Response to a Concerned Muslim Friend

A few years ago I had the pleasure of heading up a multi-national team looking at issues relating to HIV-AIDS in Swaziland, a small country in Southern Africa. One of the team members was a Civil Engineer from Nigeria and we became friends as well as colleagues. As the Project concluded, he returned to his duties teaching at a university in Nigeria but we have remained in contact through the marvel of the Internet.

Last week he sent me a Press Release that he had received from a Nigerian group: Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC). titled: ANTI-ISLAM FILM: CRIMINALIZE BLASPHEMY.

The group’s web-site notes: Our motto is "Dialogue, Not Violence". We therefore employ peaceful means to resolve conflicts affecting Muslims”. I must say that the tone of the Press Release and the overview of their site appears to bear this out.

What follows is my response. I know it is long but in this instance necessarily so. We live in troubled times and as such our dialogue must be well thought-out and equally important, presented, as this one is, not only as an informative piece but one supported by established principles. Such my was attempt.

Your comments or criticisms are, as always, welcome.

Thomas Ignatius Hayes

My Dear Friend Abdul Hakeem:

 

I carefully read (several times) the Press Release you sent and rather than send a quick and not-well thought out response, I waited for the weekend to compose and offer the following comments.

 

Let me first say categorically that the “film” in question is an abomination. However, it is not even a film, merely a trailer that was dubbed from English to Arabic (with totally different dialogue) and introduced to the world through social media (You-tube). This is hardly a professional enterprise and yet it has sparked such terrible reactions.

 

·         No one that I know of had ever heard of this “film” before the trailer was released on You Tube. To the best of my knowledge the entire film has not been released and probably will not be.

 

·         From what I have understood, the “actors”, none of whom spoke any Arabic, were give other lines to say and the horrible words that caused so much upset were dubbed in by people (assumingly the producer) to elicit the type of reaction that the entire world has seen.

 

·         I can assure you that until the trailer was shown on Egyptian TV, neither I nor anyone I know or have ever heard of had seen or known about the film.

 

·         I applaud the condemnation by MURIC of the violent demonstrations and destruction of property that occurred.

 

·         There are millions of practicing Muslims in America and there was (to my understanding) no violent or otherwise over-reaction to this clearly provocative and unprofessional video.

 

I agree with the presented sentiments that 100% that the world in general finds itself caught between Muslim fanatics and Western extremists.  I wrote a blog some years ago about political extremism in US politics and how, after much debate and way too many speeches, we always reject far right and far left views and vote towards the center position.

 

Rather than boor you with the entire essay, the conclusion I drew is as follows:

 

Somewhere we have to remind ourselves that we are, for the most part, a centrist Republic and we can leave broad swings right and left to France and Italy and maybe sometimes to local elections but not in one that counts towards public policy and protection of the Constitution in the spirit that was intended by the founders.

 

I know that is not applicable to the instant reaction of the rioters and protesters but I truly believe that given the chance, the vast majority of people in our world, irrespective of nationality, religion, language, social status, etc., would lean towards the middle ground just like the pendulum of a clock or the clapper in a bell. Sooner or later they stop and it is always in the middle.

 

·         As your submission continues, it is stated:

 

 “We strongly believe that blasphemy against any religion must be criminalized to serve as deterrent against potential blasphemers.

 

This mandates some comments on my part and especially as pertains to America and its Constitution and Bill of Rights. It must be remembered that America was not just a former English colony. Rather it was a haven from its very beginning for those individuals seeking refuge from harsh persecution, from religious intolerance, denial of free speech, and the denial of basic human rights so well stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 

·         Mr. Jefferson’s philosophy was in part the basis for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the founding documents of the United States, precepts that have been maintained since their adoption more than a quarter-century ago.

 

The First component of the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits:

 

The making of any laws:

o   respecting an establishment of religion,

o   impeding the free exercise of religion,

o   abridging the freedom of speech,

o   infringing on the freedom of the press,

o   interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or,

o    prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

 

·         As such, the first is notable as it prohibits the mandating of a single religion for the country and the second goes further and allows for the people in America to practice whatever religion they wish.

 

That was and remains one of the unique components of American life. We have Mosques, Synagogues and Christian Churches of many denominations equally protected under the law and no\ne of which can become the state religion. Muslims in America (and there are many and some very well known) enjoy all the freedoms that are provided to any other American, be they Jewish, Protestant, Catholic or even atheistic. In America, no one, citizen, immigrant or visitor has to risk punishment for attending whatever religious service he prefers.

 

This is far different than, for example, in Saudi Arabia where I lived many years ago where not only were there no churches, but even the mention of the word Christmas was punishable. Attending Mass was prohibited by law and when I violated that law by going to Mass at the Irish Embassy I knew the risk. This was usually at the hands of the mutaween (المطوعين، مطوعجية‎) the government-authorized or government-recognized religious police. I felt their lash on my legs more than once.

 

It is interesting that their title translates as “pious man” yet we remember the terrible incident in March 2002, when they prevented schoolgirls from escaping a burning school in Mecca, because the girls were not wearing headscarves and abayas and not accompanied by a male guardian. Fifteen girls died. Again, extremism on its own merit or lack thereof should not be acceptable to our human conscience whether in Saudi or in America.

 

·         The third component, Freedom of Speech, is difficult for people outside (and sometimes inside) America to fully understand. For example: the Flag of the United States is the most respected symbol of the country. There are rules for “flag etiquette” and provisions even made for how worn-out or damaged flags are to be reverentially disposed-of. 

