voting machine where ballots can be instantly documented and verified.

What is worse is that corporations who manufacture these electoral contraptions whose products---votes---are unconfirmed and unproven are engaged in partisan politics favoring one over another candidate or party. If the Government is blind to the unavoidable conflict of interest inherent in such trade, then it is unjust and unaccountable to its people.

There was little excuse for Florida. There is no excuse for Ohio.

To resolve this political emergency and mend the crisis of confidence Specific actions need to be taken now.

First, the a special bipartisan commission appointed by the Congress to thoroughly and substantively investigate the voting irregularities in the last two presidential elections, and to make recommendations to correct the problems in the voting process.

Second, the Congress must pass legislation that ensures consistency, integrity, and uniformity in political elections in the United States.

Opposition to Gay Marriage Not License to Gay Bash

A disturbing post-election trend has been the propensity on the part of
some individuals, politicians, organizations, and religious leaders to
engage in what can only be described as anti-gay bigotry and heterosexist
zealotry. Those engaged in such behavior need to stop it and those who
have already been involved in making hateful, homophobic remarks need to
apologize.

The re-election of Mr. Bush and Senator Kerry's defeat did in fact
underscore the need for further clarification and discussion of issues
surrounding gay marriage, on the one hand, and domestic partner rights, on
the other. The institution of legal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered persons needs to proceed purposefully and with due
deliberation. And the search for equality on the part of sexual minorities
is indeed admirable and desirable.

Yet opposition to gay marriage---however defined or mis-defined as the
case may be---is no excuse for the kind of anti-gay slurs and acts of
intolerance that have been exhibited since November 2, 2004.

Yet examples of heterosexism and homophobia have been multiplying
exponentially since the presidential election. That is a trend that both
horrifies and calls us as a society to learn more about Americans of
different sexual orientations.

Here are just a few of the incidents referred to above. Since American
voters went to the polls on election day 2004 a lesbian Methodist minister
has been defrocked, the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association has rejected
establishing a gay chapter, the Governor of Michigan has ordered reversal
of a state policy offering limited domestic partner benefits to homosexual
employees, a high school has sent home students wearing tee shirts
supporting gay rights, a study has found that the rate of HIV infection
among American gay men rose over the past four years, and the U.S.
citizenship application of a male immigrant who married a transsexual
female has been blocked. In addition, ABC News ran a report that could be
construed as implicating Mathew Sheppard in his own killing, and CBS as
well as NBC refused to run paid advertisements supporting inclusiveness.

When will this madness end?

It is time for someone---including the President of the United States---to
stand up in front of the American people and clearly state that there is
no room for such hatred and intolerance in the United States.

Bigotry, bullying, discrimination, hatred, inequality, intolerance,
name-calling, profanity, and violence are not American values.

Americans do not support inequality, but they do believe in truth. As a
people, Americans demonstrate strong faith, eternal hope, and kind
charity. Surely, however, the greatest of all American values is our
respect and love of our fellow human beings. And no matter how they are
oriented.

Lack of Preparedness and Planning Leads to Deteriorating Situation in Iraq

My personal opposition to the war in Iraq began in earnest when the Baghdad Museum was being looted without abandon in the spring of 2003. I never approved of the war. The administration made a poor case for pre-emptive action against Saddam Hussein, and the premises upon which the decision to go to war was made were questionable from the start. Of course, as we all witnessed, the rationale for the war evolved as the administration's case for invasion evaporated with the failure to locate any weapons of mass destruction

What was worse than the case to go to war was the lack of planning for the subsequent occupation and the seemingly complete disregard of Iraqi as well as Middle Eastern history and culture. The consequences of the United States' miscalculations are becoming more and more evident as we approach a self-imposed deadline for elections on January 30, 2005 that appear at this moment to be both unrealistic and untenable. The inability to establish the rule of law in Iraq will surely result in elections that will be widely viewed by Iraqis and the world as questionable, perhaps even illegitimate. This is not an outcome that we can afford.

