Over a Candle

By now, if you listen to the news at all, you know that Robert Byrd passed away earlier today. I cannot add to the many things said about this man, this senator. But I would be remiss, I think, if I did not at least pause a moment to acknowledging his passing.

There are reasons to dislike Senator Byrd. He had a racist past that, though he apologized for it repeatedly, we shouldn’t whitewash. He made sure to bring home the pork for West Virginia. But he stood up for the Constitution. And he was, for me, a shining star of hope in opposing the war in Iraq. His opposition may not have carried the day, but at least he was willing to stand up for what was right in the face of so much opposition.

In spite of his (distant) past, I had a lot of respect for Senator Byrd. He was a principled man we don’t see enough of in Washington these days. May he rest in peace.

Israel seems intent in heightening tensions.

Jerusalem revives plan to raze Palestinian homes: “Jerusalem planning body on Monday approved a plan to raze 22 Palestinian homes in east Jerusalem to make room for an Israeli tourist center…”

Whether you agree with its military actions to enforce the blockade of Gaza, the actions in Jerusalem seem to be nothing more than throwing gasoline on the fire. Israel apparently has no interest in making future peace negotiations possible.

What does the U.S. intend to do? Do we want to help Israel to impose its will on the entire Middle East? Will that help us in our war on terror? Or do we need to finally stand up and tell Israel no, that this is a step too far?

Even if you mistakenly believe the U.S. can do no wrong, surely that mistaken political naivete should not be extended to Israel, as well. But our government has repeatedly shown a lack of willingness to stand up to our ally and demand that they behave like a responsible international citizen.

I’m sure, of course, that Palestinian extremists, such as Hamas, will respond in such a way that will further escalate the situation. With two sides behaving so irrationally, it’s amazing there are are still people left to fight over the land.

BP CEO Tony Hayward is in front of Congress this morning for a public tongue-lashing over the Gulf oil spill. I’ve never been fully convinced that these hearings lead to anything more than political theatre, but it is tradition. During the opening statements from lawmakers, Joe Barton, from Texas, attacked.

But rather than attacking BP, he engaged in the favorite pastime of politicians these days, attacking the White House. Not for failing to keep BP within regulatory bounds as some have done. Rather, he attacked the White House for trying to hold BP financially accountable for its complete disregard for people and the environment.

Lawmakers confront BP CEO over Gulf oil disaster:

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said he agreed with the call of Democrats on the panel for answers. But Barton accused the White House of conducting a ‘$20 billion shakedown’ by requiring oil giant BP to establish a fund to compensate those hurt by the Gulf Coast oil spill.

‘I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House’ on Wednesday, Barton said.

Unfortunately, it is unclear to me what Barton would prefer. Does he think there should be no consequences for BP’s actions? Should the private companies he is so eager to defend not be held accountable for the harms they inflict? If there are no consequences for BP, why would they do anything differently next time?

BP mismanaged a well allowing the spill to occur. Are government regulators to blame for not engaging in better oversight? Sure. But notice that also suggests that BP cannot be trusted to regulate itself. We need government regulations (properly enforced) to keep companies like BP in check.

After the spill, BP has shown nothing but ineptitude in trying to contain and control the problem. If they are not punished for their actions, if they do not compensate those they have harmed, why would they change their behavior in the future?

Barton has no suggestions, but he’s willing to attack the White House because it is politically expedient to do so. This is what passes for political leadership these days.

I’ve heard a number of smart commentators, on both the right and the left, have said that Israel has the right to defend itself when asked about the flotilla raid earlier this week.

This makes me wonder: who has denied that Israel has the right to defend itself?

This is a red herring. Commentators are changing the subject, if subtly, and avoiding the real issue: Can Israel do anything in pursuit of its self-defense? Are there any limits on what one may due in order to defend oneself?

No doubt Israel has the right to defend itself. (Perhaps some doubt this, but no one I know.) However, that isn’t the question. The question is, has Israel gone too far in defending itself?

Unfortunately, in this country, which supports Israel no matter what, we can’t ask that question without it being misconstrued as being anti-Israel.

I believe Israel has a right to exist. I know that is not always a popular view, but I believe it anyway. I think the creation of the state of Israel could have been handled better, but I don’t think we can go back over sixty years and try to make it right now. Rather, we need to be able to move forward and find ways to stabilize a problematic situation.