 

Yet even so, the right to burn the American Flag even by American nationals has been upheld by the Supreme Court as being a component of Free Speech. I agree with what you must be thinking. It is on the surface irrational. Sadly, so has the right to protest at burials of returning soldiers from wars. As awful as this sounds, it is a critical component of our history and custom and the cornerstone of our free society.

 

Many times it is hard for most Americans to accept some of the implications of free-speech and there are exceptions. The most obvious is to shout “Fire!” or some other warning in a crowded place to cause panic.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, purposefully making a film or even other similar actions to cause a reaction that not unexpectedly would lead to violence can be viewed in the same terms as shouting “Fire!” in a theatre.

 

That is for our Supreme Court to decide for that is how our Constitution works. I am not alone in hoping that any action that is designed to incite violence and mayhem should be held to the same standard.

 

In America there are existing laws for slander and libel (spoken vs. written) speech, many of which have their precedence in English Common Law. I am not an attorney but I do not believe there are such laws for blasphemy.

 

Perhaps you think there should be and that is the logical and understandable answer. But if we remember the Freedom of Religion clause coupled with Free Speech, it is clear why no such law has been passed, at least has not in 225 years of American government.

 

·         Next we come to Freedom of the Press. This is entwined with Freedom of Speech but also is notable as unlike many other countries, there is no official or even un-official government news publication. There are media outlets with a bias towards the left or the right but again, that is there privilege. During election times, the editor of a newspaper can openly recommend against voting for the incumbent President or Senator or anyone else without fear of retribution.

 

·         The right to assemble has interesting consequences. The best remembered are when a town in Illinois that was home for the largest number of concentration camp survivors, was targeted as a place for a march by the American Nazi Party, replete with swastikas and uniforms. The Supreme Court upheld their right to march under the terms of this clause in the Bill of Rights – with the caveat that it be “peaceful”. It was and is now a little remembered piece of history and, I believe, a credit to the consistency of the Constitution and its application by the courts.

 

·         And the last of the clauses in the First Amendment, the right to governmental redress of grievances. We have marches in front of the White House and other government buildings every day of every year. Some are silly and some are serious but all are allowed. We could and did protest the draft and the Vietnam War in the 70’s; or the right of African Americans to vote in the 60’s or women in the 20’s. All peaceful protests are legal and interesting were legal more than a hundred years before Gandhi and certainly before Dr. King who both called for nonviolent protests.

 

Is the American system perfect? Of course not. Nothing that is man-made is. Remember that our Constitution upheld slavery and denied citizenship for such people for 70 yerars. Further to that, the Supreme Court, even as late as the 1850’s denied even basic human rights to people held in bondage.  It took a terrible Civil War to change that.

 

There are other instances that parallel changes over the years such as the right of women to vote, to declare once and for all by a constitutional amendment that all people born in this country are citizens and further that all citizens, whether born here or naturalized after coming to America, are equal under the law. That is something that is unique to America.

 

I remember living in England for 12 years and holding a position of some public prominence but never saw myself as being a real part of the country. I was told that the difference between the US and UK was that America was a country of immigrants; the UK is a country with immigrants. Interesting difference.

 

·         And finally, your Press Release also stated: The West must unleash some control mechanism on the “advocatus diabolic” within its system. We will hold the West responsible for the recklessness of its citizens until this is done.”

 

First, look at the meaning of the Latin phrase Advocatus Diabolic: “Devil’s Advocate”. It is a Christian term that is the antonym of Advocatus Dei, or “God’s Advocate”. Rather than actual human titles, the terms represent a metaphor indicative of the conflicting sides of human behavior, that is, that all people are pulled in both ways by the forces of good and the forces of evil. I would not at all be surprised if similar sentiments were to be found in the Holy Koran.

 

The point I am making is that there is nothing that I can envisage, nothing of course other than the power of God, of Allah, that has the supremacy to control the actions of the Devil or of the evil that we see in this world. We men are not only servants of God but we are also his chosen instruments to fight evil on His behalf.

 

The question for you is how Allah would wish us to act in his name. Is it violence or hatred? We are taught that God is love, pure love, and if we believe that, then how can violence and wars be in his name?  That question my friend has been asked over the millennia. It has also been prayed over so let us agree to do just that: pray to the One who has made all of us and who gave to us an intellect and a free-will that allows us to determine right from wrong.

 

I thank you for sending me this Press Release as it has made me think deeply and that is always good. I hope that my very human way of trying to explain what is a very complex process can, hopefully, bring our two outlooks closer.

 

Edmund Burke, the famous political philosopher in England hundreds of years ago wrote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

 

I have every confidence that your sending the Press Release and my response represent at the very least “our doing something”.

 

With warm regards,

 

Thomas

 

What Can Be Done?

I’ve Got Them on a List and There’s None of Them Be Missed

The above is a line of a song from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Mikado.

The song is appropriately titled:

“As Someday It May Happen That a Victim Must Be Found”

Most of what pops up during our web explorations or un-wished for e-mail does not generate a second thought let alone an impulse to download the “link “and either read or watch it.

The other day however, I saw the introduction to a picture-essay claiming to deal with “Failed Sates “and as I have had a multiple decade career working in many developing or under-developed countries (yes, there are differences) I took the bait and downloaded the piece aptly titled “Postcards from Hell”.

The findings presented were not unexpected or startling but nonetheless emerged as truly disquieting at least for me and I imagine for many others also. (Thinking of what I just wrote, that is perhaps an example of self-acknowledged quixotism and certainly not my first.)