Yet the U.S. has been unable to afford this war---in the face of real terrorist threats---from the outset. And we have been unable to afford the war in financial, political, and ethical terms. That American troops have been sent into harms way without adequate forces and without necessary equipment is a travesty of logistics and policy whose human costs are immeasurable. The thought of U.S. troops scavenging through garbage to try to find materials required for their protection is unjust.

During the presidential election the American media swallowed hook, bait, and anchor the Republican charge that Senator John F. Kerry flip-flopped on the initial $87 billion package to provide the troops with requisitions and equipment. Apparently, even if he had voted for that bill, our brave troops would not---as they do not---have the necessary armor to protect themselves in battle. Who's waffling here?

And while some Americans are quick to run out and slap magnetic yellow ribbons on their cars (yellow ribbons, historically, were a symbol welcoming prisoners home by the way), how willing would those same Americans who make $100, 000 or more per year be to accept a tax increase to provide the troops with the armor they need?

The situation in Iraq is deteriorating and the inability of the United States to restore order, provide security, and prevail in the war of ideas will lead to further violence and less security. Americans are no safer for the invasion of Iraq---as the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia indicates---and the collateral damage---plummeting credibility and negative world opinion---only frustrates our efforts to protect the United States and diverts resources from the real war on terrorism.

Is liberalism dead?

In a recent article in the National Review Michael Ledeen, gloating in the re-election of his candidate, Mr. Bush, self-assuredly declares the death of American, indeed, Western liberalism.

This pronouncement, I humbly suggest, is at best premature.

First, the "hysterical reaction" to Bush's re-election by liberals, which Ledeen brands "violent language, numerous acts of violence, and demonization of Bush and his electorate" is overblown. Rhetorical flourish is the staple of politicians of all stripes and those seriously engaged in policy matters know that in a democratic process arguments for and against a position need necessarily be made. Hardly hysteria.

Ironically, the leaders Ledeen cites as targets of this "demonization:" America's Bush, Britain's Blair, Italy's Berlusconi, and Spain's Aznar all have several attributes in common. The first shared characteristic is their collective support for the war in Iraq. Their second common feature is that each hails from a country with a monarchy of one sort or another: the British Royal family, the Spanish monarchy, the papacy in Rome, and the Bush dynasty a la George H.W. Bush in the United States. A typical Burkean attitude.

Second, Ledeen claims that the only time liberals win elections these days are by running on conservative platforms. The fallacy here is twofold: equivalency and divine right. Conservatives like to argue that tax cuts, small government, and strong defense are their exclusive domain. Nothing is further from the truth.

Although Americans amuse themselves with conservative and liberal tags, the U.S. is largely pragmatic in its politics. Political leaders from both parties have discovered, sometimes to their chagrin, a lesson seemingly lost on Ledeen, that elected officials campaign to the party base and govern from the middle. Second, the assertion by conservatives of divine right to certain issues, like tax cuts, is presumptuous. Democrats wholeheartedly support tax cuts. Just not for millionaires who do not need tax cuts. Rather, the Democrats propose targeted tax cuts aimed at supporting the ownership society that the Republicans talk alot about, but do nothing to implement. Tax cuts, for example, directed towards middle and working class African Americans who need assistance in down payments for a first home. Or tax cuts for middle and working class Latino families to help send their kids to college instead of reducing federal assistance in the form of Pell grants. Or prescription coverage and dental and medical insurance to keep all Americans healthy and well.

