Michael Moore was on LARRY KING LIVE last night to talk about health care in the US and about his movie "Sicko." Moore referred to his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" as indicating the Walter Reed problems three years ago.
There was a bit of only about a minute and a half, maybe ten seconds of it indicating there might be problems there which finally were exposed this year.
I have no doubt he became aware of the problem though at the time he had a different and much bigger goal in mind.
It was painful to go back into the history Moore so carefully documents. But maybe we should all go back and be reminded, to see again how we were led into these disastrous years under the Bush administration.
If the members of the Senate see it again, I will bet there are many who will not sleep, having left the House to be the only ones who challenged the 2000 election. All it would have taken was one to challenge the election results. Senator Russell Feingold? Senator Bob Graham?
Sorry. . . .
Who knew?
Molly Ivins. Al Frankel. Dan Rather? George H. W. Bush? Prince Bandar?
Usually when I write, I sort out my feelings and find some sense of direction and of hope.
At the moment, I have neither.
Do you?
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Live Oaks
We invited arborists to trim the two huge live oak trees we have in front of our house.
They are gorgeous things overhanging our roof and providing shade for the homes on either side as well as ours. During Hurricane Charlie, the winds blew up and over the top of the trees, protecting our roof.
The arborists discovered some damage to the understorey of the trees that pre-dated Charlie. There were several stubs of broken branches which looked ready to fall off in a heavy rain!
With a new hurricane season upon us, it is important that the tree be carefully and wisely trimmed so those old stubs don't become flying missiles in the next wind storm.
The two trees also had to have extended branches trimmed back. Those cuts not only made a better profile but also removed excess foliage that could have caused the trees to twist in the wind.
Something else that they took down was most of the Spanish Moss. I knew it would grow back in time because Charlie blew off most of it in 2004 and the drapes and falls of moss were now rich and long. The arborists said it caused too much shade on the understoreys of the trees, interfering with the photosynthesis of those lower leaves.
I happen to think that Spanish Moss bites into tree branches and sucks nourishment from the tree. I haven't found any biologist who agrees with my hypothesis, including the arborists. But someday, they'll discover I was right.
Another thing I learned was that live oaks drop leaves that become hotter than 90 degrees. I wondered why we had leaves on our driveway in the middle of summer. It is important to have a healthy set of understory branches and leaves that will continue to function when it is so hot on the top of the canopy.
These folks really taught me a lot about my heritage oaks. They had such a good time climbing around in the trees they wanted to pay me! I just sat back and enjoyed the aerial show they provided. That was worth the price I paid them to care for the trees.
A lot of people would have had the two great oaks cut down because, if they blew over, they could crush the house.
Some folks also would not put up with the tiny leaves that are always dropping from the trees, and the twigs, and the flowers (seasonal dreary looking sprigs that stain concrete), and other little black things*. I have to clear the driveway of all the detritus every few days all year round or we'll track it into the house.
But I accept that mess because of the shade to the house which eases our AC bill, the beauty of the sweeping branches, and the shelter from storms the two trees provide.
And they won't blow over. They've managed to survive two to four hundred years of storms and are still sending out new growth. I've already committed to inviting the arborists back in two years.
Trees. You got to love 'em!
*I add the following on July 2:
All year round I have little black things that are small enough I have not bothered to identify them. This morning, however, one that got tracked into the kitchen on a shoe stick in my bare foot. Didn't break skin or anything but I pulled it off and looked at it. Turns out to be two tiny acorns on a twig.
They are gorgeous things overhanging our roof and providing shade for the homes on either side as well as ours. During Hurricane Charlie, the winds blew up and over the top of the trees, protecting our roof.
The arborists discovered some damage to the understorey of the trees that pre-dated Charlie. There were several stubs of broken branches which looked ready to fall off in a heavy rain!
With a new hurricane season upon us, it is important that the tree be carefully and wisely trimmed so those old stubs don't become flying missiles in the next wind storm.
The two trees also had to have extended branches trimmed back. Those cuts not only made a better profile but also removed excess foliage that could have caused the trees to twist in the wind.
Something else that they took down was most of the Spanish Moss. I knew it would grow back in time because Charlie blew off most of it in 2004 and the drapes and falls of moss were now rich and long. The arborists said it caused too much shade on the understoreys of the trees, interfering with the photosynthesis of those lower leaves.
I happen to think that Spanish Moss bites into tree branches and sucks nourishment from the tree. I haven't found any biologist who agrees with my hypothesis, including the arborists. But someday, they'll discover I was right.