Israel has not always made this position easy. Their overzealous use of force often gives me doubts, and while I sympathize with their unenviable situation, they need to behave better towards the Palestinians and their neighbors. Today’s news is just the latest event that makes me wonder how much longer the world will put up with this.

Israeli commandos storm aid flotilla; 9 killed:

Speaking alongside the Canadian prime minister, Netanyahu expressed ‘regret’ for the loss of life but said the soldiers had no choice. ‘Our soldiers had to defend themselves, defend their lives, or they would have been killed,’ he said.

Israel said it opened fire after its commandos were attacked by knives, clubs and live fire from two pistols wrested from soldiers after they rappelled from a helicopter at about 4 a.m. to board one of the vessels.

Netanyahu’s defense of his soldiers actions seems superficial. They only had to defend themselves because they stormed the boats to begin with. The activists didn’t have ranged weapons, by Israel’s own reports. The guns they had were taken from the soldiers themselves. Thus, no one would have been wounded if Israel hadn’t engaged in an ill-conceived raid.

According to the organizers of the flotilla, they wanted to bring attention to the blockade of Gaza. I’d say they succeeded. And nine people, all of them on the activist’s side, have paid the ultimate price for this attention.

Israel has successfully alienated even its allies in the region. How far are they willing to take this? They seem as uninterested in peace as ever.

Addendum:

I just saw this update on the news story I linked to above:

After nightfall, Hamas-linked militants fired a rocket that exploded in Israel, the militants and the Israeli military said. Nobody was hurt. The militants said the rocket attack was in response to Israel’s raid on the flotilla.

Hamas is being foolish. They are merely giving justification to Israel’s actions. Rather, they would be better served by not retaliating and letting Israel feel the heat from the global community. If they resort to further attacks, they will lose any sympathy that might be gained from this event.

In short, neither side really seems to understand how this works.

I just heard that Art Linkletter has passed away at age 97. Growing up, my mom had a copy of his book Kids Say the Darndest Things!, which consisted mainly of excerpts from his radio and television show “House Party.” The book was illustrated by Charles Schulz, and, foreshadowing my later obsession with Calvin and Hobbes, I used to read the book over and over again.

A couple of years ago, my mom, in a fit of getting rid of a lot of junk, gave me the book to keep.

Some of the gems from a quick skim of the book:

“What’s your definition of ‘genius’?”

• Someone who cheats and doesn’t get caught.
• He’s a fellow who gets into trouble; then some moron comes along and gets blamed.

“What do we mean by the expression ‘Man’s best friend’?”

• A TV set.
• Beer.
• A lady.
• A bed.

“What do you want to be?”
Housewife.
“Who are you going to marry?”
I think a woman.
“But you’re a girl yourself . . . why do you want to marry a woman?”
Because women are a lot less trouble than men, my mother tells me.

Rest in peace, Mr. Linkletter. Thanks for all the laughs.

I’m almost tempted to file this under “Memes.” The refrain that terrorists hate our freedom, popularized under the previous administration in the U.S., has not died. It has taken on a life of its own.

And here I thought maybe we had moved past it.

But no. Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, commented to The Guardian, “Terrorists around the world, who feel threatened by the freedoms that we have, always focus on those symbols of freedoms – and that is New York city.”

This notion, that terrorists hate our freedom, seems to serve many purposes. It resonates with the rather Christian need, prevalent in this country, to see ourselves as the victims, the persecuted. We are oppressed, even as we are the most powerful country in the world.

It also furthers the goal of turning terrorists into aliens, people so foreign as to be unrecognizable as human beings. It is easier to mistreat, torture, and wantonly kill those who aren’t human. Since freedom is a human right, and all humans want to be free (as implicit assumptions), those who hate freedom cannot really be human. Thus we can treat them however we wish.

I do not condone terrorism. (If I object to war, terrorism can hardly fare better, morally speaking.) But it is too simplistic to reduce terrorists to haters of freedom. It ignores their very real, and often complex, complaints and political objectives. Terrorism needs to be dealt with. But to do so properly requires a more complete understanding of what they are working to achieve.