Third, Ledeen waxes philosophical about the death of liberalism invoking and calling by name the philosophers most beloved by conservatives: Hegel and Marx. Initially praising the success of liberalism in achieving important American values like democracy, equality, and prosperity, he then cites, in true cold war fashion, the former Soviet Union---not the United States---as liberalism's best example of liberal democracy. Equating liberal democracy with communist totalitarianism is not only far-fetched and hallucinatory, but a leap of logic that confounds even the clearest of minds.Finally, Ledeen ends his unusual diatribe by parodying the favorite son of neo-conservatives: Francis Fukayama, the professor at Johns-Hopkins University and author of The End of History and the Last Man. That book presented the most sweeping of claims too. That conflict had ended with the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the spread of liberal democracy and free markets was transcendent, indeed, inevitable. In a post 9/11 world both Fukayama's claim of democracy ascendant and Ledeen's death notice for political dialectics require major reevaluation. An observation not lost on this liberal democrat

Saturday, August 14, 2004

Governor McGreevey and the Gay Community

On Thursday in his address to the State of New Jersey, Governor McGreevey, while announcing that he is gay, said:
"For this is an intensely personal decision, and not one typically for the public domain."
Presumably, the personal decision to which the Governor referred was his announcement that he is a "gay American".
While it is true that we "live in the greatest nation with the tradition of civil liberties, the greatest tradition of civil liberties in the world, in a country that provides so much to its people," America has not always shown, and in many cases still does not today, respect and tolerance to those not heterosexually oriented.
To use just one example, although New Jersey prohibits discrimnation based on sexual orientation and grants limited domestic partners benefits to gay men and women, many of this state's public schools are not safe places for bisexual, gay, lesbian, or transgender students to learn. Some schools have in the recent past ignored, even encouraged and tolerated, harassment based on sexual orientation. Or they have applied a different set of disciplinary standards to cases of gay prejudice and violence effectively establishing a double standard.
Despite the fact that several years ago a northern New Jersey school district was sued and found liable for allowing a gay student to be attacked and verbally abused, just now are public schools in New Jersey seriously adopting comprehensive anti-gay harassment policies following a no-bullying bill passed by the current Governor and an administrative ruling from the state division of civil rights concerning a school in Toms River, NJ.
(see "Schools check for compliance with discrimination ruling from The Press of Atlantic City, August 14, 2004; http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/atlantic/0814044SCHOOLRULING.cfm)
Why are we only now addressing the longstanding issue of anti-gay discrimination and prejudice in our public schools? Why do we even need to be told by the courts and government that the schools have a duty to provide a safe environment in which students can learn?
So the decision to acknowledge one's sexual orientation is a personal choice, but it is a personal choice that for now at least always carries with it very public consequences. And that is unfortunate. That is our failing as a society and a state. It remains to be seen whether we as a people and as a nation will have the courage to admit and try to change our mistakes. The Governor of New Jersey has disclosed and taken responsibility for his failings.
Of course the other side of coming out involves growth and reflection, personhood and self-concept, and a spectrum of other interpersonal issues that require support, nurturing, and acceptance. And that is the main point of this letter.
The "gay community" has both its Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyl sides: from altruism to self-absorption, from body worship to AIDSphobia, from acceptance to arrogance, the gay community has shown both dignity and grace as well as cattiness and meanspiritedness. The gay community needs to be magnanimous and supportive at this time and they most not play into political expediency and political correctness.
The gay community---of all people---know the difficulty of coming out and the wrenching choices that are attendent on that kind of announcement. And so, despite our differences, we should unite in support around what is, so far as I know, the first governor in the nation's history to govern as an openly gay man. The Governor, who has of course resigned due to circumstantial factors concerning his political office, will serve for only twelve weeks during which he will facilitate the transition of the excutive administration in the State to the New Jersey Senate President, Richard Codey, also a Democrat, as prescribed by New Jersey's constitutional system.