Another thing I learned was that live oaks drop leaves that become hotter than 90 degrees. I wondered why we had leaves on our driveway in the middle of summer. It is important to have a healthy set of understory branches and leaves that will continue to function when it is so hot on the top of the canopy.
These folks really taught me a lot about my heritage oaks. They had such a good time climbing around in the trees they wanted to pay me! I just sat back and enjoyed the aerial show they provided. That was worth the price I paid them to care for the trees.
A lot of people would have had the two great oaks cut down because, if they blew over, they could crush the house.
Some folks also would not put up with the tiny leaves that are always dropping from the trees, and the twigs, and the flowers (seasonal dreary looking sprigs that stain concrete), and other little black things*. I have to clear the driveway of all the detritus every few days all year round or we'll track it into the house.
But I accept that mess because of the shade to the house which eases our AC bill, the beauty of the sweeping branches, and the shelter from storms the two trees provide.
And they won't blow over. They've managed to survive two to four hundred years of storms and are still sending out new growth. I've already committed to inviting the arborists back in two years.
Trees. You got to love 'em!
*I add the following on July 2:
All year round I have little black things that are small enough I have not bothered to identify them. This morning, however, one that got tracked into the kitchen on a shoe stick in my bare foot. Didn't break skin or anything but I pulled it off and looked at it. Turns out to be two tiny acorns on a twig.
Monday, June 18, 2007
UMC is "top heavy"
I love the United Methodist Church and its "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" character.
Most people look at our inner turmoil and worry, since we are subject to the culture wars over homosexuality, that we will split. That partisan spirit could well divide our denomination in two. Actually, one side of the controversy would never have come up with the six word character description I note above, though most are largely that way. Maybe that is what is holding us together.
But what I do not hear anyone talking about is a much more destructive "party spirit" in our midst. Far deeper and more difficult for our church is the power of those among the "bishop-wanna-be" party. Although the majority of bishops are not members, enough of them run the Council of Bishops so that even the best bishops don't always stand up to them. The party is that strong.
Like many other institutions in America, our church is top heavy because of the success of that party.
They trump the ideological factions. At our next "ecumenical council" (General Conference), they will be slick in their fight to keep as many bishops and other leaders supported in the style to which they have become accustomed. The costs are significant. Some say they are overwhelming.
Another area where we have become top heavy is in the power of bishops. One of the reasons that bishops have gone from being a personnel officer to a dominant administrative and judicial officer in our system is because of the bishop-wanna-be party.
They tend to be clergy who are ambitious, who have the knack of getting selected or elected to important jobs in the state (annual conference) or at the denominational (national) level.
They know what powers they would like to have if they get to be bishop.
They tend to be the ones who help draft church law to benefit the office of the bishop and put more power into bishops' hands.
Bishops are not supposed to have anything to do with the legislation handled by our quadrennial General Conference where we modify our Book of Discipline. But the bishops provide petitions to other agencies of our church who then put them into the legislative hopper. Because the bishop-wanna-bes are the ones most often elected to the General Conference, they see to it that those bishop-benefiting petitions are the only ones seriously considered for passage.
While most delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences are not members of this dominating party, even a few of the lay delegates are. The bishop-wanna-be folks are most adept at operating in the rarefied milieu of those conferences. Most delegates don't even realize they've been manipulated.
Then the bishop-wanna-be party members, most of whom are also involved in the election of other bishops, practice all the politicking needed to help others of their number to be elected. Horse trading is a popular device among them because then in four years, it will be their turn to be elected.
Just to let you know the implications of this in-grown party structure, here is a glimpse at our way of handling complaints.
The bishop or one of his/her assistants, called "district superintendents," may by church law initiate a complaint against a pastor. I have seen some situations where the bishop or superintendent really had no written complaint containing specifics of time, place, and events alleged to have occurred. So the committees meant to handle the process have only the word of the bishop or superintendent and act as though it is true even without the written complaint.
The bishop, by church law, is the one who assigns pastors to their churches. So everyone on those committees will tend to not want the bishop mad at them for not cooperating and then remembering when the next large church opens up to which they might aspire. Committees like the Board of Ordained Ministry, Committee on Investigation, and such are working against their own future careers if they question or challenge something the bishop wants.
The bishop is the only one by church law who can nominate people to those committees. The bishop by church law selects the pastors who will be superintendents. The bishop by church law decides whether a complaint is to be sent into the judicial route which could end in a church trial. The bishop by church law selects the Counsel for the Church (the prosecutor). The bishop by church law picks the "judge" for any church trial. The superintendents by church law pick the jury for the church trials.
By church law, the bishop may also route a complaint of any kind (even serious sexual misconduct complaints whether true or false) into the committees of the Board of Ordained Ministry where there is no level of proof required in order to remove a pastor from ministry.