Nonetheless I am not naive enough to believe that the majority of people in the self-defined developed world really care about the majority of the countries identified as failed states unless for some personal, particular or peculiar reason: hands-on experience, nationality, business needs, commercial goods etc.

I could be pejorative and say that most of my fellow citizens have never heard of any number of these fellow members of the “family of nations” (whatever that phrase means).

Not unexpectedly, a disproportionate number of the named countries are in Africa. Considering cause and effect arguments, it is simple for us to ignore that for many leading economically developed countries, ourselves included, a part of their current well-being has a historical base built in part on and by the people, goods and wealth extracted from this troubled continent essentially with no regard to the long-term effects of their actions.

Anthropologists and others are quick to place the culpability for slavery on black Africans themselves. However, by doing so, it totally ignores the fact that if there were not a market for these captives, there would not have been a slave trade. There might have been tribal conflicts but nothing to the extent of the millions of human souls that were torn from their homes and transported to the other side of the world.

Supply is based on demand; even in human trafficking.

Putting the slavery issue aside (if that is possible), we can and do tend to look at the colonial powers as the principal evil-doers and unquestionably in places like the former Belgian Congo (now the DRC) that is the unquestionable truth. Consider that in a twenty year period that included the first ten years of the 20^th century, Leopold II, as absolute ruler of the Congo, is estimated to have directly caused the deaths of 20 Million people in his quest to dominate the world’s rubber production.

When looking at the largest colonial powers in Africa, and, showing my personal bias, it appears that the British did a marginally better job than their French cousins if only that most of its colonies were managed with better attention to areas such as schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc. Sadly, such progress did not continue after independence.

It was also demonstrated in the peaceful hand over of power by the British in the majority of East Africa nations to leaders who had a degree of education and training in running an emerging nation. What maltreatment did occur in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, is dwarfed by the actions of the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique as well as the French in Algeria and most of West Africa.

The continuing genocidal horrors of Rwanda and Burundi and the Congo remain a lasting testament to abandonment of a colony to people who had no understanding of consequences.

Ironically, there are countries today like the Philippines and Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Haiti where cheap labour has become a commercial item to be exploited not unlike the indentured peoples of their own past.

Speaking of Haiti: let’s remember that this was the first slave dominated country to win independence: in its case from France. The French demanded that this new nation, devoid of almost every trace of government or civil service etc, pay back for supposedly lost income that France would have enjoyed had they remained. The Haitians agreed to something that no other country ever did.

It demonstrates how desperate people are for freedom and how often unequipped they are to use this new found gain.

That was in 1801 and was it was finally paid in full in the early 1950’s. A century and a half of virtually all positive economic gains being sent back to the mother country. Add to that the fact that America, frightened at the prospect of its slaves revolting as had the Haitians, forbade any trade with the island and used its growing naval forces to convince others to do the same. That continued till the end of the Civil War in 1865.

So do we wonder why Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere?

And the dictatorships whose power surely in part resulted in significant profits for those international companies who choose to convey weapon systems to keep despots in power and called it good business practice and increased profits for shareholders. Just think of Zimbabwe once the bread basket of southern Africa and now impoverished by 30 plus years of Robert Mugabe. His power is maintained at the point of a gun. Likewise in Syria where the adage of the apple not falling far from the tree truly defines Al Assad.

In both these countries and countless others, the strength of government comes not from the democratic process but from the will to use military force on their fellow citizens and a supply of weapons being readily available.

We easily point fingers at China and Russia but sometimes mirrors have a purpose. Ask Mexico.

We hear about radical fundamentalists and Islamists and we circle the names of Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and add the weirdoes like North Korea and some of the “Stans”.

There is the ever popular corruption perhaps best exemplified by Nigeria and those who seem forever to be at conflict, domestic or cross-border: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Uganda and others. Catching the pattern? The tribal issues that sent enemies into slavery now send them into poverty or worse. Ask the Tutsi and Hutu peoples.

The Arab Spring has brought a hope of change but Yemen, Libya, Egypt and Lebanon, are on the list because of the current vacuum of leadership. Close behind are the two lands where we and our allies have waged war for a decade or more: Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that all our fault? Of course not but some of it must relate to decisions to keep martinets like Hamid Karzai and Nuri al-Maliki in power irrespective of their unambiguous welcomed acceptance of graft and corruption.

Lord Acton wrote: “"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. He added: “Great men are almost always bad men."

Interesting thoughts.

Assuming corporations are really people; perhaps their role models are Halliburton, Bechtel and the myriad of other contracted civilian companies, many of whom profited to a degree that even they could not imagine. Think Blackwater.

Continuing, we have the “usual suspects”: Sudan, Liberia, Somalia, Mali, Niger, and Mauretania. Poor? yes; Corrupt? yes; Genocidal? at times. Does anyone truly care? Buono and Clooney maybe.

Most countries care if they have a need to be seen as caring. We call it “sphere of influence.” Oil comes to mind.

Also notice that is the first time the word “poor” has entered this discussion. Why? because it is so widespread and also because it is subjective and at times simply a matter of geography. Try growing commercial agriculture in Chad or East Timor or the Comoros. Not going to happen.

The developed world can feed the world if it so wishes. Once again there is that annoying “sphere of influence”.

So we have covered the alphabet of nations from Angola to Zambia. The essay holds 59 countries and even has a statistical scoring matrix (if that is even remotely possible or even necessary).

Think of it: there are no South American countries except for Colombia and its drug issues. Mexico and Central America are not there and yet “we” see them as failed. Or do we?