But during that time the gay community needs must support this gay man as he becomes the first openly gay American governor in United States history. We have an obligation, indeed a responsibility, to do so without reservation or hesitation. The gay community knows the costs of living true to one's self. That is not to confuse being closeted and coming out with living a secret life or a lie. Human beings hopefully grow and develop their natural potential thoroughout their lives. Human adulthood is just one stage of a larger process; not a place of divine judgement and moral certitude.
Our truth as a community of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgendered, and questioning men and women is that living as we were created too often involves risks and vulnerabilities that heterosexual persons do not confront. That truth requires we exercise acceptance, grace, and respect to our brothers and sisters who need our support more than ever in their lives because they are coming out. So let's support Governor McGreevey as a fellow human being and as we would want to be supported despite the allegations and charges that will be leveled against him. Only we as persons similarly situated can understand what this man is going through. We can not both be proud of his decision and support him one day, and abandon him the next. Let's recognize this event as an opportunity to support our gay brother and as an educational moment. We can help another person and teach society our truths as gay Americans together. Let's be there for him.
The other day's historic announcement by Gov. James E. McGreevey that he is a gay American underscores a number of important issues that need to aired.
There are two questions at issue: one has to do with the governor's sexuality; the other has to do with the legal and political ramifications emanating from the governor's status as a closeted gay man.
At first I thought that these issues were really separate, and in significant ways they are different in kind. But even more significantly is the important ways in which these issues are connected; that is, how the yarns are entwined. And it illustrates the danger that all people who are not heterosexually oriented find themselves in. It presents a quandry, a catch-22, of sorts, in that to be openly gay has real negative consequences in a nation where, in over half the states, one may be fired from their job simply for being homosexual. On the other hand, to be a closeted gay man has, as we have seen in Gov. McGreevey's case undesirable and negative consequences too.
The tragedy here is that the danger persons of non-heterosexual orientation live with everyday provided the type of environment and culture where such an incident as this could happen in a state that has a non-discrimination policy to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Recall it was just in June that the United States Supreme Court reversed its former decision in Bowers v. Hardwick and stated that no state may criminalize private consensual sexual activity between persons of the same sex.
As a public figure we as New Jerseyans must recognize and accept the governor's judgement that his ability to govern has been compromised, that in order to lift the burden of that vulnerability the he has bravely (and uncharacteristically for most politicians I might add) come out as a gay American governor, and that he will resign the governorship as a result of the impropriety of his actions following the orderly constitutional process prescribed by this state's constitution.
The Governor has a duty to ensure the smooth and seemless transition of executive administrations so that the business of New Jersey will continue without interuption.
While Mr. McGreevey exercised poor judgement in naming his lover to an important state security post, no crime was committed and the vetting process ensured by New Jersey's constitutional system in fact worked by eliminating Golan Cipel from consideration and preventing his confirmation for lack of credentials. This is the kind of checks-and-balances buil into American and New Jersey's democratic and constitutional process to prevent this very situation. And the system worked and worked well.
I would remind my Republican friends that using poor judgement and naming unqualified individuals to government posts is no crime. And if it were a crime, the entire state executive, legislature, and judiciary would be occupying our state's prisons. And those behind bars would be Democrats and Republicans alike. I remind the people of Christie Whitman and Parson's Technology/DMV Inspection contract and her other sweetheart deal with EZPass. The Republicans ought to be wary of the waters in this river. Again, the system of constitutional balance worked as it was intended. Given human foibles and frailities, the constitution of New Jersey safeguards the interests of the people.
Having said that I would also remind my Republican friends that the Governor need not even resign because he broke no law so far as we now know, and frankly it was refreshing to hear a public servant tell the truth for a change without excuse and while taking personal responsibilty for his actions. The Governor is resigning because he believes it is the honorable thing to do.
