The advertising above is just a source of revenue, and sometimes, I don't know what will appear there.
Unique grips and accessories for your 1911!
Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through.
Labels: homosexuality Labels: abortion Labels: child sexual abuse
Never forget!
I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win
I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
Sorry, high pressure isn't included.
My nephew Shippy makes very pretty ceramic items. Click here to visit his online studio. Give someone one of these, and you can be sure that they don't already have one!
Click here to find out why the Amazon.com Honor System paybox is no longer here.
RSS feed
Other blogs you may enjoy:
My civilian gun defense use blog
My daughter's blog
Pete Drum's Web Page
Gun Laws Don't Work
instapundit.com
Dissecting Leftism -- By John Ray
A courageous Briton arguing for relaxing Britain's gun control laws
Right Thoughts
Final Protective Fire
Amitai Etzioni's Blog
Scrappleface -- Dangerously Clever Satire
Michael Williams -- Master of None
Another Conservative Blogger
A Group Blog By Iraqis
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: TO BRING ONE MORE IRAQI VOICE OF THE SILENT MAJORITY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD
Specializing in discussions of discrimination and affirmative action
An Iraqi dentist
Promoting children being raised by their own parents
A federal law clerk opines about the law
Michelle Malkin's blog
Impearls: a blog as electic and interesting as mine
Proving that the United States military does more than kill people and break things.
May not agree with this group on everything, but stopping the ACLU is high on my list
A conservative/moderate black blogger.
Another sensible American
Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party
Music, Politics, Motorcycles
Maggie's Farm: Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A blog dedicated to "Documenting Saddam Hussein's support of Terrorism"
The blog of one of my fellow bloggers on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
J. Norman Heath's Blog--a circus rigger and Second Amendment scholar (really!)
Buckeye Firearms Association, for you Ohio gun owners and activists
Click here for a FREE NEWSLETTER on Ohio Gun Rights from Buckeye Firearms Association!
Another conservative.
Neocon Blues
Conservative Oasis
Other Idaho Bloggers
Bubbleheads is a retired submariner
An Idaho State University student. A Democrat. Someday, she'll start paying income taxes and change.
A retired Las Vegas stagehand, of all things.
archives
Search only this site: Click here and enter your search string at the beginning of the search field.
Secular Roots of the U.S. Constitution
A gay lawyer argued with me in email about whether Christianity was a dominant influence in the formation of our Constitution, claiming that the dominant thinkers of the Enlightenment, who influenced the form of our government, were secular. I expressed my skepticism of this. His response was: I think we differ on the meaning of "secular." I don't use that term to mean "hostile to religion." It means those who believed in (Enlightenment) principles ascertained by Man's Reason, unaided by Biblical Revelation. Men like Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu were "secular" thinkers in this regard. Many of our founders, Washington for instance, who professed to be Christians were also imbibed in the teachings of these secular thinkers. And the Founders appealed to secular notions of natural and political right, as opposed to Biblical principles, in founding this nation and constructing government.
So what did Locke have to say about religion? Locke's Second Treatise on Government, chapter 2, is very clear that natural and political rights are derived from the fact that humans are God's creation--and Locke was very clear that suicide was not one of the natural rights of man--a position that clearly distinguishes Christianity from classical civilization:But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.
Not surprisingly, chapters 3, 4, and 5 are awash in Biblical references.
What about Montesquieu? In The Spirit of the Law he writes about the importance of religion as a restraining influence:To say that religion is not a restraining motive, because it does not always restrain, is equally absurd as to say that the civil laws are not a restraining motive. It is a false way of reasoning against religion to collect, in a large work, a long detail of the evils it has produced if we do not give at the same time an enumeration of the advantages which have flowed from it. Were I to relate all the evils that have arisen in the world from civil laws, from monarchy, and from republican government, I might tell of frightful things. Were it of no advantage for subjects to have religion, it would still be of some, if princes had it, and if they whitened with foam the only rein which can restrain those who fear not human laws.
Specifically about Christianity:
A prince who loves and fears religion is a lion, who stoops to the hand that strokes, or to the voice that appeases him. He who fears and hates religion is like the savage beast that growls and bites the chain which prevents his flying on the passenger. He who has no religion at all is that terrible animal who perceives his liberty only when he tears in pieces and when he devours.
The question is not to know whether it would be better that a certain man or a certain people had no religion than to abuse what they have, but to know what is the least evil, that religion be sometimes abused, or that there be no such restraint as religion on mankind. That a moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan. The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty.
Now, you might disagree with Montesquieu on this, but to call him a secularist who did not regard Christianity as a major component of enlightened government, is pretty nonsensical.
I was most amused by this gay lawyer, trying to prove to me that Lawrence was rightly decided because of the influence of "secularists" like Montesquieu, when you see what he had to say about the "crime against nature": Of the Crime against Nature. God forbid that I should have the least inclination to diminish the public horror against a crime which religion, morality, and civil government equally condemn. It ought to be proscribed, were it only for its communicating to one sex the weaknesses of the other, and for leading people by a scandalous prostitution of their youth to an ignominious old age.
...
I may venture to affirm that the crime against nature will never make any great progress in society, unless people are prompted to it by some particular custom, as among the Greeks, where the youths of that country performed all their exercises naked; as amongst us, where domestic education is disused; as amongst the Asiatics, where particular persons have a great number of women whom they despise, while others can have none at all. Let there be no customs preparatory to this crime; let it, like every other violation of morals, be severely proscribed by the civil magistrate; and nature will soon defend or resume her rights. Nature, that fond, that indulgent parent, has strewn her pleasures with a bounteous hand, and while she fills us with delights, she prepares us, by means of our issue, in whom we see ourselves, as it were, reproduced -- she prepares us, I say, for future satisfactions of a more exquisite kind than those very delights.
Humor
Originally from someone named Ed Caras: Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs. His wife Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for memories from two people who for eight years repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.
And While I'm Ripping Jonathan Rowe's Arguments To Shreds On Originalism...
Rowe has a very long blog entry trying to debunk the notion that the United States was conceived as a Christian nation. He claims that a book by a guy named David Barton has passed around a lot of incorrect quotes from the Founders, and that someone named Brayton has caught this guy Barton: Brayton also informs us that there is no evidence that George Washington ever said this: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
George Washington did say something quite similar, however: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
As for the question of the religious basis of the American republic, look at the documents of the time. State constitutions from this early period included some fairly astonishing language. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, section 10, includes this requirement for officeholders: And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
The current Pennsylvania Consitution, Art. I, sec. 4, still says: I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.
And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.
From the North Carolina Constitution of 1776: That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
Maryland's 1776 Constitution includes a similar provision at Article 35: That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.
You can track the later amendments of this provision here. Neither of these provisions require these beliefs to hold office, but do allow the legislature to impose such a requirement on officeholders.
From Massachusetts' 1780 Constitution: Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.
Delaware's Constitutional Convention's on September 6, 1776, modified a statement required of all members of the House:
Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffcused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.The Convention met.
From Connecticut's Revolutionary government, July 4, 1776:
On Motion of Mr. McKean,
Resolved unanimously,
That the following Words be added to the Profession of Faith made by the Members of this House respectively, to wit, "And I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine Inspiration." [Claudia L. Bushman, Harold B. Hancock, and Elizabeth Moyne Homsey, ed., Proceedings of the Assembly of the Lower Counties on Delaware 1770-1776, of the Constitutional Convention of 1776, and of the House of Assembly of the Delaware State 1776-1781 (Newark, Del.: University of Delaware Press, 1986), 209.]A Proclamation for a Day of Publick Humiliation, of Fasting and Prayer.
A resolution of the South Carolina Provincial Congress, January 17, 1775, at American Archives, 4th series, vol. 1, p. 1118:
It being our incumbent duty to acknowledge God in all our ways, and to committ all our affairs, both publick and private, to his all-wise direction and guidance, and especially in a day of singular and general calamity to implore his merciful interposition; and it having been the laudable practice of this Government to recommend and appoint days of publick Fasting and Prayer upon special and solemn occasions; and this Court apprehending the present season to be big with the most important events, not only to this, but to all the United American Colonies, and sensible that these events are at the disposal of the Supreme Governour of the Universe:
We have thought fit, with the advice of Council, and at the desire of the House of Representatives, to appoint, and do hereby set apart Thursday, the first day of August next, to be observed throughout this Colony as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer, hereby calling upon Ministers and People publickly to humble themselves under the righteous hand of God; penitently to acknowledge their many heinous and aggravated sins, and the righteousness of his dispensation towards them; with devout and imoportunate applications to implore Almighty God that the frowns of his Providence, manifested by the severe drought wherewith some parts of the land have been visited, and all the humiliating events which have lately taken place in America, may, under the Divine influence, produce a severe repentance and thorough reformation among all orders and degrees of persons....; and that he would spread the peaceful Kingdom of the Divine Redeemer over the face of the whole habitable world. [Peter Force, ed., American Archives, 4th series, 6:1277-8.]Resolved, That it be recommended by this Congress, to all the inhabitants of this Colony, that they be dligently attentive in learning the use of Ar ms; and that their officers be requested to train and exercise them at least once a fortnight.