Interestingly there are no Middle Eastern lands except for Yemen so one has to ask what “failed” really means; should it maybe include Bahrain? It does include Djibouti which seems pretty immaterial compared to the Gulf but the parameters are different I guess.

That is for sure as Russia is not there; neither is China.

Accordingly, let’s assume the “we“ of the self-defined developed world do care. That would mean mainland Europe (most of it excepting some of the Balkans), but including Scandinavia, and the British Isles plus North America (north of Mexico), Australia and New Zealand. That is a very big assumption.

Now: is there a definitive answer to the question: “What can be done?”

I don’t know; I’m not even sure where to start.

Maternal child health? Cures for HIV and Malaria? Clean water? Sure, all of those and a handful more resulting in a higher population surge while remembering that we cannot feed the current numbers of people.

Could we add improved agriculture techniques? Sounds easy but go to Togo or the Central African Republic and show me where.

Let’s dream: Assume we can eliminate graft, corruption, despotism, war, tribalism, religious persecution, profiteering, piracy, lack of education, climate change (yes, the Sahara is moving south), gender disparity, lack of health resources and masses of other dreams.

Idealism gone viral!

Still, do we start like the ant that moved the rubber tree plant or do we ignore it and bury are heads symbolically in the sand and hope it goes away or at least does not directly bother the collective “us”.

If that is the choice, what do we do when we are on the list?

The essay can be found at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles

Remembering Joe's Britannica

Last week the media reported that Encyclopedia Britannica, at least the multiple bound editions, has reached its demise, brought to its literary knees by the same contrivance that I am using both to research and type this précis – I don’t really write anymore: rather like most of my fellow humans, I use a computer linked to the world-wide-web.

The Encyclopedia Britannica self-abashedly proclaimed that it represented “the Sum of All Human Knowledge”. And now, after 244 years and more than 7 million sets sold, it's going out of print.

I looked up what a 1955 version was worth today. The answer was quick and on-point: “Not much. The world is full of old, outdated encyclopedias. You will be lucky to find someone to take it off your hands for free!”

Persevering, I found a complete 1955, 24 volume Britannica Set, available on E-Bay: Item condition: Good. The asking price was $495.00. It noted that the set was dedicated to Dwight Eisenhower & Queen Elizabeth II. At that point there were no bidders.

Maybe the first answer was correct.

Why my interest? I knew someone who had that very set a half century ago, an actual person, not a library or school but a friend. We were classmates at Holy Child School in Richmond Hill, a very middle-class part of Queens, itself the archetypal middle-class borough of New York City in the 50’s. Per se, it was hardly the place you would expect to find what was most often positioned in the “you cannot check this out” reference section of the local library if you could find it at all.

Oh, there was an encyclopedia in my home; supermarkets would sell them, with a new volume available every week. The first volume was priced very low and my mother bought me Volume 1 (Aardvark-Army) of the Golden Book Encyclopedia for 49 cents, and proceeded faithfully to buy the rest of the set until I had all 16. I think it was at Bohack’s complete with Green Stamps or maybe A&P and their Plaid Stamps. Whatever it was, it surely was not Britannica. Only Joe had that.

You would guess that my friend, Joe probably had a big house with a room called “the library” wherein the leather bound volumes would be proudly displayed. Not so. There was no house much less a library.

There was the “El”, a term that is only known by people who lived where the so-called subway ran above ground, and in this case literally a few feet from his family’s second floor flat.

His bedroom was in such close proximity to the passing trains that conversations automatically stopped every few minutes. Nevertheless, here in this unique environment rested the prized-source of knowledge in its own angled case perched on an all-purpose table / desk.

I remember the room; the guitar case in the corner and the model of an aircraft carrier on the same desk. My memory told me it was the USS Wasp but “research” determined it was the plastic Revel model of the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D Roosevelt, CV-42.

That enquiry took moments on the Web and maybe I could have found it in print as well but only if I knew where to look. Surely this is the information age but sadly that of itself is one of the reasons for the demise of Britannica. The number of entries in Wikipedia vs. Britannica (print) is not even worth repeating. Beyond that is the equally harsh fact that every year sees less actually printed material; Kindles and I-Pads are seeing to that. But that argument is for another day.

I don’t think I ever told Joe much less the priest in the confessional that I had violated the Xth of the X Commandments, the one that has to do with coveting goods, in this case the Britannica and its wondrous breadth of knowledge. Then again, I had a large set of electric trains and though this bears no comparison, Joe did seem to enjoy them but doubtlessly not to the covet stage. Plus, they only came out for Christmas; Britannica was for all seasons.

Joe and I continued our studies with the Jesuits at Brooklyn Prep and then parted for our university experiences: far-away Tulane for him and relatively local Fordham for me. Our friendship has endured over these 50 plus years often as happens with many old friends with a venue of Christmas cards and an occasional phone chat. We shared the loss of parents and classmates. We traded stories about our children and now their children.

And now we have the internet and a form of communication that makes the oft intoned “stay in touch” nonsensically comfortable. It allows Joe to countenance me to “keep your head down” and lets me know he means it. It allows us tell a friend in Manila to get well and to place one-on-one single dollar wagers on sporting events. It even allows me to download a picture of 109-02 Jamaica Ave within seconds.

Britannica could not do that and so the very medium that today has given us opportunities for research and communication has correspondingly put an end to something that was in its own way and in its own time just as extraordinary, an instrument of learning that endured for two and a half centuries.

I would wager (the standard $1) that if we could look into that same bedroom next to the El tracks right now there would not be a Britannica but there would be an internet connection.

Unlike Joe’s Britannica, no one would marvel at its presence.

Truth or Fiction -Is it important?