The Republicans looking under rocks and trees for some way to force an election is an attempt to undermine the orderly constitutional system in this state. There simply are no legal grounds to remove the Governor. And if there were an election, a Democrat would win. The reason why New Jersey's Republican Party appears weak is because New Jersey has a tradition of progressive reform and the national Republican Party's swing towards rightwing extremism has isolated progressive and liberal Republicans, and independents who might support them.
I'm glad to hear Genevieve Wood's (spokesperson for the FRC) acknowledgement that Gov. McGreevey's resignation has nothing to do with his sexuality. I'm happy to hear a spokesperson from the Family Research Council admit that sexuality is not a qualification for holding public office. Nor should it be.
But the reality of the situation in New Jersey is that Jim McGreevey would not have been elected governor, indeed, may not have secured the Democratic Party's nomination to run for governor, were he an out gay man. That is the tragedy of a person being held hostage over their own sexuality.The irony is that being honest about your sexuality in New Jersey today may have the same effect.
What Jim McGreevey did was an act of decency, heroism, and honesty. But at the same time, it was the circumstances that led to his courageous announcement, that requires that the Governor resign and does not permit him to continue governing.
Whitman noted in By Blue Ontario's Shore "...without extinction is liberty, without retrograde is equality..." The sad truth of America today is that too often there is still neither equal protection nor due process for some gay men and lesbians. And until the cultural, political, and social barriers that prevent gay Americans from fully participating in the blessings of liberty are removed, sexuality will remain an obstacle to public service and political equality.
As Whitman writes:
By silence or obedience the pens of savans, poets, historians,biographers, and the rest, have longconnived at the filthy law, and books enslaved to it,that what makes the manhood of a man, that sex,womanhood, maternity, desires, lusty animations,organs, acts, are unmentionable and to be ashamedof, to be driven to skulk out of literature with whateverbelongs to them. This filthy law has to be repealed---it stands in the way of great reforms.
It is a sad statement that today in New Jersey there are no openly gay public officials at the state level or higher. But that fact speaks volumes about how far we as a state, let alone nation, have to go before we achieve full equality and full participation for all Americans no matter how they are oriented. It underscores the danger and fearful consequences that all gay men and women live with in the United States. It is a situation with which we must urgently deal.
As a gay Anmerican and a gay New Jerseyan who has experienced the pain of discrimination and retribution, fear and loathing, I would caution Republicans from pushing this issue. New Jersey has a proud tradition of progressive government and reform dating back to Woodrow Wilson and even earlier. And the Republicans would be ill-advised to take political advantage of this Governor's humanity.
While we try to sort out the details of why Jim McGreevey has resigned as Governor of New Jersey, we ought to be mindful of the human story behind his announcement and actions that transcends the merely political and legal aspects that, no doubt, will be the obsessive focus of media attention.
Coming out as a gay man or woman is no easy task. I know that based on personal experience. We live in a society, while now more accepting of gay Americans, is still hardly hospitable to homosexuals as evidenced by the recent debate over "gay marriage".
Fortunately, my parents taught my brother and I to stand up for what we believe in, to always tell the truth, and to never let go of our dreams. Having learned that lesson, I was in a fortunate situation when I came out to my family and friends at age twenty-one.
Coming out is a process and that process is different for each person. At this difficult time in his life, we need to be supportive of the Jim McGreevey as a human being.
The legal and political system will run its course, the processes of law and government will work as they were designed to operate. The Governor will be judged, one hopes appropriately, and without prejudice or preconceptions.
In the final analysis I hope that some good comes from this unfortunate situation.
In my heart I hope that this truth will serve as a lesson to others---in personal circumstances, private situations, political life, and public service---that truth does matter. We need not be afraid of our soul---no matter how it is oriented--- for fear will only serve to obscure the truth from ourselves and others. The truth of our lives and experiences as gay men and women are valid, real, and consequential. We need to stand up for ourselves and be proud of who we are knowing that we are part of a greater reality.
And most importantly, I hope that one day in America, anyone can be elected to public office and serve their country irrespective of their sexual orientation.