By church law, if a superintendent makes a mistake that causes harm to a local church or a pastor, he or she is accountable to the bishop and the other superintendents, not to the clergy of the conference as all other clergy are. By church law, if a bishop makes a mistake that harms a church or a pastor, she or he is accountable to a group of bishops in their region. They all make mistakes and are very forgiving toward their episcopal colleagues.
By church law, bishops and superintendents and members of the various committees they appoint who are responsible for handling complaints but make mistakes can only be held accountable if they are shown "by clear and convincing evidence, that such person's actions constituted a chargeable offense committed knowingly in bad faith." The same section of our church law also protects such officers from civil suit. Shoot, all a Counsel for the Church has to prove to get a conviction against an accused pastor is achieve "clear and convincing" without having to prove "knowingly in bad faith."
So, we United Methodists face an immediate future in which the "bishop-wanna-be" party already has most of the cards in their hands to add further to their power. The one thing that they may not be able to handle is the rapidly rising costs of sustaining the levels of compensation, benefits, expenses, and housing to which they have committed us to pay.
As the General Conference of 2008 approaches, I wonder how many of the voices will still be around by May, 2008, who will remind the bishop-wanna-be party that they can't go on as they have.
Ah, power and privilege exemplified by the bishop-wanna-be party ignore the Golden Rule as Jesus gave it but rejoice in it as frequently stated by modern revisionists who say, "Them that's got the gold makes the rules!"
I still love our denomination but this party spirit sure is no help.
Most people look at our inner turmoil and worry, since we are subject to the culture wars over homosexuality, that we will split. That partisan spirit could well divide our denomination in two. Actually, one side of the controversy would never have come up with the six word character description I note above, though most are largely that way. Maybe that is what is holding us together.
But what I do not hear anyone talking about is a much more destructive "party spirit" in our midst. Far deeper and more difficult for our church is the power of those among the "bishop-wanna-be" party. Although the majority of bishops are not members, enough of them run the Council of Bishops so that even the best bishops don't always stand up to them. The party is that strong.
Like many other institutions in America, our church is top heavy because of the success of that party.
They trump the ideological factions. At our next "ecumenical council" (General Conference), they will be slick in their fight to keep as many bishops and other leaders supported in the style to which they have become accustomed. The costs are significant. Some say they are overwhelming.
Another area where we have become top heavy is in the power of bishops. One of the reasons that bishops have gone from being a personnel officer to a dominant administrative and judicial officer in our system is because of the bishop-wanna-be party.
They tend to be clergy who are ambitious, who have the knack of getting selected or elected to important jobs in the state (annual conference) or at the denominational (national) level.
They know what powers they would like to have if they get to be bishop.
They tend to be the ones who help draft church law to benefit the office of the bishop and put more power into bishops' hands.
Bishops are not supposed to have anything to do with the legislation handled by our quadrennial General Conference where we modify our Book of Discipline. But the bishops provide petitions to other agencies of our church who then put them into the legislative hopper. Because the bishop-wanna-bes are the ones most often elected to the General Conference, they see to it that those bishop-benefiting petitions are the only ones seriously considered for passage.
While most delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences are not members of this dominating party, even a few of the lay delegates are. The bishop-wanna-be folks are most adept at operating in the rarefied milieu of those conferences. Most delegates don't even realize they've been manipulated.
Then the bishop-wanna-be party members, most of whom are also involved in the election of other bishops, practice all the politicking needed to help others of their number to be elected. Horse trading is a popular device among them because then in four years, it will be their turn to be elected.
Just to let you know the implications of this in-grown party structure, here is a glimpse at our way of handling complaints.
The bishop or one of his/her assistants, called "district superintendents," may by church law initiate a complaint against a pastor. I have seen some situations where the bishop or superintendent really had no written complaint containing specifics of time, place, and events alleged to have occurred. So the committees meant to handle the process have only the word of the bishop or superintendent and act as though it is true even without the written complaint.
The bishop, by church law, is the one who assigns pastors to their churches. So everyone on those committees will tend to not want the bishop mad at them for not cooperating and then remembering when the next large church opens up to which they might aspire. Committees like the Board of Ordained Ministry, Committee on Investigation, and such are working against their own future careers if they question or challenge something the bishop wants.
The bishop is the only one by church law who can nominate people to those committees. The bishop by church law selects the pastors who will be superintendents. The bishop by church law decides whether a complaint is to be sent into the judicial route which could end in a church trial. The bishop by church law selects the Counsel for the Church (the prosecutor). The bishop by church law picks the "judge" for any church trial. The superintendents by church law pick the jury for the church trials.