Voted unanimously by the New Hampshire Provincial Congress on May 19, 1775:
Resolved, That it be recommended to the inhabitants of this Colony, to set apart Friday, the 17th February next, as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, before Almighty God, devoutly to petition him to inspire the King with true wisdom, to defend the people of North America in their just title to freedom, and to avert from them the impending calamities of civil war.
Resolved, That the several Ministers of the Gospel throughout the Colony be requested to prepare and deliver suitable discourses upon this solemn occasion.
Resolved, That every Member of the present Congress who may be in Town, do meet at the Commons House of Assembly, and proceed from thence in a body, to attend divine service in St. Philip's Church; and that the President do request of the Rev. Mr. Robert Smith, that he will prepare, and preach on that day, a Sermon suitable to the importance of the occasion.That in these times of general distress, it is recommended to the inhabitants of this Province, that they encourage all Religious Worship, and that they, by all means, discountenance all manner of vice, and especially the profanation of the Sabbath, which is and has been a growing evil, and that all officers exert themselves for the above purpose.
Now, I understand that perhaps this guy Brayton has caught Barton with some serious mistakes. But Barton's claim--that the United States was founded on Christian ideas, and was from the beginning a Christian nation--is so easily demonstrated that only a leftist could dispute this with a straight face. See here for more examples.
Suppressing Free Speech
A reader is offering a T-shirt that captures the essence of the McCain/Feingold law that restricts political speech: McCain/Feingold '04
Silence the Vote
More On Originalism
Jonathan Rowe has thrown his opinions in on the originalism vs. libertarian theory of the Constitution: None of Barnett's critics can point to a particular text in the Constitution (as we could regarding the suitable age for the Presidency), that specifically tells us that states could outlaw "sodomy." This question simply is specifically unanswered by our constitution.
It's the same text that gives the states authority to outlaw murder, obscenity, price-gouging (for intrastate commerce), diploma mills, and thousands of other acts that the the states prohibit, and for which there is no specific authorization. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Note that Amendment X doesn't say "rights...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You might then be able to argue that the right to sodomy (or any of dozens of other actions) is "reserved... to the people." It says "power"--a power of the people to pass laws, directly, or through their representatives, sitting as state governments. Clear enough?
And when we don't have a precise answer, the proper way to interpret the Constitution is by an objective inquiry into the "core meaning" that the general text had at the time, and the subsequent adoption of a more specific bright line rule that is "consistent with the original meaning," but not necessarily "deducible from it." The fact that the US Constitution on its face does not answer the "sodomy" question leaves a "gap" in the Constitution. Proper jurisprudence must fill the gap between the "abstract or general principles of the kind found in the Constitution and the rules of law that are needed to put these principles into action. This does not mean, however, that the choice of rules is unguided by these abstract or general principles."
Very true. But what is the "core meaning" that the Tenth Amendment had at the time? The federal government has certain limited powers (which have been stretched beyond all recognition since); the state governments have all other powers not otherwise restricted by either the U.S. Constitution, or the state's constitution. The people are, within these constraints, sovereign. They are free to pass all sorts of laws as they see fit. In many cases, they have passed laws of unsurpassed brilliance and unsurpassed stupidity.
I think I can anticipate Clayton Cramer's response: The Framers may not have known of the existence of condoms, DVDs, machine-guns or the broadcast media, but they did know that "sodomy" existed. Therefore "sodomy" is not an "unforeseen circumstance" that could not have been dealt with. But what of changes in attitudes, values, knowledge, or the "rethinking" through certain "ideals" in way different, but perhaps broader and more consistent, than the framers' original contemplations?
Changes of attitudes? If there has been this great change of attitude to which Mr. Rowe refers, then the sodomy laws would all have been repealed. Some states did so; Texas had not, neither had Idaho. What Mr. Rowe really means is that judges have rethought the merit of these laws, and imposed their view onto the people of every state, with no basis in law but blind power grabbing.
(For instance, is there any evidence that any framer really spent much time deliberating the legitimacy of "sodomy" laws? Maybe if some of the framers, Jefferson & Madison for instance, truly thought through their ideals--one of which was that government may only proscribe such behavior that is "injurious to others," that picks the pockets or breaks the legs of non-consenting parities--that they would rightly conclude that government has no business proscribing wholly consensual "sodomy.")
That's odd. A certain gay attorney (you get one guess which one) emailed me February 24th about Jefferson and his proposals to reform sodomy laws. He writes:
So it appears that Jefferson did spend some time thinking about this--and proposed to keep the sodomy laws. Actually, Jefferson being something of a liberal, proposed to reduce the penalty for sodomy to castration. To the extent that sodomy prosecutions were associated with non-consensual sodomy, it was because few people committed consensual sodomy in public places--it was, after all, a capital crime in most states at the time.
"Bestiality can never make any progress; it cannot therefore be injurious to society in any great degree, which is the true measure of criminality in foro civili, and will ever be properly and severely punished, by universal derision. It may, therefore, be omitted. It was anciently punished with death, as it has been latterly."
But he doesn't do the same with sodomy, instead he groups sodomy with rape. Now what on Earth would justify decriminalizing bestiality and not sodomy, even though he cited them as equals, as different "species" of the same "genus"? The only answer that I can think of is that sodomy can sometimes be done to violate the rights of non-consenting parties, and the same thing cannot ever be said of bestiality. Indeed, in the history of prosecuting sodomy laws, they were more often than not invoked to prosecute non-consensual sodomic acts. That would justify a connection between sodomy and rape.
More from Rowe's blog: We can pose the same subjective question regarding the specific permissibility of "segregated public schools" in the "minds" of those who ratified the 14th Amendment and come forth with this conclusion: Segregated public schools (as well as other types of segregated public instititutions) were prevalent and uncontroversial at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified. There is no evidence that the framers who ratified the 14th Amendment believed that it would mandate the end of segregated schools. If the 14th Amendment properly outlawed segregated public schools then Brown, like Lawrence case, outlawed something "that the ratifiers had no idea of outlawing." Id., citing, Bork, The Tempting of America, at p. 214.
1. Isn't it interesting that while Mr. Rowe is convinced that the original intent is so clear on this subject, the Brown decision indicates that this isn't clear? Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time. 4 In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported [347 U.S. 483, 490] by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states; and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.
2. Segregated public schools were common in some parts of the United States in 1868, but they were not universal (unlike sodomy laws in 1868). Controversial? Yup. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did uphold segregated public schools in 1850 (a segregation originaly requested by black parents, so that white kids wouldn't beat up black kids), but after considerable agitation, Massachusetts ended de jure segregation of public schools. In other parts of America, public schools were not racially segregated. W.E.B. DuBois, for example, went to integrated schools in the lower grades in New England.
3. It is also important to understand how Brown was decided. The courts had come to the absurd conclusion in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that "separate but equal" was constitutional. In doing so, the majority had explicitly rejected the right of contract. In a series of decisions, such as Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938) and Sweatt v. Painter (1950), the Supreme Court insisted that the states were obligated by the "separate but equal" rule to provide equal schools. Complete failure (as with Missouri ex rel. Gaines) or obviously unequal schools (as with Sweatt) just would not do. If the states could not do so, they were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Brown decision was a mixture of both a legitimate factual question, and an unwarranted judicial activism. The legitimate factual question was whether "separate but equal" was possible or not. The evidence presented to the Court claimed that the mere knowledge that blacks were in different schools meant that they would always regard themselves as inferiors. I don't think anyone can seriously dispute this factual claim. To the extent that the Brown decision went beyond the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment (if it did so), I would say that it was unwarranted judicial activism. But here's an interesting question: which would have been better, in the long run, for black kids?
As the Brown decision acknowledged, the requirement that states take "separate but equal" seriously had the effect of forcing state after state to improve the quality of education that black kids received: Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors.
I consider segregation to have been a very bad thing. But imagine what might have happened if the minority of states that still segregated public schools in 1954 had spent money on providing equivalent public schools for blacks, because the Supreme Court, using the "separate but equal" theory, had insisted? Instead of "white flight" causing urban school districts to suffer enormous losses of property tax revenue, a lot of those cities would have had the money to provide a quality education for all their students.