Just today I received an e-mail purportedly sent originally by Bill Cosby titled: "I'm 76 and Tired". In it this much loved comedian and activist appears to be making serious and very negative statements across a broad spectrum of issues, most of which when studied appeared to be out of character for him.

The blog of the Conservative Hideout Rapid Fire , self-proclaimed as “the best conservative content on the net” published it in full with the preface:
“Worth reading. This should be required reading for every man, woman and child in the UK , United States of America , Canada , the European union , Australia and New Zealand etc.” I assume from this list that people in Africa, the Middle East, India and China need not bother

I took a few minutes (an overstatement, more like a few seconds) to fact check and found on Mr Cosby’s personal web page, a strongly worded denial of authorship and a plea not to send this to other readers.

With that as my evidence, I offered the following to my “sender” and to all the others that he kindly listed on his e-mail.

Subject: A rebuttal to: "I'm 76 and Tired" by Bill Cosby You may wish to use the link below and read the message. If you do, please do as Mr Cosby asks. Oh, and for the record, he was born in July 1937 so that makes him 74.

http://billcosby.com/site/2011/09/if-you-got-the-bogus-email-its-time-to-hit-delete.html

If on the other hand you chose to continue sending known false statements through the internet cosmos, I would encourage you to consider spending your hours in the fiction section of the public libraries where you can find similarly convincing although illusory accounts of documented Kenyan birth records, forged birth certificates, proof or religious preferences, and of course compelling evidence that at least three institutions of higher learning participated in a fraud.

Then again, we must force ourselves to remember we are surrounded by works of fiction in this special part of our theoretical reference library, the evidentiary volumes that include evidence that the earth is not only flat but is at the center of the universe; that no one has actually walked on the moon but that aliens truthfully did land in Arizona and are now happily ensconced in Nevada.

On these shelves there surely will be “proof” that indeed LBJ killed JFK and probably for good measure Jack Ruby as well. Let’s not forget the Philadelphia Experiment or the Montauk Project or that the American bomb testing caused the Haitian earthquake. Volumes are to be found on these and so many other conspiracy deliberations.

Sometimes historical fiction is entertaining: People have enjoyed historical fiction since 800 BC when Homer wrote about the Trojan War in the Iliad and his equally popular “sequel” the Odyssey. Let’s jump ahead to Shakespeare who by his own admission played loose with historical facts but to a pretty good end. Closer to our time we think of a wonderful novel written not by a historian but by a journalist who wrote but one book in her lifetime, Gone With The Wind.

History or story? Maybe a little of both but on balance much more story. Fact is that true stories of war are not recommended reading.

All that aside, we are told that we live in the information age and for sure that appears to be factual. So, I am at a loss to see why even simple fact checking is ignored before mass distribution of information that even when first read appears to be a paradigm away from what you would expect to hear from the purported author.

On a personal note, however, there is one thing that I hope can be moved from historical fact to fiction: we continue to be told that Jackie stole home against Whitey Ford and Yogi missed the tag. Truth is clearly with Yogi on this one: he was out.

Just a few thoughts and thanks for listening or not as the case may be.

Dr Thomas Ignatius Hayes
16 March 2012
St Petersburg, Florida

Looking back to the Progressive Movement

A few weeks back, I received an e-mail with a reference to a piece written by a noted conservative author and lecturer Dr Thomas Sowell. I was asked to respond and did so as follows.

While I was in college I had the good-fortune to write high-school sports for the (long gone) Long Island Press. The work hours were good: 9 PM to 1 AM, just enough time to gather the results of the basketball games and put them into a readable piece. The Sports Editor, Al Spitzer, made sure I understood two points. First, get who, what where and when into the first sentence and second: remember that probably the only people who will read it are the athletes and maybe their mothers.

I remembered this when I read this document as Mr Sowell commences by unnecessarily stating that our elected President is black and further referring to his complexion when the point of the essay that follows has nothing to do with ethnicity but is more focused on political and social dogmas. Just my thought and apologies if they offend.

When I first read the essay, I was confused for a moment. I thought that a progressive party is one in which guests travel from home to home, eating one course at each stop. We had one of those a few years back and met two neighbors for the first and thankfully last, time. They were a couple who could not even consider the actuality that a majority of “we the people” had chosen Barack Obama President. They not only questioned his birth place, his education, his religion; they fed off each other, irrefutably convinced it was a machinated plot conceived by some group that was now going to run the country.

Antithetical to the suggestion that problems with history are irrelevant, I went back a century to refresh myself on Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party. Most interesting. Here he was up against his former Republican colleague, Taft, who had just broken up Standard Oil and the academician-type Governor of New Jersey, Wilson, seen today as the archetypal “progressive”. Unequivocally, three reformist peas in the same progressive pod.

The genuine Progressive Party had some interesting planks in its platform: the italics are mine.
· Women's suffrage – sounds reasonable
· Direct election of Senators – no more cronyism in state legislatures?
· Primary elections for state and federal nominations – work in progress.
· Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and disabled – wow, socialism and while the Czar still ruled!
· A minimum wage law for women – amazing there was even one for men.
· An eight hour workday – with the option of working two jobs or course.
· A federal securities commission – admittedly we could do with one that works now.
· Workers' compensation for work-related injuries- still being argued: states’ rights et al.
· Strict limits and disclosure conditions on political campaign contributions – in 1912 Really?
· Registration of lobbyists – again, in 1912! Seriously, who knew?
· Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings – ahh, sunshine laws.
· Recall elections to remove an elected official before the end of his term – think WI and AZ?
· Referenda, enabling citizens to decide on a law by popular vote – God Bless Plato: a democracy vs. a republic.
· Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, citizens may override that ruling by popular vote) - unquestionably that would have some appeal today, e.g. Roe v. Wade?