Bloomberg’s repetition of this trite Bushism does not help us do that.

We do not yet know who was behind the attempted bombing in New York. (To Bloomberg’s credit, he has acknowledged this much.) I have family there. Indeed, my wife was there just a couple of weeks ago at a conference and visiting her family. I want the perpetrator(s) of this failed attack caught and punished.

But I also want us to think about terrorism in more sophisticated (and thus more accurate) ways. Only then can we make any real progress on the issue.

* New York will always be a target for terrorism, warn leaders

The title of this post comes from “Funeral in His Heart” from October Project. The song, a very good one, isn’t terribly relevant to what I’m thinking about tonight. But the lyric has been going through my head anyway. (Loose associations are my bread and butter.)

Let’s review, shall we?

There is a massive oil spill in the Gulf Coast. It’s getting bigger every second. And it’s threatening the coastline, and thus fragile economies, in at least four states. I guarantee this will be ignored by the proponents of off-shore drilling.

A bomb was left in an SUV in Times Square in NYC. The Pakistan Taliban has claimed responsibility. Who knows? Luckily no one was hurt. Not this time. I fully expect this to be used by the hawks to once again abrogate our civil liberties. Perhaps the tea partiers will keep government excess in check. Oh wait… They are only interested in keeping government from helping Americans, not from spying on them.

In Arizona, we have the bizarre notion that we can train people to recognize illegal immigrants without relying on racial profiling. Whatever you think about illegal immigration, the notion that American citizens may have to produce papers to confirm their citizenship is just a bit more worrisome than the government trying to increase health care coverage. But see the last sentence in the previous paragraph.

I’m sure there are more things to be worried about. But frankly, I’m trying to put some of this out of my head. No luck so far.

I support the First Amendment. I have argued, many times, in defense of people’s right to say all sorts of rather awful things. I would hope they wouldn’t say it, but in general I don’t think the government should be policing speech. It’s a dangerous – and possibly quite slippery – slope to take a step on.

However, there have to be some limits. Snuff films, for instance, should not be protected speech. Child pornography should not be protected speech.

And now we have this…

Court voids law aimed at animal cruelty videos:

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court, with only one dissenting vote, on Tuesday struck down a federal ban on videos that show graphic violence against animals. The ruling cheered free speech advocates, but it raised concerns that more animals will be harmed.

The justices threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.

The law was enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

Given that animal cruelty is illegal, it seems odd to suggest that videos depicting actual acts of animal cruelty are protected speech. And not only did the Supreme Court suggest it was protected, but it was on a vote of 8-1. Perhaps surprising to some, Justice Alito was the dissenting vote in the case.

Chief Justice Roberts suggested that a ban just on crush videos might pass Constitutional muster.

The fact that we needed such a law is bad enough. That there are people who would make such videos is thoroughly depressing. The fact that the Supreme Court is willing to defend this as protected speech is disgusting.

I’m sure there may be some problem with the language of the law. Perhaps it is overly vague. Perhaps there is some other problem that isn’t clear from the reporting. Still, I find this both puzzling and disturbing.

Right now, I hate people.

In my time zone, you have an hour and twenty minutes (give or take) to get your tax forms postmarked. Yep, the federal government is proposing to take a bit more of your money. Unless you are getting a refund, then you really should get it in sooner, to get your money back.

Of course, those who frequent the tea party aren’t happy. They aren’t happy even though the tax bills of the average American are actually down under Obama. They’ve never let reality get in the way before; why start now?

Of course, I do understand the desire to keep your hard earned dollars from going toward government spending that you don’t support. I mean who, in their right mind, would support building roads, operating schools, or supporting the less fortunate? It’s not like we live in a society where we have obligations to our fellow citizens.

Inspired by the tea party activists… (There has to be a better, shorter name for them. How about TPers? It sort of rolls off the tongue.) Inspired by the TPers, I think we should all figure out what the government spends money on, and demand that they stop. And since I really, really, REALLY don’t like my money going to the military-industrial complex, I think I need to hold my own Tea Party to get the government to eliminate the Pentagon’s budget.

After all, the bozos spending money on the military don’t represent me, and we all know it’s about no taxation without representation. So I demand that my tax dollars stop being spent buying guns and bombs.

Who’s with me?