Imagine what would have happened without the forced busing programs to end de facto segregation (a logical outgrowth of Brown). This provoked "white flight" not just from inner cities to suburbs, but across county lines in some parts of the country--and much of this flight was not racism, but the desire to not have their kids getting up 90 minutes earlier in the morning to be shipped across town to a school where the inability to go over to anyone's house meant that you couldn't build friendships. Money spent on buses was money not being spent on books, field trips, teacher salaries, or buildings.
Here's My Chance To Offend A Lot Of Other Bloggers
I don't know if the statistical claims for the improvement at Angola State Prison are accurate, or meaningful--there's not much real data here. It's still an encouraging story to read--and remember why they were originally called a "penitentiary"--they were a place to be penitent. Pennsylvania locked you up in a cell with a Bible. The rest was up to you: The Louisiana State Penitentiary, known as Angola, is the largest prison in the United States. Louisiana's most-hardened inmates end up at Angola. Most will die there. Angola is home to the state's death row and the most restrictive cell blocks. It's also where every man serving a life sentence in the state waits out his days. In Louisiana, life means life. No parole. No reduction of sentence. Nothing short of a pardon—or death—will release a lifer.
UPDATE: A reader tells me:
Until the 1970s inmates served as guards, and killing an escaping prisoner could earn one a ticket home. Prisoner-on-prisoner violence was common. Men slept with layers of newspapers and magazines under their shirts as rudimentary protection against nocturnal assaults with shivs, prison-made knives. An inmate's lawsuit in the mid-1970s forced reforms that ended much of the brutality.
Welcoming God into the prison has made even deeper changes for the 5,100 men locked up there. The faith-based programs that Warden Burl Cain has encouraged have led to genuine repentance—and to prisoners graduating from seminary and going as missionaries to other prisons. That is unique in a country of 1,850 prisons.
...
One day in 1997, a few years after the federal government cut off grant money that funded college educations for inmates, Cain was complaining about the lack of higher education to Baptist ministers visiting Angola. Corrections officials see college courses as a good inmate-management tool, a privilege for only the best-behaved prisoners.
The ministers talked to the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary about opening a program at Angola. "It just fell right into our lap," Cain says.
The prison-based school needed a library to earn accreditation, and that also seemed to fall out of the sky. "We got in touch with Oprah Winfrey's company and, sure enough, they bit like a big fish," says Cain, who has a penchant for cowboy boots and draft horses. "She did something on her show, and the books started rolling in."
The prison was primed, according to Cain, for a four-year college producing trained ministers. "We had had all these religious groups come, and everybody was drinking the milk," Cain says. "They were ready for the meat. The meat was the seminary."
The first seminary class graduated in 2002. "They walked down the aisle in their rented caps and gowns, and their families cried," Cain says. "One mother came to me and said, 'I can't understand my emotions. My son came to prison and found Jesus, and he's graduated from seminary. He had to do this terrible crime to get to here.' I told her maybe the victim didn't die in vain."
One of those seminary graduates was preaching in the Main Prison chapel filled with inmates one drizzly Sunday in October.
"All men need to pray," Harold Savoy, wearing his cleanest pressed set of inmate denim, urged his congregation from the pulpit. "Pray for deliverance. Pray for doors to be opened here at Angola. Pray that we be delivered, not just from prison but from sin and death."
Alone or in pairs, they prayed, they cried. Many fell to their knees, buried their heads beneath clasped hands, and prayed. Their prayers murmured through the concrete block chapel with narrow stained-glass windows perched high on the walls, just under the roof, designed for beauty and security.
About 10 years ago, Savoy began looking at the direction of his life—to be spent entirely in Angola. When he rededicated his life to God, he had no idea he would graduate from seminary in 2002.
In the Main Prison chapel on a quiet weekday morning, as inmate workers sorted books with a bright sun lighting up the stained glass, Cain talked of sending seminary graduates out to spread the gospel.
"We had 80 graduates from the seminary, and what are we going to do with them?" he had asked himself. He had then said to himself, "Man, we need missionaries."
First they sent some seminary grads from the Main Prison to outlying block dorms. Recently Angola inmates have gone as missionaries to prisons across the state. (Prisoners can request transfers, which must be approved by the corrections department.) Leaving Angola was a big step for those inmates.
"They're leaving what's comfortable," Cain says. "This place has become their family. It's their culture, their society."
Chaplains at other camps and prisons were at first skeptical. But they came to see that these trained inmates could help them minister. Chaplains work from 9 to 5, but the inmate missionaries minister to their flocks all day, every day, Cain says. Missionaries will serve two years before returning to Angola.
...
Bob Downing, a longtime volunteer in inmate ministries, has also seen the atmosphere change in Angola as more Christian programs came into the prison. Downing is an appeals court judge who, while serving as a district court judge in Baton Rouge, sentenced many men to Angola.
"You can just see the joy on the inmates' faces," he says. "Rapes have gone down, and murders have all but disappeared."
Nothing helps reduce the number of ex-convicts who return to prison, he says, like participating in religious programs while inside. Earning a high school equivalency degree in prison reduces the chance of returning by 4 percent. Having a job waiting on the outside is worth another 14 percent, he says, but participating in a religious program half the time they're locked up is good for a 36 percent reduction.
"The national repeat offender rate is 67 percent—Louisiana's is down to 50," Downing says. "We must be doing something right."The Angola success numbers seem reasonable especially if they have some kind of follow through with the ex-offenders when they get out. I work with a program called Texas Reachout Ministries which provide a place for an ex-offender to live in a home enviroment with other ex-offenders when they get out of prison. They help them get a job and they provide mentors from local churches, Bible studies, counseling, mandatory drug testing, love and time for them to get on their feet and save money for a car, housing, etc. The ex-offenders have to pay rent, do chores, etc. and get along with their housemates. Texas Reachout has about a 75% success rate vs. a 90% recidivism rate in Texas. Success [is] defined as the ex-offenders move on to hold jobs, live on their own and become law-abiding
citizens again. I would however give most of the credit to the Holy Spirit.
That Chicago Alderwoman Who Believed That She Deserved Regular Police Protection
A friend who a law professor in the Chicago area tells me that under Illinois law, Chicago aldermen are considered "peace officers" and are therefore allowed to carry concealed. Isn't that special? I also received this note: As an attorney for fhe City of Chicago (and therefore not for attribution), it's the same level of arrogance that lets aldermen get away with carrying handguns that other citzens of the City aren't allowed to carry. Under state statute, aldermen and other elected municipal officials are considered "conservators of the peace" with police powers if they have completed a law enforcement training class. Of course, in practice no one enforces that requirement, and any alderman who wants to do so is free to order up a badge and start totin' a pistol, and I know of several who do.
A Little More Inside Info On The Prisoner Abuse Situation
This was sent to me by a friend. I know the reservist in question, who is an attorney in civilian life. It provides a bit more information about what went wrong--useful for trying to prevent this in the future: This was sent to a fellow reservist by me, in response to his question regarding my opinions over the prisoner flap in Iraq. Since I have had contact with the 800th MP Brigade in the past and since my last assignment was with an MP detachment responsible for overseeing POW camps in the event of war, for which I received training in International war and treatment of prisoners of war (and taught other soldiers)I sent the following email. Note that what I say is not official policy, but my own opinions and comments:
I would disagree with this claim of "not torture" a bit; the report does indicate that at least one prisoner was subjected to anal penetration with an object, and at least MP had sex with a female detainee.
The 800th MP Brigade (the unit commanded by BGen Karpinski which was the parent unit of the Military Police battalions guarding the prisoners in Iraq) was the overall command unit for my former Reserve Detachment, which in turn was the POW liaison outfit between POW camp guard battalions and the 800th MP Brigade (BDE). I participated in some exercises in Fort Dix, New Jersey, with that unit (the 800th BDE Headquarters is in New York state, with most of its organization spread throughout the Northeastern US).
Thus, you can guess I have some insight about the unit structure, the roles of MPs in general, and what went on in Iraq. Additionally, I did read the investigative report in detail, which report was posted publicly.
There are two types of MPs: standard combat oriented/trained MPs, who handle convoy security and behind-the-lines security operations, and the prisoner of war (POW) camp guard battalions. The latter--POW camp guards--are not trained to function as guards for what essentially are civilian prisons. Their POW wards are usally more disciplined, compliant enemy soldiers, kept in tents and later in specially constructed barracks until the end of whatever war is underway. The detained captives are soldiers, not suspected or real criminals. The "prison" environment for POWs is neither punitive nor designed to separate or control men who are themselves out of control, contrary to the situation with standard prisons for the criminal element. The POW camps are normally designed like military camps, although they have fences and guard towers around them.