By church law, the bishop may also route a complaint of any kind (even serious sexual misconduct complaints whether true or false) into the committees of the Board of Ordained Ministry where there is no level of proof required in order to remove a pastor from ministry.
By church law, if a superintendent makes a mistake that causes harm to a local church or a pastor, he or she is accountable to the bishop and the other superintendents, not to the clergy of the conference as all other clergy are. By church law, if a bishop makes a mistake that harms a church or a pastor, she or he is accountable to a group of bishops in their region. They all make mistakes and are very forgiving toward their episcopal colleagues.
By church law, bishops and superintendents and members of the various committees they appoint who are responsible for handling complaints but make mistakes can only be held accountable if they are shown "by clear and convincing evidence, that such person's actions constituted a chargeable offense committed knowingly in bad faith." The same section of our church law also protects such officers from civil suit. Shoot, all a Counsel for the Church has to prove to get a conviction against an accused pastor is achieve "clear and convincing" without having to prove "knowingly in bad faith."
So, we United Methodists face an immediate future in which the "bishop-wanna-be" party already has most of the cards in their hands to add further to their power. The one thing that they may not be able to handle is the rapidly rising costs of sustaining the levels of compensation, benefits, expenses, and housing to which they have committed us to pay.
As the General Conference of 2008 approaches, I wonder how many of the voices will still be around by May, 2008, who will remind the bishop-wanna-be party that they can't go on as they have.
Ah, power and privilege exemplified by the bishop-wanna-be party ignore the Golden Rule as Jesus gave it but rejoice in it as frequently stated by modern revisionists who say, "Them that's got the gold makes the rules!"
I still love our denomination but this party spirit sure is no help.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Our Forty Eighth Wedding Anniversary
After spending the morning together on the treadmills and in the swimming pool doing aerobic exercise, we took it easy. Then about four, we left on an “adventure.”
“Adventures” are usually something we do while on long trips to break up just accumulating miles. We find a state park or back road at some point in a day’s journey to do something that may be memorable.
This being our forty eighth anniversary, we headed down a road we’d never taken to a restaurant where we’d never been. In mail I pulled from our box as we were leaving, Ann found our brother-in-law’s card.
“What anniversary is this? Pewter? Silver?” it asked. Inside, it said, “Fiber!” That’s about right.
The Sandy Hook Restaurant in Matlacha (pronounced “matt le shay”) was not busy at 4:30 so I had time to read one of the many wooden plaques on the wall. One said, “When in command, plunder. When in doubt, mumble. When in trouble, delegate.” I think it was written by Karl Rove.
We were seated at a big window overlooking a harbor. And we decided to splurge. We each had a dinner instead of the early bird specials. Ann chose vegetables and I chose a baked potato. She got the garden salad and I got a fruit cup. Then by sharing the fish and sides we’d ordered, we had a mini-potluck.
Since we both have stuck with our diet and exercise, I was ready to head out when Ann said to our wait staffer, “We are quite full but we’d love to hear your selection of desserts.”
She smiled and listed seven altogether too yummy choices.
“Fiber anniversary,” we saw in each other’s glances so we decided to take the peanut butter and chocolate pie in a graham cracker crust.
A happy anniversary! And a nice adventure.
“Adventures” are usually something we do while on long trips to break up just accumulating miles. We find a state park or back road at some point in a day’s journey to do something that may be memorable.
This being our forty eighth anniversary, we headed down a road we’d never taken to a restaurant where we’d never been. In mail I pulled from our box as we were leaving, Ann found our brother-in-law’s card.
“What anniversary is this? Pewter? Silver?” it asked. Inside, it said, “Fiber!” That’s about right.
The Sandy Hook Restaurant in Matlacha (pronounced “matt le shay”) was not busy at 4:30 so I had time to read one of the many wooden plaques on the wall. One said, “When in command, plunder. When in doubt, mumble. When in trouble, delegate.” I think it was written by Karl Rove.
We were seated at a big window overlooking a harbor. And we decided to splurge. We each had a dinner instead of the early bird specials. Ann chose vegetables and I chose a baked potato. She got the garden salad and I got a fruit cup. Then by sharing the fish and sides we’d ordered, we had a mini-potluck.
Since we both have stuck with our diet and exercise, I was ready to head out when Ann said to our wait staffer, “We are quite full but we’d love to hear your selection of desserts.”
She smiled and listed seven altogether too yummy choices.
“Fiber anniversary,” we saw in each other’s glances so we decided to take the peanut butter and chocolate pie in a graham cracker crust.