Finally, we have a responsibility as free citizens to learn about the complexity of the coming out process. I would caution that because one is not out does not mean a person is being dishonest or that they are hiding. It simply means that are at a particular stage in a process that we as a society are only coming to understand and hopefully, one day, to accept.
Five Stage Model of Coming Out Process
I. Pre-Coming Out
II. Coming Out
III. Exploration
IV. First Relationships
V. Identity Integration
Eli Coleman in “Developmental Stages of the Coming Out Process” surveys current social scientific and behavioral research and proposes a five stage model of the coming out process [see Figure 5 ]. (Coleman, 32-39) He identifies the following stages of the coming out process: Pre-coming Out; Coming Out; Exploration; First Relationships; and, Identity Integration. (Coleman, 32-39) The pre-coming out stage is associated with feelings of alienation, being alone and different, and low self-esteem. Moreover, as Coleman notes, individuals in the pre-coming out stage often employ the psychological defense mechanisms of denial, repression, reaction formation, sublimation, and rationalization to prevent the existential crisis that may occur when the individual, family, and society confronts a deviant sexual orientation. (Coleman, 32-39)
Coleman writes that the individual in the coming out stage is signified by conscious and semi-conscious perceptions of oneself as something other than what they are assumed to be or labeled as being. In some cases this dawning perception is that one is an autonomous, self-defining agent. Although one may not, perhaps, have a clear understanding of this new authenticity as a self- directed human being, there is awareness, acknowledgement, and the rudiments of a more genuine self-identification. (Coleman, 33-34)
Conscious and semi-conscious thoughts of the absurdity of existence, of radical human freedom, and the possibility of creating one’s own essence are not the only signs characteristic of the coming out stage. Coleman also observes that telling others, or self-disclosure, and the need for external validation is vital to coming out and healthy self-acceptance. (Coleman, 34)
Coleman notes that self-disclosure involves risk taking in that the individual can never definitively know prior to the act of disclosure the reaction of those to whom one comes out. These risks---of rejection, ridicule, and hurt---are balanced against the need for external validation. (Coleman, 34) If the reactions to self-disclosure are positive, internalized oppression may evaporate, self-esteem may improve, and the existential crisis may begin to successfully resolve itself. If the reactions are negative, however, oppressive notions may be reinforced, sealing stereotypes in the mind, and planting the seeds of self-loathing and self-hatred. (Coleman, 34-35)
Coleman’s third stage, the exploration phase, is characterized by experimenting with one’s new identity. This stage provides an opportunity to honestly and openly interact with others within the context of one’s new identity. Coleman describes the events of this stage as a sort of “crashing out”: the individual may exhibit signs of awkwardness during the intensity of the exploration phase. Individuals in this stage are occupied with developing interpersonal skills, a sense of personal attractiveness; and sensual, sexual, and spiritual competence to support their newly created self-identity. (Coleman, 35-37)
The last two stages of Coleman’s model are first relationships and identity integration. First relationships represent the need for intimacy which is often developed within the context of long-term committed relationships. From a social learning perspective, the goal of first relationships is to understand how one may develop intimate relationships---that combine both emotional depth and sexual desire---in a patriarchal society where the norm is opposite-sex only marriages that are based on the distribution of wealth, the commodification of sexuality, and the disregard of emotive needs. (Coleman, 38)
Coleman asserts that the final stage of coming out, identity integration, incorporates the private, or hidden, self into the public, or role-bound, self. This synthesis facilitates the emergence of a solid, aesthetic, creative, self-defined identity and self-image characterized by non-possessiveness, mutual trust, and freedom. (Coleman, 39)
Coleman, however, also notes that the resolution of the conflict between the public face one allows others to see and the hidden truth of one’s self-identity, as manifested in the pre-coming out stage, ultimately requires resolution. The choices he offers for the resolution of this existential dilemma are these: suicide; hiding one’s true feelings and desires; or, bravely squaring off with the existential crisis of being different and deviating from the prefabricated roles that society demands human beings assume. By acknowledging the universal condition that individual human beings possess differences that enrich being human, individuals challenge the cultural barriers that prevent them from realizing their own authenticity and freedom. (Coleman, 39)
Source: adapted from Eli Coleman (1982). “Developmental Stages of the Coming Out Process” in John C. Gonsiorek, ed. (1985). A Guide to Psychotherapy with Gay and and Lesbian Clients. New York: Harrington Park Press.