This was not the case with the prisons in Iraq.
The prisoners in the Iraqi prisons fell into three categories: (1) former members of the security forces of Iraq (some POWs and some who were suspected of serious war crimes), (2) common criminals (Saddam emptied his prisons a week or two before the American attack, for reasons unclear to this day, and many have had to be rounded up again while committing serious crimes against Iraqis), and (3) insurgents or terrorists (those who attack Coalition soldiers directly may be considered insurgents by my definition, while those who target civilians, offices, and homes are terrorists). There were also about 6 or 8 being held secretly from the Red Cross visits for a "government agency". There were of course suspects from each category as well--people who were thought to be involved in each of those groups.
Needless to say, it was a highly volatile group, and one which should not have been mixed together. There have been riots, attacks on the guards, and internal prisoner-on-prisoner murders and beatings.
The MP soldier-guards in the pictures were not well trained for the unusual prison job (as opposed to their training for running POW camps), nor were they very professional. There was and is no training program in the military that I know of for what is essentially running a standard criminal prison--MPs were not expected to encounter that duty at all.
I read in the official report on the AR 15-6 investigation (available on MSNBC and NPR websites), and I know from it that the MP battalions running the prisons were told they were that although they belonged to the 800th MP BDE, they were to answer to the Military Intelligence (MI) chain of command and battalions, rather than their own, which created a significant chain of command problem from the outset. Allegedly, ofttimes the MI people would ask the MP prison guards to engage in activities to "soften up" the prisoners for later interrogation--which is where most of those actions depicted in the photos come from. MI should not be giving MP battalions orders. There was confusion over command and over where and to whom one would report abuses.
There will be charges, but unless the investigations into suspicious deaths surrounding alleged attempted escapes turn into real cases of murder, the pictures show nothing more serious that what would go on in a fraternity hazing, Survival/Escape/Resistence/Evasion (SERE) training, or boot camp (when I went through them, not today's boot camps). They "appear" outrageous, but show no physical harm, nothing that can rise to the level of "torture," as Ted Kennedy called it. A pity that some of those involved in the pictures in which nothing more serious than humiliation (which is not true "torture" but which is a violation under the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of enemy soldiers) occured will now go to jail for their actions, as a sop to manipulated or misled world opinion.
Yes, they acted inappropriately, and will pay for those acts, but did they commit the kinds of torture which are routine in the prisons and police stations of every single Arab or Muslim controlled nation at this very moment?
American Lawyer Arrested For Terrorism
You know, I really, really don't want this to turn into a witchhunt for Muslims--but this is the sort of event that makes you wonder: MADRID, Spain (AP) - The fingerprints of the American lawyer arrested in Oregon over the Madrid terror bombings were found on bag containing detonators of the kind used in the March 11 attack, the Spanish government said Friday.
This guy isn't an Arab; he's not even from an opppressed minority group, like Jose Padilla. How did an Oregon lawyer's fingerprints end up on a bag of detonators in Spain?
The plastic shopping bag was found inside a stolen van left near the train station from which three of the four bombed trains departed, an Interior Ministry official said on condition of anonymity.
Brandon Mayfield, a 37-year-old lawyer and former Army officer who converted to Islam, was taken into custody Thursday by FBI agents, who also searched his home in the Portland suburb of Aloha.
It was the first known arrest of a U.S. citizen in connection with the March 11 attack in Madrid that killed 191 people and injured 2,000 others.
Rising Interest Rates
As of 11:00 AM, 30 year Treasury bonds have a yield of 5.473%! That's almost a point rise in a year. This is both a good sign for the economy (reflecting the rapidly expanding demand for loans), and a good sign for President Bush. The trick is not to peak too early before the election--the economy needs to be creating jobs, but not yet overheated.
UPDATE: And here's the new jobs report: WASHINGTON (AP) - Employers added 288,000 jobs to their payrolls in April as the nation's unemployment rate slipped to 5.6 percent, reinforcing hopes for a sustained turnaround in the jobs market that had lagged for so long.
UPDATE 2: As of 12:30 PM, the 30 year Treasury bond yield is 5.467%!
Payrolls have risen now for eight straight months, with 867,000 new jobs created so far this year, the Labor Department reported Friday.
"I'm officially declaring the jobless recovery dead," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "I think we are now on a path of what will be substantial job gains."
What Is Judicial Activism?
Randy Barnett is unhappy with Professor Bainbridge's criticisms here and here of his libertarian judicial activism: Both posts beg the question: what exactly IS judicial activism? Unfortunately, apart from his reference to "democratic values," Professor Bainbridge does not tell us, but given that he has chosen to single me out let me ask:
Well, actually, he does. Professor Bainbridge's complaint points to this rather careful critique: The Constitution is one of the most libertarian documents of governance ever employed, but it is not a completely libertarian framework. The 10th Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the intent of the founding fathers to implement for the entire country the principle that Mill's theorem later encapsulated, the phrases regarding "the States" would not have been included. The wording of the 10th Amendment demonstrates that the Constitution was not written so as to give citizens "a right to define one's own concept" of the law, but rather that such was the realm of either the states or the people. The fact that laws regarding morality were commonplace in states during the years following adoption of the Constitution backs this reading of the intent of the founders.
Back to Professor Barnett's complaint: Is discovering and enforcing the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment activism? Or is it activism to characterize this inconvenient piece of text as an "ink blot" on the Constitution, as Robert Bork did in his infamous confirmation testimony?
What is the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment? Is it not a little strange that Professor Barnett's understanding of the Ninth Amendment--as a libertarian statement that the government must meet a very high standard to justify passing laws that interfere with what individuals do--does not seem to have been understood by anyone in the early Republic? Throughout this period, state governments had laws that made it a felony to engage in a variety of forms of conduct that Professor Barnett now insists are constitutionally protected. Whether these laws are good public policy or not is a legitimate question, but to argue that what was formerly felonious is now constitutionally protected is not a persuasive argument for Barnett's claims about "original intent" with respect to the Ninth Amendment.
As for the "ink blot" remark: I often disagree with Bork, but he was making a very good point: the courts have refused to engage in a consistent method of determining what rights the Ninth Amendment protects. The entire "ordered liberty" argument that leads to Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) has no basis in history, or in the simple text of the Constitution. It was Supreme Court justices deciding which laws they found offensive, and which they did not. Roe v. Wade (1973) could have been decided with the same results by pointing out that first trimester abortion was not criminal in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, and not criminal in most states in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. You could have made a similar argument concerning state anti-contraception laws, the end product of Griswold. But that would have limited the Supreme Court's authority to act as a superlegislature--they could not have struck down laws that were widely in place in 1791 and 1868--and who wants to give up that kind of power?
Back to Barnett: Is discovering and enforcing the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment activist? Or is it activist to characterize this inconvenient piece of text as an "ink blot" on the Constitution, as Robert Bork did in the Tempting of America?
There is nothing activist about discovering the original meaning of the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, insisting that what was a felony in every state when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 should now be understood to be actions protected by the Privileges and Immunities clause is nonsense. If the privileges or immunities clause was indeed understood by the Congress that passed, and the states that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the right of people to have sex with whomever and however they wish, then why did every state have laws that specifically violated this right? Professor Barnett wants the Privileges and Immunities clause to mean something today that is exactly opposite to what its authors understood it to mean back then.
Is insisting on the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause activism? Or is it activist to ignore the limitations imposed on Congress by these provisions, as Robert Bork all but did in The Tempting of America?
I actually agree with Barnett that the "Necessary and Proper" clause has been ignored. I also agree that the interstate commerce clause has been warped quite badly by judicial activism. You could make an argument that the conditions that justified the interstate commerce clause in 1791 didn't make any sense when the Supreme Court decided West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). However: just because it was inconvenient, or seemed old-fashioned, was not a reason to pretend that the Constitution said something different than it did--and that is exactly what Barnett is doing with his defense of striking down state sodomy laws.
Barnett again:Is it activism to construct a doctrine to define the wholly unenumerated "police power" of states in a manner that is consistent with the limits on state power enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment? Or is it activism to give states unchecked power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment?
1. The "police power" of state is "wholly unenumerated" because the U.S. Constitution is primarily a definition of federal authority, leaving all unenumerated authority to the states, or the people. (That same Ninth Amendment Barnett reads very broadly as a protection of individual rights--but not of the power of the states.)
2. It is activism to construct a doctrine of "police power" of states that directly contradicts what that power was understood to mean in 1868. You don't have to persuade me that the "police power" doctrine has been badly misused. There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that restricts it, other than the insistence that states may not violate "Privileges or Immunities" (the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights) or violate equal protection of the laws.