Sarcasm aside, these are some of the, according to Dr Sowell, “discredited ideas that originated a hundred years ago”

Overall, the primary thesis of the Progressive Party’s platform was the denunciation of the perceived control of the political process by business interests, in both the “established” parties. To that end, the platform asserted “To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day”.

A little florid for today perhaps but sounds to me like they would not be open to the idea of Super PAC’s.

Someone defined progressivism as governmental practices that are adjusted as society evolves. Strict constructionists oppose this as we blogged a few months back. Last Sunday, Tampa Bay Times published a lead piece: Click here: US Constitution losing its appeal as mode for the world Saint Petersblog. I don’t agree with all of its contentions but it is an interesting perspective to examine especially as it relates to other nations and our relevant “high ground” position.

Now, an acknowledged non-sequitur: have a look at the New Yorker Magazine this week and the article by Jane Mayer attacking Larry McCarthy, one of Romney’s message team. Ms. Mayer is the granddaughter of Allan Nevins, an American historian and journalist, remembered in part for his biographies of industrial giants Henry Ford, and John D. Rockefeller.

In the course of his research for the five Rockefeller books, Nevins developed the interesting thesis that the American corporate adventurers on whom Matthew Josephson bestowed the enduring name ‘Robber Barons’, were in fact American heroes, designers and constructers of American civilization and democracy.

Parenthetically, both Josephson and Nevins taught at Columbia and I could not help but wonder if they or their writings had an influence on Thomas Sowell. Intriguing thought.

By the way, I thought the article by Ms. Mayer was not up to the standard of the magazine nor was it fairly presented. It is however, sadly indicative of the depths to where our political process has descended.

Apropos, the antonym for “progressive” is “reactionary”.

The Constitution - Living Dangerously

In the preface to my blog, I note that they are: “at times controversial or even opinionated. If they cause people to think and consider and discuss then by definition their purpose has been met”

That is indeed the crux of what a blog is and the ability of readers to offer comments in an interactive format is why this unique outgrowth of the information age has become a critical means of sharing personal opinions, thoughts, reflections, comments.

In early October of this year I posted a blog in which I offered my thoughts on the debate as to whether our Constitution should be, emblematically, living or dead. The question is one that gained a degree of recognition and dialogue following testimony given by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Feedback came from both sides of the political and philosophical divide and that answers the question as to why blogs are in themselves one of the better definitions of not only free speech but also effective evidence that we are indeed a species differing from all others. We have an intellect and a free will.

To that end I have the distinct pleasure of posting a rejoinder from two friends of decades' duration. My initial response was that it also upholds that science and philosophical hypotheses both respond to Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law: they are equal, opposite and collinear. That is how it should be.

We, Carl, Joe and I, invite others to offer their comments. Together, and in the spirit of the Founders, the title of Thomas Paine’s book will be the result as it has throughout the history of our country: "Common Sense".

From: Carl A. Palminteri & Joe McHugh

We are vital cogs living within the beast known as The Great Right Wing Conspiracy. As such we conspired to respond to your SCOTUS Blog entry.

Do with it what you will but never let it be said I (we) ducked a challenge (although it did take a bit of time to get the collaboration down pat).

The Constitution - Living Dangerously

Tom......To you, the idea of a "Living Constitution" seems both benign and useful. On our side of the political divide, though, it seems as if the idea is a threat, not a solution. To further it the Left seems to be hanging its hat on the Commerce Clause. Their use of this clause shows how "originalism," once overwhelmingly the orthodox belief of our judges, has been distorted by our present day judiciary. It is our belief that our judges have taken the plain meaning of the words of the Framers and turned the Commerce Clause into a catchall of the fanciful Big Brother whims of the 'Living Constitution' crowd. Sorry if you can see the sparks flashing here but we see this idea as very very dangerous.

As Martin Luther said, "Here I stand." The decisions of our courts must never be grounded on the personal preferences and prejudices and likes and dislikes of an individual justice. Yet that is exactly what the "Living Constitution" idea allows.

You like having it this way. Why not? It seems to you that the Living Constitution gives you results that you usually like.

You shouldn't like it at all, though.

Why?

Let's start with this hypothetical example:
Say it's a few years in the future. As it happens these few years have resulted in a swing of of the political pendulum. A (formerly) frequently liberal judiciary has now been superseded by a judiciary that contains a surprising preponderance of conservatives.

In this new era a new wave of political protests, much like Occupy Wall Street and originating on the Left, has once again spread across the nation. It is enjoying significant success and the groups at which the protests are aimed feel seriously threatened.

They thank God, though, because they have two assets that can save them. One of these assets is a conservative judiciary that has grown tired of what they view as disorder in the streets. The other is a Commerce Clause first stretched beyond recognition and then bequeathed to conservatives by their liberal predecessors on the bench.

The upshot? Recall the Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890? Remember how it was aimed at monopolies but often was used to suppress labor unions as "conspiracies in restraint of trade?" Well, now we have a (living, Commerce Clause and in the right hands it can be used in exactly in the same way. So groups are protesting against business? They are hindering the smooth functioning of our economy? Isn't it important then that the First Amendment rights of these protesters be "balanced" (read, "restricted") against the need to maintain interstate commerce, the lifeblood of the nation?

We don't think that's exactly the kind of "Living Constitution" today's liberals have in mind but, absent a return to originalism, this, or something like it, could well end up as exactly what they get.