A happy anniversary! And a nice adventure.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Our other poet
As I said, the writers' group with whom I meet amazes me. I'd love for you to hear the vignettes of Sid Glaser's life. We are pounding on him to finish his book. Then you'll hear about it here and how to get a copy.
Another member writes graphic poetry. I don't have the faintest idea how to put it on line here. Oh yes, he did one that might work:
I
II
III
IV
FIVE
Maybe someday I'll learn how to get the formatting the way I want it to work! That is not how it is supposed to look. Line up the first "I" in each line above the "I" in "FIVE." If you do, you have a better chance to see the fun in what he did.
He came to our session yesterday with a poem about one of his favorite characters, Poem, an anthropomorphized image. He said it was a strange dream to him. But those of us in people-serving professions may feel it is not at all a strange set of images. See what you think.
"At the Scene of Poem's Ordination"
A trireme in rain
In front oif a traffic light stuck on red
Five miles west of the harbor,
Night, wilting almost dungaree-bewildered,
Into the final innocence of the previous Wednesday,
money changing hands in the dark truth
Poem's ordination had reached
But not entered.
Minstrels? Only in the share-cropped
Outskirts of the brunette's chatter, disonant,
Ignored.
(Bob Grumman, copyright June 11, 2007)
Printed with permission
Another member writes graphic poetry. I don't have the faintest idea how to put it on line here. Oh yes, he did one that might work:
I
II
III
IV
FIVE
Maybe someday I'll learn how to get the formatting the way I want it to work! That is not how it is supposed to look. Line up the first "I" in each line above the "I" in "FIVE." If you do, you have a better chance to see the fun in what he did.
He came to our session yesterday with a poem about one of his favorite characters, Poem, an anthropomorphized image. He said it was a strange dream to him. But those of us in people-serving professions may feel it is not at all a strange set of images. See what you think.
"At the Scene of Poem's Ordination"
A trireme in rain
In front oif a traffic light stuck on red
Five miles west of the harbor,
Night, wilting almost dungaree-bewildered,
Into the final innocence of the previous Wednesday,
money changing hands in the dark truth
Poem's ordination had reached
But not entered.
Minstrels? Only in the share-cropped
Outskirts of the brunette's chatter, disonant,
Ignored.
(Bob Grumman, copyright June 11, 2007)
Printed with permission
Drinking and Driving
The writers' group with whom I meet amaze me.
Art Davis had hard time falling asleep the other night. So he worked out the following 5-7-5 lines:
"Haiku for Drinkers and Drivers of Ballistic Missiles"
Inebriation
Whirling metal, glass and flesh.
Addiction conquered.
S. U. V. bullies,
brutally mauling traffic,
Tin dinosaurs.
S. U. V. bullies,
usurping the right of way
H. P. beats I. Q.
Inebriation.
Faster, I'm okay, faster!
Death wins another.
Blood content point 4?
No designated driver?
Call the next of kin...
Whas amatter-huh?
Now wha may shoe thimk I'm drunk?
What whi' line, Cappen?
All I had was three!
Why are all of my friends here?
Please don't close the lid!
Drinking's bloodshot eyes.
Oh! Was that last signal red?
Yes-your last signal!
One more fortha road...
Speed -- mother of arrests!
Sirens and blinkers!
(Copyright, June 5, 2007 -- Arthur H. Davis)
Printed with permission
Art Davis had hard time falling asleep the other night. So he worked out the following 5-7-5 lines:
"Haiku for Drinkers and Drivers of Ballistic Missiles"
Inebriation
Whirling metal, glass and flesh.
Addiction conquered.
S. U. V. bullies,
brutally mauling traffic,
Tin dinosaurs.
S. U. V. bullies,
usurping the right of way
H. P. beats I. Q.
Inebriation.
Faster, I'm okay, faster!
Death wins another.
Blood content point 4?
No designated driver?
Call the next of kin...
Whas amatter-huh?
Now wha may shoe thimk I'm drunk?
What whi' line, Cappen?
All I had was three!
Why are all of my friends here?
Please don't close the lid!
Drinking's bloodshot eyes.
Oh! Was that last signal red?
Yes-your last signal!
One more fortha road...
Speed -- mother of arrests!
Sirens and blinkers!
(Copyright, June 5, 2007 -- Arthur H. Davis)
Printed with permission
Great blogs
I'm not a student of the blogosphere so I don't spend a lot of time on it. But I find www.crooksandliars.com so comprehensive and the writers he quotes as well as his own comments covering the concerns I have far better than I can, mostly.
Hence, I'm not posting as often.