Back to Barnett:Judicial "activism," as usually used, is entirely empty of meaning. Typically, it refers to judicial nullification of statutes with which the speaker disagrees, without telling us why the judges were in error. Without a conception of "activism," we just do not know exactly why Professor Bainbridge is offended. No doubt he has a sophisticated view of this issue or he would not be casting stones, but merely invoking "democratic values" will hardly suffice.
Bainbridge pointed to one example of what constitutes judicial activism--and it is not "empty of meaning." I've given some other examples. The essential problem here is that "judicial activism," in the sense that I criticize it, is when a judge decides to overturn a law based not on the text of the Constitution, or based on the original intent of that clause, but based on what he thinks would be good public policy.
A law might be good public policy, and yet still be contrary to the Constitution. As an example, I think that you could make a pretty good policy argument right now for a law prohibiting a Muslim from being Director of Central Intelligence, or President of the United States. But that would be clearly contrary to the Constitution, Art. VI: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
A law might be completely Constitutional, and still be bad public policy. There is no question in my mind that the Congress has authority to impose minimum wage laws on any industry engaged in interstate commerce, through the authority of Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;...." It is also a very poor idea.
The job of a judge is to make decisions based on the Constitution. In cases of ambiguity, where the text or original intent is unclear, I suppose that it is inevitable that judges will let their personal opinions influence them. But what about cases where the original intent is completely clear? When you get arguments such as Barnett's--that actions which were a felony in every state in 1791, and in 1868, are today constitutionally protected under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments--that's judicial activism in every worst sense of the word. With this approach, the Constitution's text is meaningless. We might as well have an unlimited democracy, or admit that judges run everything.
UPDATE: Randy Barnett responds to my claim above by pointing to the Cato Institute brief in support of striking down state sodomy laws, which claims that sodomy laws until recently:
1. Applied equally to same-sex and different-sex sodomy, and did not focus on homosexual sodomy. This statement is simply not correct. In some colonies, Henry VIII's buggery statute was carried forward, and applied to all sexual intercourse except between man and woman. In other states, the statutes were explicitly about homosexual sodomy. See here for a list of colonial statutes in both camps.
2. These laws applied only to public or coerced actions, not private consensual ones. On page 11 of the brief, it claims that sodomy laws existed to protect against sexual assault. Here's an example from Maryland's 1809 code. Rape was punishable by hanging, or one to twenty-one years in prison. Yet sodomy was punishable only by one to ten years--not by hanging. Why, if sodomy laws were only applicable to nonconsensual sodomy, is the punishment less than the punishment for rape?
The fact is that a lot of the "scholarship" underlying this brief--which the Supreme Court accepted--is, at best, careless and easily disproved.
Women's Studies Professor Misses A Rather Fundamental Difference
It's not every day that National Review Online publishes an article by a professor of Women's Studies. This red letter day, however, is a reminder of why they might be better off making this even more rare of an event: The photographs of sexual abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison are shocking and disgusting. They are also familiar. I have seen images like these before in other places and contexts.
After making the very legitimate point that people engaged in the sex trade make similar uses of photographs to degrade and control people that have been forced into prostitution, she then leaps off into a false analogy:
...
In these sadistic acts, there are themes, methods, and goals that cross a number of boundaries and categories we have set up to organize our thinking and comprehend such behaviors and images. These acts are attacks on the victims' dignity, identity, and bodily integrity. They create such feelings of shame and fear that they destroy the victims' ability to maintain their sense of self-respect and identity. These types of humiliation and abuse are used in other settings to achieve similar goals.Why are we shocked by these images from Abu Ghraib, but when the victims are women (or gay men) the images are called pornography or "adult entertainment"? Why can we easily see the violations of human beings in one set of images, but miss it in others? What if the Iraqi men had been forced to smile, could we be convinced that there was a newly formed "publishing and film production" company in Baghdad instead of sexual abuse and humiliation being perpetrated?
I completely agree with her that a lot of pornography is degrading to the people involved--I see examples often enough in my in-box. There is one rather dramatic difference between the pictures from Abu Ghraib and the vast majority of commercial pornography--the question of choice. Unless there's something that Professor Hughes knows about Abu Ghraib's detainees that the rest of us don't know, every single of them was there against his will.
Child pornography, without question, involves coercion. Linda Lovelace claimed that at least back when she was making the movie Deep Throat that there were women being forced, quite literally at gunpoint, to make some of these movies--herself included. One might be able to make the case that economic necessity "forces" some people to make pornography today--but only in the same sense that economic necessity "forces" me to work for my current employer, instead of doing what I would prefer--blogging all night, and haunting university library stacks all day.
If the porn industry went down the tubes tomorrow, I would be delighted--but to compare the performers in that business to the detainees of Abu Ghraib is absurd. The porn industry locks up its performers with chains of money; they can leave any time they decide to do so. Not so for the detainees of Abu Ghraib.
Someone Please Explain Chicago Politics To Me
Or at least that portion of it that lets an elected official get away with this level of arrogance: A South Side alderman insisted Wednesday that she is entitled to have a squad car parked outside her home on weekends because she was the victim of two recent burglaries.
Ald. Arenda Troutman's home in the 6500 block of South Kimbark was hit twice in the past three months, she says.
...
Troutman said the break-ins were among six attempted burglaries this year. She has an alarm system and a security dog, but believes intruders have been able to tell when she is gone because she does not have a garage and they can see when her car is not parked in front of her home.
"It's very frightening," she said. "I feel I have been fighting for my people. For people to violate me, it's awful."
Grand Crossing Cmdr. Ernest T. Brown sent his supervisors a memo April 29 saying that an officer would be assigned on each watch every day to give special attention to Troutman's home and physically check its perimeter. In addition, he ordered that a squad car would park in front of the home from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
...
Based on the hourly wages of a Chicago police officer on the job for one year, the weekend surveillance of Troutman's home is costing taxpayers $366 a day.
Some cops groused that average citizens would not get such treatment. But Troutman said she is entitled to it.
"Deserve it? Damn right," she said. "I should receive the protection I am receiving. I am an elected official. You're darn right."
Remember The "Iraq Is Trying To Buy Uranium In Africa" Claim?
Well guess who is making that claim now? According to the Washington Post (registration required): It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.
Wait a minute. Didn't Wilson blast Bush for claiming that the Iraqis were trying to make nuclear weapons by buying uranium in Africa? Or has my memory gone completely bad on me?
That's according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.
Not The Only Blogger On Antibiotics At The Moment
Instapundit is struggling as well. Augmentin works wonders, but it's rough on the gastrointestinal tract.
How Did Prisoners Get Selected For This Abuse?
An interesting statement from one of the prisoners who appeared in those pictures: Abed, a Shiite Muslim from the southern city of Nasiriyah, said he was detained in July while visiting Baghdad to get some paperwork from his time in the military under Saddam Hussein.
Hmmm. Somehow, my sympathy for this guy just started to evaporate a little. It doesn't make this abuse acceptable, but it does make you wonder a little about how prisoners were picked for abuse.
He said he was being given a ride by a man he didn't know when the car was stopped by American soldiers because it was of a make often used in anti-U.S. attacks. The driver didn't have papers for the car, so the soldiers arrested him — and Abed along with him, Abed said.
He said he spent the next three months at the Camp Bucca detention camp in southern Iraq, then was brought to Iraq's biggest prison, Abu Ghraib, on the western outskirts of Baghdad.
"Everyone treated me well," he said.
But when he and other prisoners beat up a fellow detainee who had been chosen by the Americans to run their part of the prison, Abed and six other men were taken from the tent camp where they had been held into Abu Ghraib's solitary detention area.
That's when their nightmare began, he said.
UPDATE: Here's the report by Major General Taguba. It does appear that some of the abuse was directed at detainees suspected of raping a 15 year old who was also in custody. Some of the reported abuse, however, is a lot worse than just humiliating the prisoners--stuff that I will not quote on my blog, but that will be familiar to those who followed the details of a prisoner abuse case in New York City several years ago.
UPDATE 2: Here's a better copy of the report--at least, it comes up more reliably than the MSNBC copy. It still doesn't excuse these actions, but the report does mention some circumstances that may explain how American soldiers became sadists: 7. (U) Reserve Component units do not have an individual replacement system to mitigate medical or other losses. Over time, the 800th MP Brigade clearly suffered from personnel shortages through release from active duty (REFRAD) actions, medical evacuation, and demobilization. In addition to being severely undermanned, the quality of life for Soldiers assigned to Abu Ghraib (BCCF) was extremely poor. There was no DFAC, PX, barbershop, or MWR facilities. There were numerous mortar attacks, random rifle and RPG attacks, and a serious threat to Soldiers and detainees in the facility. The prison complex was also severely overcrowded and the Brigade lacked adequate resources and personnel to resolve serious logistical problems. Finally, because of past associations and familiarity of Soldiers within the Brigade, it appears that friendship often took precedence over appropriate leader and subordinate relationships.