Liberals must keep it in their minds that a "Living Constitution" only lives for liberals when liberals are in power. However it will do the same for conservatives should they ever rule the roost. Looked at from this perspective, for both conservatives and liberals, the idea of a Living Constitution is really quite dangerous.

Our Constitution restricts the power of each of the branches of government, including the courts. In the case of the judiciary the mechanism that restricts them is the need to respect the original meaning of the Constitution and of the laws that the courts are called upon to interpret. It is a danger of the Living Constitution that it allows the courts to ignore original intent and by doing so to set the boundaries of their own powers.

The Constitution is a LEGAL document...not a growing baby. But, without a Living Constitution the Constitution can't adapt to a changing world, can it?

Nonsense.

The Founders knew full well that over time there needed to be room for our controlling documents to adapt. So they specifically provided for an amendment process. Indeed, it is this amendment process incorporated in the obvious original intent of the Framers that puts real life into the Constitution, starting with the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights.
Note, by the way, that the process of amending the Constitution as laid out in Article V is specifically the responsibility of legislatures at the federal and state levels and/or of state conventions.

The Constitution gives judges no role in the process. Repeat...the judges have no role.The Constitution can be inconvenient at times and there's a reason for this. It is a simple fact that the Constitution was designed to prevent the State from being that which coerces the individual.

We can feel comfortable and safe if we live under the protection of our Constitution --- but only as long as it is not a "Living Constitution"

Hoping Our Constitution Dies?

Sometime around third or fourth grade we learned that America has three branches of government. Maybe they taught us then then that the members of one branch, the judicial, are nominated by the executive branch and confirmed by a part of the legislative. This includes all Federal judges and specifically the United States Supreme Court. Most of us probably forgot that quirk in our governmental process.

These judges serve for life, often still making decisions at ages that would be seen as inappropriate for other positions of such importance. Generally, unless we are avid intellectuals or constitutional scholars or perhaps members of the legal profession, we know little about them professionally. We see their annual picture; hear about some of their findings; watch the Chief Justice give the oath of office to the President and probably could not name the last five Chief Justices. Pointedly nor could we in truth describe precisely how and why they make their decisions.

We say we are a country of laws; well, they are the final arbiter of law-making. Their decisions are the very definition of de jure. If there is a pedestal, they are on it.

Like many of us, I don’t think I gave the Supreme Court much reflection. Oh sure, there were the famous cases: Dred Scott, Plessey v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, Miranda Rights and a lot of other names from Law & Order and unquestionably the bewildering selection of the winner in the presidential election of 2000.

But nothing till now got me into thinking about the philosophical values and tenets that form the persona, the soul of individual justices. I always saw them as some sort of a team. That changed.

Last week, October 5th to be precise, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Steven Breyer appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. During his remarks, Justice Scalia, longest serving member of the Court stated for the record: "I'm hoping that the 'living Constitution' will die."

He is long known as a fervent advocate of "originalism", a mode of constitutional interpretation that left to Scalia’s decision, would compel judges to look to the meaning of the Constitution's text at the time of its ratification two hundred twenty plus years ago. There is also therefore a logical corollary: to essentially ignore the significant changes that have taken place in America and the world since then, changes that have a relatively few times impelled re-examining the Constitution.

He wants his fellow law lords in the federal judiciary to look into the minds of the framers, a term that generally refers to the 57 members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and more specifically to Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson and Franklin and who were its primary authors.

He further sees this as a litmus-test for selection of judges, a conviction that belies the idea of free and open debate among legal scholars. Consider this: if all judges were of the same single-minded opinion, there would be no descent on any issue of constitutionality.

One wonders then why the Founders of our Republic decided that the highest court in the land would have nine members. If consistent agreement was expected by these learned gentlemen then why not three or five.

More on-point why is there an included mechanism (actually two) in the Constitution to countenance change? The answer must lie in what Justice Breyer reminded the Senate: "It is a constitution we are expounding….. to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." This is a quote from Chief Justice John Marshall in 1819, a time in which a number of the Founding Fathers including Jefferson, Madison and Adams were still alive.

Surely, by including these measures they foresaw the necessity to “adapt”, i.e. to modify or revise or to use the very word they incorporated in the Constitution: to amend. They wisely made the process difficult to succeed but by the mere inclusion of these mechanisms they acknowledged it would be inevitably needed. They also assured that changes should not and could not be executed without the greatest deliberation, two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and further, even requiring the concurrence of 75% of the state legislatures.

Parenthetically, there is no place within the amendment process for action by the President.

Assuming we had a court composed of such judges; what would it mean? Does strict construction or originalism eradicate the first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights? Of course not. They are stare decisis, the obligation of the U.S. Supreme Court to honor past precedents. But it would bring into question the position of other amendments should similar questions to them arise today. Simple question: term limits for the President was never a question for the Founders yet we have the 22nd Amendment that limits the executive to two terms. Should we revert to the former as it was the choice of those who penned the original document?

And then there are others: giving electoral power to the residents of the District of Columbia; the elimination of the poll tax; changing the voting age to 18; women’s suffrage.

Are we to believe that all these were with the thought process of our Founding Fathers? Doubtful. Consider that these remarkable men fought a war about taxes; how do you think they would feel about the 16th amendment that allowed for taxation on their incomes?

Want to see a clear example: we began our First Congress with the legislatures of the various states choosing the US Senators. Think about that: the body of people with the most legislative clout being picked largely by cronyism and not all by the people. That practice, a part of the Constitution, lasted till amended in 1912, a hundred and twenty years later. My guess is that “originalists” of today would have left it as it was.