But, to the best of my knowledge, so far no one has wondered why there has been no call to drop speed limits on the highways. Drove us nuts in the 1970s but Jimmy Carter slowed us down and cut our gasoline consumption twenty percent during that brief interlude. That brought down gas prices and shook the Middle East Oil cartel. At least, that's what my memory tells me thirty five years after the fact!
Corrections welcome.
Also I am not hearing anyone give the criteria for how to help the Democrats come up with a candidate the Republicans can beat. Right after the 2004 elections, someone listed those criteria: short, ugly, from the House or Senate, from the north east, and ambitious.
Except for the short, the Dems picked Kerry who fit the criteria well. The reason those from Congress are vulnerable is because they can be so easily shown to flip flop. Every legislator is caught a dozen times over a term voting for and against the same legislation for legitimate reasons that a 30 second political ad never could explain.
"Ambitious" led Kerry to accept ten million dollars from military/industrial complex folks at a crucial time when his campaign was going broke. That money put life back into his campaign. Interestingly, military/industrial complex donors put ten times as much into the Bush campaign. But that gift to Kerry was the Republicans' best political contribution of that election.
Corrections welcome.
Finally, I am waiting for someone to compare our era (since Ronald Reagan was elected through the present) as another "know nothing" era in American history. Imagine, "Inherit the Wind" is having a successful comeback on Broadway. Maybe "The Crucible" is next . . . .
Hence, I'm not posting as often.
But, to the best of my knowledge, so far no one has wondered why there has been no call to drop speed limits on the highways. Drove us nuts in the 1970s but Jimmy Carter slowed us down and cut our gasoline consumption twenty percent during that brief interlude. That brought down gas prices and shook the Middle East Oil cartel. At least, that's what my memory tells me thirty five years after the fact!
Corrections welcome.
Also I am not hearing anyone give the criteria for how to help the Democrats come up with a candidate the Republicans can beat. Right after the 2004 elections, someone listed those criteria: short, ugly, from the House or Senate, from the north east, and ambitious.
Except for the short, the Dems picked Kerry who fit the criteria well. The reason those from Congress are vulnerable is because they can be so easily shown to flip flop. Every legislator is caught a dozen times over a term voting for and against the same legislation for legitimate reasons that a 30 second political ad never could explain.
"Ambitious" led Kerry to accept ten million dollars from military/industrial complex folks at a crucial time when his campaign was going broke. That money put life back into his campaign. Interestingly, military/industrial complex donors put ten times as much into the Bush campaign. But that gift to Kerry was the Republicans' best political contribution of that election.
Corrections welcome.
Finally, I am waiting for someone to compare our era (since Ronald Reagan was elected through the present) as another "know nothing" era in American history. Imagine, "Inherit the Wind" is having a successful comeback on Broadway. Maybe "The Crucible" is next . . . .
Monday, June 4, 2007
Rep. Jefferson and U. S. Attorneys
Anyone watching the news over the past two years has a clear impression that the frozen packages of dollars in Louisiana Representative William Jefferson's freezer is prima facie evidence he's guilty.
The news media seems to accept that and report any new information with a presumption of guilt.
Before we get caught up in the laundry list handed out by the U. S. Attorney pursuing the case, we better be careful not to be trapped into becoming a public jury who has already convicted Representative Jefferson.
In my experience as an advocate for pastors in trouble, I discovered how easy it was to believe the first reading of the complaint. That's natural, unfortunately. But even what appears to be decisive evidence has not been tested in court before a real jury who watch as evidence is brought and cross examination occurs in the search for truth.
Prosecutors try to poison the well of public opinion (too readily supported by some media) and to influence prospective jurors. The defense is put in a position of having to mount a media defense before they even have all the information the prosecution has. If you were the accused, you'd be rather put out by these realities.
But what makes the Jefferson case so difficult for us is that the Attorney General's office and U. S. Attorneys in particular have been so compromised by politicization that we must be especially careful of all their public statements. That loss of credibility will be a barrier the prosecution will have to overcome down the road in court, if indeed it can.
Now is their best chance to manipulate the news. Representative Jefferson will be so buried by the publicity that even if the court finds him not guilty, who will believe the jury?
Today comes the Republican Minority Leader calling on the Democrats to hold an ethics hearing within 30 days to rule on the Representative's seat in the house.
That sounds so reasonable. Why shouldn't the Democrats face up to one of their own being guilty of corruption? The Dems made ending corruption a high priority in the 2006 elections.
What if the ethics committee does meet and makes a decision before the court meets?
If the ethics committee exonerates Jefferson, the Repubs can scream favoritism because "they protected their own," NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE.