Oh yes, along with a long list of officers (generals on down) who Taguba recommends receive various reprimands and prosecution, there are some people that he singled out differently:
...
14. (U) During the course of this investigation I conducted a lengthy interview with BG Karpinski that lasted over four hours, and is included verbatim in the investigation Annexes. BG Karpinski was extremely emotional during much of her testimony. What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers.
...
17. (U) Numerous witnesses stated that the 800th MP Brigade S-1, MAJ Hinzman and S-4, MAJ Green, were essentially dysfunctional, but that despite numerous complaints, these officers were not replaced. This had a detrimental effect on the Brigade Staff’s effectiveness and morale. Moreover, the Brigade Command Judge Advocate, LTC James O’Hare, appears to lack initiative and was unwilling to accept responsibility for any of his actions. LTC Gary Maddocks, the Brigade XO did not properly supervise the Brigade staff by failing to lay out staff priorities, take overt corrective action when needed, and supervise their daily functions.4. (U) The individual Soldiers and Sailors that we observed and believe should be favorably noted include:
a. (U) Master-at-Arms First Class William J. Kimbro, US Navy Dog Handler, knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib.
b. (U) SPC Joseph M. Darby, 372nd MP Company discovered evidence of abuse and turned it over to military law enforcement.
c. (U) 1LT David O. Sutton, 229th MP Company, took immediate action and stopped an abuse, then reported the incident to the chain of command.
Amusing Bumper Stickers
I just noticed that one of my advertisers sells a variety of amusing bumper stickers, T-shirts, etc. Not necessarily bust out laughing funny, but witty, such as the "That's Doctor Rice to you" one.
You Aren't 14, And It's Not 1958
Why do we have incidents like this? SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The head of a U.S. military police unit at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison is under investigation following charges he secretly photographed naked female American soldiers, officials said on Wednesday.
Look, it's not like he's a 14 year old growing up in that awful age before pornography was everywhere. Was he trying to humiliate them? Demonstrate his power over them? I don't know, but it is a pretty telling reminder that an awful lot of people seem to be growing up with no sense of right or wrong, or of good sense. Did he think none of the women soldiers would notice him down on the ground with a camera?
Capt. Leo Merck, 32, a member of the California National Guard who commanded the 124-strong 870th Military Police Company, is under U.S. Army investigation and has been relieved of duty, they said.
...
The Contra Costa Times, which broke the story on Wednesday, quoted Spc. Myrna Hernandez, 26, as saying she saw Merck photograph her as she was showering with two other women.
"I saw a guy get on all fours with a digital camera in his hands. His head was going under the wall, and we made eye contact," she told the newspaper. "I was in shock, like what do I do now?"
Merck worked as a senior financial analyst at San Jose, California-based KLA-Tencor Corp, a firm specializing in equipment that finds defects in computer chips. He had an MBA degree from the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks.
President Will Not Attend Daughters' Graduations
From AP: NEW HAVEN, Conn. - President Bush (news - web sites) and first lady Laura Bush will skip their twin daughters' college graduations later this month to avoid creating a distraction at the respective schools, the White House said Thursday.
I think that this says a lot about President & Mrs. Bush. I would expect that they would want to be present for both graduations--but they are putting the interests of students ahead of their own desires.
"There are no plans at this time to attend these ceremonies," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Laura Bush. "The Bushes felt the focus should be on the students, and not how long the lines are to go through the metal detectors."
Of course, it might be simple self-preservation. He flew into Baghdad to spend Thanksgiving with the troops--but then again, I doubt that Iraqis hate Bush with the all consuming fervor of many Yale faculty members.
Bank Robber Loses Money In Robbery Attempt
There's nothing quite as sad as when a robber uses a complex strategy--and comes out behind: Des Moines police say a man entered an Iowa Savings Bank branch at the end of the day Monday and asked for change for a $20 bill, according to the Des Moines Register.
He made clear he wanted the cash as 10 $1 bills and two fives, and the clerk started counting out the notes.
She'd just finished giving him the ones when he suddenly opened a plastic bag and demanded she give him all the money she had.
But since he didn't display a weapon, or even say he had one, the teller simply refused.
The man repeated his demand.
"She said 'no' again," Senior Police Officer Jason Halifax said, "and he left."
He also left two $5 bills sitting on the counter, meaning he was out 10 bucks for his trouble.
Promiscuity: It's a Bad Thing
From AP: LOS ANGELES (AP) - A fifth adult movie performer has tested positive for the AIDS virus in an outbreak that has halted most porn production in the multibillion-dollar industry, a nonprofit medical group announced Wednesday.
The porn actress had unprotected sex with HIV-positive actor Darren James, officials with the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation said.
...
Meanwhile, a transsexual actor named "Jennifer" was diagnosed HIV-positive on Tuesday. That case was unrelated to the others, the health foundation said, because the actor had last worked in February before the HIV outbreak and her partners did not work with anyone on the quarantine list.
Iraqi Bloggers About Prisoner Abuse
The Messopotamian has a few comments about how Arab news media are running with this story: Well I am an Iraqi, and hate what I saw, but I would like to say in all honesty that compared to the practices of the old Baathists, this is a drop in an ocean. The terrors of Saddam torture houses make this isolated condemned practice by a small group of perverted individuals seem nothing, awful as it is. And more important, the outrages of the Saddam regime were sanctioned and perfectly well known and approved from the highest levels of the state and there was no question of any criminal investigations of the practices, the victims simply buried in any convenient ditch near by. But we never heard any righteous and noisy protests from Any Jazeera or Arabiya, nor did we witness much “Arab” anger during many years when torture, rape and murder were going on a regular basis and massive scale. Perhaps those hundreds of thousands of victims were not “Arabs” and did not deserve the righteous pity of the brotherly Arab masses.
He also points out that, unlike under the previous government, the soldiers involved will be prosecuted, and these were not policies approved or tolerated by the government.
I Wish That I Could Say That I Find The Pictures Unbelievable...
Abuses of power are part of the human condition. I am ashamed that American soldiers participated in these degradations of prisoners.
I can understand why soldiers might, under really extraordinary circumstances, use interrogation techniques that aren't legal--such as the Lt. Col. who fired a gun near an Iraqi prisoner a few months back, trying to get information to save the lives of his soldiers. It wasn't right, but I can at least understand why it might have seemed like a good idea. But these pictures don't just disgust me--they leave me wondering what reason there might be to degrade people like this. Whatever opinion these prisoners had of the U.S. before being degraded in this way, that opinion is probably much worse now.
I remember reading an account of German POWs who had been transported to the United States during World War II. All of the interviewed subjects seemed to have fond memories of the United States--of being treated with respect and dignity. A surprising number later immigrated to the United States, and became citizens. Those who returned to Germany after the war and stayed there seemed to know that they had been treated far better than American POWs had been treated in Germany.
I realize that there are hardcore monsters among the Iraqi POWs who would interpret kindness as weakness. At least conforming to the rules of warfare, however, is not a sign of weakness. This sort of degradation reflects badly on our country. Once the perpetrators have been convicted (and taking pictures of yourself committing crimes seems to make that a certainty), I hope that someone tries to understand the motivations behind this sort of treatment.
UPDATE: See here for a more detailed discussion. I now understand why some American soldiers did these things. It doesn't excuse it, but it at least makes sense. Before, it just seemed like random, irrational sadism. Now it sounds more like frustrated and angry soldiers trying to prevent the rape of teenagers in the same prison.
Unfortunate Choice of Graphics On A Political Sign
My wife saw this sign for a Republican candidate running for state legislature--and at first, the white star on red looked rather like an "e". It was very easy for her mind to turn this into "ebortion". What? Has the electronic age created a new procedure, analogous to the way that mail became email?
Of course, her mind realized that this made no sense, so she examined it more carefully, and realized that Borton was the candidate's name. We both wonder how many others driving along Eagle Road have at a very low level read this as "eBortion" and not consciously examined why they find this sign disturbing.
A Dramatic Story From Orlando, Florida
Reasons to be armed when you leave the house--but also, reasons not to be in the drug business: it attracts the wrong sort of people: An apparent home invasion robbery turned into a deadly gun battle this morning, ending with two Orange County deputies shot, one suspect dead and another suspect wounded.