Even better was the 11th Amendment that limited the power of the Supreme Court. Was it important: yes it was and as such passed in 340 days start to finish. Contrast that with the 27th that took 74,003 days to be ratified – do the math: 203 years. That one dealt with congressional pay. There is a message there.

I think it is good to have public debates that include outermost views if for no other reason than they enable us to set the borders of common sense. Whether it is Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman today or Norman Thomas and Henry Wallace in former times, the views they proffer motivate discussion and encourage debate and that is good for the process and for the nation. However, ultimately, as we have seen with Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, the voting public rejects presidential aspirants who were clearly outside of the left-right centrist mode.

In a recent blog I offered my views that the American people were largely critical of extremist views when it came to electing senior public officials. I stand by that opinion as have others who have shared their thoughts after reading the piece. Let’s hope that this applies to all the branches of government, notably the appointed one.

And let’s be thankful that the judicial appointment process in our beloved constitution allows for differing views. Our political changes are not brought about by revolution but by evolution and thus the instruments of government must have the flexibility to evolve, to evolve as they have since the founding of our Republic.

So Where Are We Now?

Huge financial institutions seemingly control a corresponding amount of our very being; a rating agency who thought credit default swaps were four star investments declares now that investing in the United States is not and the market (whatever that means today) reacts and behaves like a sine curve.

The same people who passed budgets that failed to include two wars now call for balanced budgets and somehow that makes sense and in the midst of all this a handful of people at a picnic in Iowa decide the final three candidates for our most important office after paying thirty dollars for the privilege to vote. Poll taxes apparently still have a place in the American process. Common sense: not so much.

With record unemployment across the land, no action of any kind is taken on job creation whereas critical legislative time over several months is dedicated to something that in reality is meaningless to those desperate to find work, the debt ceiling.

Our government has clearly lost the confidence of the American people and it is not at all surprising. Patient we may be; stupid we are not.

It so brings back memories of 1964 and the actual physical walk-out from the Republican Convention by the “not-so-wildly-conservative wing”, i.e. Nelson Rockefeller, Jack Javits, George Romney, William Scranton, Henry Cabot Lodge etc., immediately after Goldwater accepted the nomination and on national TV. The so-called Rockefeller Republicans included John Lindsay of New York and Lowell Weicker of Connecticut.

Thankfully the bulk of the electorate that November felt as I did that the Senator from Arizona’s claim that “Extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice” was morally wrong. Extremism is morally wrong by the very definition of the word. History tells us what happened in that election. Goldwater won but 58 electoral votes, his own state as well as Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina – these because of the soon to be passed civil rights legislation, once again an extremist view.

Similarly when George McGovern ran against Nixon eight years later, the same was true but 180 degrees apart. Extreme liberals also “fall from grace with the sea”. This time the erstwhile democrat standard bearer carried one state (Massachusetts) (plus DC) for a total of 17 votes only eclipsed by Alf Landon in ‘36 who won two states but small ones (Vermont and Maine) and only eight votes.

Somewhere we have to remind ourselves that we are, for the most part, a centrist Republic and we can leave broad swings right and left to France and Italy and maybe sometimes to local elections but not in one that counts towards public policy and protection of the Constitution in the spirit that was intended by the founders.

Speaking of those folks, you know, the ones who actually worked together to forge a document, let’s forget this “strict constructionist” craziness that we hear all the time today. The founders never intended that or they would not have gone to the lengths they did to include mechanisms for amending this document.

They knew that matters change with time and that some important points today may well mean nothing two hundred years later. Want an example: how often do we hear today of Granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal, or of Bills of Attainder, yet they are mentioned more than once in our Constitution.

Just an aside: I looked through the Constitution targeting the rights and duties of the Senate and nowhere did I see that the minority leader has, as one of his responsibilities, to guarantee how many terms the President may serve. Maybe someone can point this out to the senior Senator from Kentucky: Sir, it is we the people who will elect or not elect our President and in that process, Sir, you have the same right as I do, i.e. to vote, once, and nothing more.

We hear about States’ Rights as if John C Calhoun had arisen from his South Carolina grave. Once again the cry is “Leave it to the States to decide these issues”. Just a reminder: Article 4; Section 4 states: “ Republican government: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them….against domestic Violence.” That is actually in the legal framework of our very fabric. Simply put: our Federal government guarantees the states their rights not the other way around.

As to the right of Texas to secede or form several states, I doubt that is so enshrined and even if it was in the annexation agreement, surely it was obviated by the agreement that Texas and “all states formerly under rebellion” had to pledge to re-enter the Union.

Those gentlemen who wrote our founding documents were as diverse a group as we have today. The difference between then and now is the “spirit of compromise”, that term we learned in sixth grade civics class and that is sadly seen by the extreme right and sometimes the equally extreme left as capitulation. Tell that to Madison or Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams. Better still, read the Federalist Papers.

While we are at it, can someone remind those who claim to be running to “get Washington out of our lives as far as we can”, that calling for constitutional amendments that stipulate what marriage is, or the prohibition of abortion, or the right to pray in our schools seems to my eyes to be increased control of our basic rights to make decisions based on our intellect and free-will.

Does strict construction demand we reverse woman’s suffrage or reinstate poll taxes or do we take away the right to levy income taxes? Now there’s an idea that might appeal to the Tea Party. Think of it: no income tax effectively means no Federal spending and therefore we can all repair to our individual enclaves and build walls and prance right back into the dark ages.

So much for the shining city on the hill.