If the ethics committee comes out against Jefferson, a tempting option given how much public opinion has been stacked against him, then the Repubs will be able to claim some kind of high ground while at the same time prejudicing the court with the ethics committee's "mini-conviction."
Most institutions have some form of suspension which in itself appears prejudicial. The suspension usually lasts until the court deals with the case. As slowly as justice grinds, that's a long time. A suspension is in order if the accused face charges that were directly related to their job performance.
Because not all accusations are relevant to the job, suspension may not be appropriate.
Tell that to a hostile public.
If the ethics committee does not meet, they will look like they are unwilling to face the problem.
Almost no matter what the ethics committee does, the decision would be treated politically. Representative Jefferson will not come out looking good or be helped in his defense.
The credibilty problem caused by the current administration makes everything they do questionable. What a shame.
I lived in Louisiana for years and heard many of the stories of corruption amongst the dominant Democratic Party (many of whom became Republican after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill). The tradition for any Louisiana politician to use office creatively for personal benefit is very real and a problem for all Pelican State politicians.
Some politicians do things because they have the chance by virtue of their elected office. They are not just from one party. Greed is not Republican or Democratic.
But neither should justice be!
The news media seems to accept that and report any new information with a presumption of guilt.
Before we get caught up in the laundry list handed out by the U. S. Attorney pursuing the case, we better be careful not to be trapped into becoming a public jury who has already convicted Representative Jefferson.
In my experience as an advocate for pastors in trouble, I discovered how easy it was to believe the first reading of the complaint. That's natural, unfortunately. But even what appears to be decisive evidence has not been tested in court before a real jury who watch as evidence is brought and cross examination occurs in the search for truth.
Prosecutors try to poison the well of public opinion (too readily supported by some media) and to influence prospective jurors. The defense is put in a position of having to mount a media defense before they even have all the information the prosecution has. If you were the accused, you'd be rather put out by these realities.
But what makes the Jefferson case so difficult for us is that the Attorney General's office and U. S. Attorneys in particular have been so compromised by politicization that we must be especially careful of all their public statements. That loss of credibility will be a barrier the prosecution will have to overcome down the road in court, if indeed it can.
Now is their best chance to manipulate the news. Representative Jefferson will be so buried by the publicity that even if the court finds him not guilty, who will believe the jury?
Today comes the Republican Minority Leader calling on the Democrats to hold an ethics hearing within 30 days to rule on the Representative's seat in the house.
That sounds so reasonable. Why shouldn't the Democrats face up to one of their own being guilty of corruption? The Dems made ending corruption a high priority in the 2006 elections.
What if the ethics committee does meet and makes a decision before the court meets?
If the ethics committee exonerates Jefferson, the Repubs can scream favoritism because "they protected their own," NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE.
If the ethics committee comes out against Jefferson, a tempting option given how much public opinion has been stacked against him, then the Repubs will be able to claim some kind of high ground while at the same time prejudicing the court with the ethics committee's "mini-conviction."
Most institutions have some form of suspension which in itself appears prejudicial. The suspension usually lasts until the court deals with the case. As slowly as justice grinds, that's a long time. A suspension is in order if the accused face charges that were directly related to their job performance.
Because not all accusations are relevant to the job, suspension may not be appropriate.
Tell that to a hostile public.
If the ethics committee does not meet, they will look like they are unwilling to face the problem.
Almost no matter what the ethics committee does, the decision would be treated politically. Representative Jefferson will not come out looking good or be helped in his defense.
The credibilty problem caused by the current administration makes everything they do questionable. What a shame.
I lived in Louisiana for years and heard many of the stories of corruption amongst the dominant Democratic Party (many of whom became Republican after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill). The tradition for any Louisiana politician to use office creatively for personal benefit is very real and a problem for all Pelican State politicians.
Some politicians do things because they have the chance by virtue of their elected office. They are not just from one party. Greed is not Republican or Democratic.
But neither should justice be!
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Speaking to power
One of my projects as a retired clergy is to provide information and help to bishops of our denomination. The letters are about a type-written page so as not to discourage their attention. And the letters are monthly.
As with this blog, my stuff is unsolicited and the bishops, like you, if they choose to read it get the benefit of my wisdom such as it is.
I rarely get a reply. They are busy and I am not expecting to enter into correspondence of any depth with any of them even though some of them need a whole new way to operate or view things. Once in awhile, I do get a response that seeks more information. But that usually ends with my response and I do not hear again from that bishop.
I have gotten interesting comments and even extended correspondence with some retired bishops. They seem to appreciate what I'd been writing all those years (1988 to the present). Mostly they were non-specific about what they liked. I'm sure they didn't always appreciate some advice that had to be uninformed since I have never been a bishop.