The deputies' injuries were not life threatening, and they are in stable condition after surgery at Orlando Regional Medical Center, said an Orange County sheriff's office spokesman. Deputy Dwayne L. Martin, 33, was shot once in the shoulder, and Deputy Jennifer D. Fulford, 31, was shot at least three times while seeking to move three children from the line of fire, the spokesman said.
...
The incident began when a mother was leaving her Pine Hills neighborhood home at 6157 Medford Drive to take her children to school, sheriff's spokesman Jim Solomons said. A burgundy van or sport utility vehicle pulled up and three men got out, forcing the woman back into the house.
Sheriff's investigators said that they had found "at least a couple of hundred pounds of marijuana" outside the home. Sgt. John Allen, head of the homicide squad and lead investigator in the shooting, said the suspects appeared to have been loading up their car with the drugs before deputies arrived.
While the robbery was in progress, the woman's 8-year-old boy placed a "frantic" 911 call on his mother's cell phone at 7:50 a.m. from the family's vehicle in the garage, saying his mother needed help, Solomons said.
Hannie Caulder (1972)
I am still recovering from what this crud is in my lungs, so I watched Hannie Caulder (1972) on American Movie Classics channel. I'm not even sure that I've ever heard of this movie before. It's a Western apparently made in Spain by a British studio. It has Raquel Welch, Robert Culp, Ernest Borgnine, and several immediately recognizeable character actors.
I won't spoil the plot--but I will tell you that it surprised me in at least one place--a bit of realism taking away a Hollywood happy ending. It is never hard to look at Raquel Welch, but she did a fine job of portraying a woman struggling with the desire for vengeance. Robert Culp has been one of my favorite actors since I Spy, and he does a spectacular job of portraying a man haunted by guilt, but trapped in a job that adds to it. Ernest Borgnine plays the leader of a small band of outlaws who are funny in their incompetence--but truly evil, and who deserve much worse than death.
If ten years ago you had asked me the probability of an 1870s gunsmith working in the middle of nowhere, making guns from scratch, I would have laughed at the possibility. My research on the Bellesiles scandal now leads me to believe that the gunsmith portrayed in the movie would be unlikely, but not impossible. I'm impressed how many gunsmith were still making a living producing percussion firearms in the 1880s, well after metallic cartridge guns should have made percussion firearms unsellable.
One nice touch to the film is the training sequences, and the moral issues that vengeance raises. The hero is trying his best to talk the heroine out of vengeance, yet the film does not engage in silly pacifism. It clearly distinguishes self-defense from vengeance.
Universities as Indoctrination Centers
Over at Cliopatria, Professor Hugo Schwyzer observes: Nine or ten years ago, when I was a pup, one of my older female colleagues asked me why I wanted to teach women's history. Given that she was on my tenure review committee, I made some weak and diplomatic answer, stressing the goal of "teaching students about important women from the past whose stories have been neglected within the dominant narrative." My reviewer shook her head, and asked me "Do you want to know why I teach women's history? I teach it to raise up young feminists!" I've never forgotten that, and I have come to adopt her position wholeheartedly (though she and I disagree mightily about some of the finer points of what constitutes feminism!)
Professor Jonathan Dresner responded with:
Now that I am a "born-again evangelical" (albeit one whose politics do not match the stereotype conjured up by that image), what does that mean for my teaching of Western Civilization? I would never say that I want to "raise up young Christians!" But I can say that I do intend to do the following in my courses: structure an overall narrative -- and ask certain questions -- with the intent of leading students to what McKenzie calls the "good news of a consistent alternative" to our culture's thin diet of relativism. Marxism and feminism do not HAVE to be totalizing ideologies. They are analytical perspectives which have added important, useful tools to our understanding of history and whose best practitioners adjust and refine their heuristics constantly. That is, in my opinion, the difference between these and Christianity in history: Christianity offers, as far as I've seen, no greater understanding of events, no heuristic, no self-adjusting critique; while feminism and marxism are analytical perspectives, Christianity is just a perspective.
I teach at two different universities. One is a state university; the other is a private, Christian university. There is very little difference between how I teach history in those two institutions. I am willing to discuss my faith at the Christian university in the classroom, partly because it is expected, and because there is a shared set of values in that classroom. At the state university, I am careful to avoid any overt statement of my faith; it's just not relevant to the class that I teach, except to the extent that I inform students that this is one of my sets of assumptions, and they should be aware that these may influence my historical perspectives.
In response to Professor Dresner's claim: How would you teach U.S. Constitutional History without the Christian analytic perspective on such matters as concentrations of power, the inherent sinfulness of people, and so on? Yes, you could try to substitute some other analytic perspective--but it would not be the one that the Framers of our Constitution assumed and used.
Using a Christian perspective to understand the twentieth century--the century of big government, genocide, and moral relativism--is a powerful tool. Humans are fundamentally sinful. Individuals unconstrained by personal fear, by institutional barriers to concentrations of power, will commit terrible crimes. Marxism as an analytic perspective, as near as I can tell, has largely failed, because of its focus on the evils of capitalism and the good of socialism. A Marxist perspective would argue that Hitler's Germany did horrible crimes because of capitalism and its abuse of the proletariat and encouragement of war. But what can Marxism say about the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China? Will it say anything bad about them at all?
Shooting In Defense Of Property in New Jersey
I blogged a few days ago about a guy who shot some burglars who were attempting to make off with his ATV. I observed at the time that this was not only unlawful in New Jersey (and most other states), but really foolish. The shooter's neighbors, however, seem to think that it should be lawful: Now he faces first-degree murder charges and the possibility of life in prison. The morning following the shooting, Gloucester County Prosecutor Sean Dalton announced the charges and Clark was released on $50,000 full-cash bail. The couple has been staying with family since.
I still think that this sort of theft shouldn't be a valid basis for shooting someone. Property can be replaced. An awful lot of this sort of petty crime is done by teenagers who may--if they live that long, and the criminal justice system makes a strong impression on them--become responsible members of society. I can certainly understand, having grown up in Los Angeles, why good people reach a breaking point where they start to think that the criminals need to be afraid. If a jury of Clark's peers refuse to convict him of a felony, they may achieve the desireable effect of creating some fear in criminals--especially the ones that are still capable of rational thought.
In New Jersey, it is not legal to use deadly force to protect property outside of your house, unless it is for self -defense.
"The law has got to change," said Michael Moore, the man who lives across the street from the Clarks. "We wouldn't have this issue in 38 other states."
"Not guilty."
"We are living in fear."
"He was protecting his life and his property."
"We are behind you 100 percent."
These are the things over a hundred neighbors, co-workers and family members were shouting as they rallied with signs in Clark's front yard after he and his wife had gone inside, following the advice of their attorney.
"We're trying to show Mr. Dalton that Bobby is the victim here," said Moore.
The neighbor, who considers Clark to be like a brother, said his phone rings every 15 minutes with calls from people all over the country who support Clark.
"He was sound asleep on the sofa in his living room, in his house, where he belonged," said Clark's father, Robert Sr. "The other folks were not where they belonged. If they had been, we wouldn't be here tonight."
Pinsky said his client intends to fully defend the case and feels confident in being tried by a jury.
Many neighbors said, if faced with the same situation, they would likely do the same thing.
"He worked hard for his money," said neighbor Brian Bozarth. "We're all blue-collar workers here. Everyone works very hard for everything they have."
Bozarth recently installed a home security system and decided after this incident to have an alarm attached to his shed, also.
The rash of similar burglaries along Grant and Stanton avenues has neighbors on edge, especially when it rains. One neighbor said he believes all of the major robberies of four-wheelers, barbecue grills and lawn tractors have occurred during the rain, thunderstorms or heavy hurricanes.
"Please Remove Us From Your Calling List"
That's what my wife said yesterday morning to a phone solicitor at 9:45 AM. A little later in the day, another person called, again asking for "C Cramer." In the evening, the solicitor who had called at 9:45 AM (she had a very distinctive voice) called again for "C Cramer." We using the return call feature to find our their phone number. I believe that there is a $500 fine for violations of this, payable to the person that gets called again. Is the complaint process at http://www.donotcall.gov the right way to do this?
It looks like 47 U.S. 227(c)(5) allows suit in federal court for such violations, but also: "If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph." When the same solicitor calls you back after being told "Please remove us from your calling list," that sounds pretty willful to me.
The company in question is RDI Marketing Services. I've requested a copy of their "Do Not Call" policy--which if they don't produce it, is another $500 fine.
I've Been Sick For A Couple Of Days
Sorry for the lack of blogging. I've been sick with some sort of sore throat/sinus congestion/muscle ache thingy that my son brought home from school for Mom and Dad. Another argument for home schooling?
I am getting advertisers on my blog again--one of which is some sort of album. I'm not sure it's quite my taste in music, but it wasn't rap or obviously degrading to women, so what the heck.
Comparability Problems
A gay reader sent me a pointer to an article in the Seattle Times about how gay couples resolve conflict better than straight couples: A University of Washington study late last year found that same-sex couples are less negative when resolving conflicts than heterosexual couples, using less belligerence and domineering, and more humor and affection.
A little deeper into the article, however, we see two problems: one with the sample size, and another with the geographic distribution:
"Research up until now supports that the way in which people resolve conflicts affects the quality of their relationship," said Dan Yoshimoto, a researcher for the study. "Specific emotions like belligerence and contemptuousness have been associated with less happiness in relationships." The 12-year study, directed by John Gottman, professor emeritus at the University of Washington and head of Seattle's Relationship Research Institute; and Robert Levenson, psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, compared 20 gay couples and 20 lesbian couples (all from San Francisco) to 20 heterosexual married couples (from Indiana) of matching age, marital satisfaction level, education and income.
I'm glad to see matching age, marital satisfaction level, education and income. But the sample size is pretty small, and in case you haven't noticed it, San Francisco and Indiana are culturally quite different places--in fact, about as far apart culturally as two places can be in the U.S. This would be a lot more persuasive if they were comparing straight couples in San Francisco with gay couples in San Francisco, or gay couples in Indiana to straight couples in Indiana. (Yes, there are straight couples in San Francisco--lots of them, even.)
UPDATE: One observant reader noticed that there was nothing in the article that mentioned the presence or absence of children. Unless this was a controlled variable, it seems likely that the heterosexual couples were more likely to have kids--and that might well influence the type of disputes, and the intensity of them. I've seen a lot of nasty fights during divorces--and the fights over property usually pale compared to the fights over kids.
Another reader points out that S.F. gays are from all over the country, and therefore they could perhaps be considered similar to straights from other parts of the U.S. It's true that S.F. gays are from other parts of the U.S.--but the mere fact that they moved to San Francisco makes them different from gays or straights elsewhere in America.
The Dalai Lama On Guns & Self-Defense
From the Seattle Times, May 15, 2001: One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate.
The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators.
But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.
A Reader Of My Blog Is Running For Office
A reader of my blog is running for office, and sent me this email: Allen Hoover is running for Idaho Legislature District 17 House Seat B in the Heart of Boise and needs help putting up lawn signs this coming weekend. We plan to give maps (assigned areas) and bunches of signs to volunteers on Friday afternoon (may 7th) and Saturday (may 8th).
Mr. Hoover played a critical role in drafting Idaho's bomb law, making sure that criminal intent (as opposed to just teenaged foolishness) was required to make it into a felony. I don't completely agree with Mr. Hoover about things like the reintroduction of the wolf into Idaho (I think it would be a very good idea), but he is definitely a conservative Republican trying to get himself elected from one of the less conservative parts of Idaho.
We need two types of volunteers, one group to go about the public areas and place signs, and another group that will walk areas and ask homeowners if they can place a sign.
If you can help, or can forward this email to someone who might be able to help, it will be appreciated.
So many people complain about the way things are, but few actually put their money where their mouth is, or spend a couple hours helping out, it is little wonder why we have the sad situation we compalin about. Please help, if you can't , please pass this on to someone who gives a damn about Idaho.
Terry
T. Allen Hoover
(208) 376-9595
www.TALLENHOOVER.com
American Library Association & Michael Bellesiles
The ALA, in addition to its concern about "banned" books, is also concerned about "challenged" books, which it defines as: A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection.
Well, on their list of ten most challenged books for 2003 in the number four position is: "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
True enough, it was highly challenged. I suppose the only question that comes to mind is why the ALA considers this a bad thing. It wasn't just that his claims were controversial; the book was a mass of factual claims that were demonstrably false. I am surprised that there aren't books denying the Holocaust on their "challenged" list.
Repealing The 17th Amendment Again
I had mentioned a few days ago that Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) is proposing repeal of the 17th Amendment, so that U.S. Senators would be again selected by legislatures, not popularly elected, and why I thought that this was worth considering. One of my readers, Robert Book, responded with his concerns: You must have the most thoughtful blog in the blogosphere,
Okay, that's one way to get me to read an email! (I'm not suggesting that the praise was insincere--just being cute.)but I think you're missing something about the 17th Amendment, and the effect of repealing it today.
True, political parties did not exist. Even in Britain, they were just beginning to get semi-permanent coalitions of interests that would become political parties.
I'm sure this wasn't envisioned when the election of Senators by state legislatures was first conceived, but with the way district boundaries are drawn these days, the fact is that nowadays the HOUSE represents the state legislature (via gerrymandering), and the Senate represents the people of each state -- since state boundaries aren't redrawn after every census.I remember one election when I lived in California (probably late 1980s) when about half the votes for Representatives went to each party, but about 2/3 of California's House delegation were Democrats. Why? The Democrats controlled the legislature -- and gerrymandered that, too, with similar results. At that time, California had a Republican Senator (Pete Wilson).
I must confess that I hadn't thought about this. In a sense, the gerrymandering does mean that a particular political party can exercise undue influence on the state's House delegation. I should mention, however, that California now has two Democratic U.S. Senators because the state has a strong Democratic majority. It is possible that the net effect of legislatures selecting U.S. Senators might indeed just reinforce the existing political party dominance.
The pattern is probably similar in other states, though perhaps in some cases with the parties reversed. If the 17th Amendment were repealed today, it would not remove power from special interests, it would just ensure that ALL of Congress were chosen by gerrymandering, and it would make the political map at the time of the repeal more entrenched at the federal level.
A New Cultural Trend
I must have missed this, being in a cultural backwater like Boise, where no one--even Democrats--would consider it cool to use the symbols of mass murderers: Yesterday being May Day, I received an e-vite for a huge house party, with a cheery bright red Soviet star as its background design. The electronic invitation was cute, ironic, filled with lots of funny “comrade” references, and it was from some sweet, sensitive friends of mine. But it still made me pause. The Soviet government killed between 20 million and 60 million people, depending on whose estimate you believe. The Nazi government killed many millions, but only a sicko would send around a swastika invitation. Why the double standard?
For those who don't know what CCCP is--those are the Cyrillic letters for the Russian words Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Soviet chic is everywhere these days. Peers of mine, who, out of respect for African-Americans, wouldn’t dare hang or wear a Confederate flag, bop around in CCCP jackets and T-shirts. Why? The CCCP had enslaved more human beings than the American South ever did. Yet somehow the CCCP is cute and ironic; the Confederate flag (to say nothing of the swastika) is not.
...
But the more Soviet, the more sophisticated these days. New York City practically invented “sensitivity to victims” and “historical awareness,” yet its elite party the night away in clubs like Pravda in Soho and KGB in the East Village, where Soviet flags and paraphernalia decorate the atmosphere. Would any of these hipsters think it was cool to hang out in a bar called The KKK or The SS?
Far too many of us treat the Soviet regime as a whimsical, sentimental era. In New York’s Lower East Side, a giant statue of Lenin stands atop a new luxury apartment building called Red Square. Its late designer, Tibor Kalman, was famous for paintings of saints in sexual poses and a Ronald Reagan with AIDS, among other offenses. If he had built apartments called Brown Shirt Square, and placed a statue of Hitler on top, New Yorkers would have forcibly toppled it, and rightly so. Instead, Kalman intimates that Lenin is not in hell with Hitler, even though he began a regime that systematically identified and exterminated tens of millions of people.
Again, why the double standard? Aren’t we really suggesting that if an entire group of people is exterminated or enslaved for their race or religion, it’s a bad thing. . . but if an entire group of people is exterminated or enslaved for their nationality or socioeconomic class, it’s kind of funny?
What I Need To Do To Get My Book Published, I Fear
From the Washington Post: In the Style section last summer we profiled a Los Angeles writer named Micah Ian Wright, who'd just published a shrill antiwar poster book called "You Back the Attack! We'll Bomb Who We Want!" In his book, he described himself as a veteran of combat, a former Army Ranger whose experiences during the 1989 invasion of Panama turned him into a peacenik. In interviews with The Post and other media, he played up that background.
Or perhaps that only works for the left.
Wright, it turns out, is a liar. He never served in the military -- and confessed that last week to his publisher, Seven Stories Press, after we insisted on evidence of his service. Pursuing a tip from real Rangers who'd never heard of Wright, we filed three Freedom of Information Act requests with separate Army commands -- and last month finally confirmed that Wright never served.
New Jersey Sodomy & Bestiality Laws
I've just updated this section of my collection of colonial statutes.