The insight I offer is from having seen some of the poorest decisions and actions bishops have made, mostly in personnel matters. Some of those have cost the denomination huge sums of money. But we have this thing about a pecking order in which there is only pecking down and pecking up is not allowed. The higher in the pecking order, the less accountability. And the less the willingness to listen to anyone "below" them, which is where I am.
I figure if I give good ideas and advice, they will eventually come to see I was right. By then, someone of stature will realize it and say it as if it was his or her idea. Cool! I don't care! Just so they learn and do better next time.
May this note be an encouragement to Michael Moore and to others who speak truth to power.
As with this blog, my stuff is unsolicited and the bishops, like you, if they choose to read it get the benefit of my wisdom such as it is.
I rarely get a reply. They are busy and I am not expecting to enter into correspondence of any depth with any of them even though some of them need a whole new way to operate or view things. Once in awhile, I do get a response that seeks more information. But that usually ends with my response and I do not hear again from that bishop.
I have gotten interesting comments and even extended correspondence with some retired bishops. They seem to appreciate what I'd been writing all those years (1988 to the present). Mostly they were non-specific about what they liked. I'm sure they didn't always appreciate some advice that had to be uninformed since I have never been a bishop.
The insight I offer is from having seen some of the poorest decisions and actions bishops have made, mostly in personnel matters. Some of those have cost the denomination huge sums of money. But we have this thing about a pecking order in which there is only pecking down and pecking up is not allowed. The higher in the pecking order, the less accountability. And the less the willingness to listen to anyone "below" them, which is where I am.
I figure if I give good ideas and advice, they will eventually come to see I was right. By then, someone of stature will realize it and say it as if it was his or her idea. Cool! I don't care! Just so they learn and do better next time.
May this note be an encouragement to Michael Moore and to others who speak truth to power.
Friday, June 1, 2007
A letter to my Senator
Dear Senator,
I was very disappointed that your vote joined with the Republicans to defeat a defunding bill related to techniques used to interrogate prisoners.
Legally, any information obtained by coersion is no good in court.
Morally, use of violence to obtain information is wrong!
Americans are smart people. We do not need to resort to evil, violent, harmful techniques to get information.
Jack Bauer does not represent the American, or the civilized, way of operating.
Just because Israel uses M-12 techniques does not give us cover for treating Muslims (they are the primary ones we use torture on - sounds prejudiced to me!) that way. Since most of our prisoners were picked up in sweeps, all we are doing by use of torture is making them even more dangerous to us in the future.
Using any form of violence, no matter how subtle, as John McCain argues, does little to no good to get information that has any worth.
This administration has not only lied to us in nearly every way imaginable to the point where they no longer have any credibility, they have withheld information about their interrogation programs and the results they have gotten. Even if they have given out bits and pieces, I have to think they will only give out what they think justifies their use of force to get information.
We have to set an example for the world of something a whole lot better than what we are doing now.
Since you voted the way you did, you are in a position to request reconsideration. I urge you to do that as soon as possible. We have to stop this insane belief that violence gets us intelligence.
Violence at any point with "enemy combatants" is only a macho form of retribution. I don't remember even John Wayne ever resorting to violence to get someone to "talk!"
Respectfully,
Rev. Jerry Eckert
I was very disappointed that your vote joined with the Republicans to defeat a defunding bill related to techniques used to interrogate prisoners.
Legally, any information obtained by coersion is no good in court.
Morally, use of violence to obtain information is wrong!
Americans are smart people. We do not need to resort to evil, violent, harmful techniques to get information.
Jack Bauer does not represent the American, or the civilized, way of operating.
Just because Israel uses M-12 techniques does not give us cover for treating Muslims (they are the primary ones we use torture on - sounds prejudiced to me!) that way. Since most of our prisoners were picked up in sweeps, all we are doing by use of torture is making them even more dangerous to us in the future.
Using any form of violence, no matter how subtle, as John McCain argues, does little to no good to get information that has any worth.
This administration has not only lied to us in nearly every way imaginable to the point where they no longer have any credibility, they have withheld information about their interrogation programs and the results they have gotten. Even if they have given out bits and pieces, I have to think they will only give out what they think justifies their use of force to get information.
We have to set an example for the world of something a whole lot better than what we are doing now.
Since you voted the way you did, you are in a position to request reconsideration. I urge you to do that as soon as possible. We have to stop this insane belief that violence gets us intelligence.
Violence at any point with "enemy combatants" is only a macho form of retribution. I don't remember even John Wayne ever resorting to violence to get someone to "talk!"
Respectfully,
Rev. Jerry Eckert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)