Sunday, May 31, 2009

When Is A Verbal Bomb Just A Dud?


Don't get me wrong. I know I make plenty of grammatical errors, especially while speaking. Let's face it: none of us talks as carefully and as formally as all of us do while writing. Still, some errors are so egregious that they must be noted, if only to help avoid repeating mistakes with potentially dangerous consequences.

In an NPR news report this morning, repeated reference was made to North Korea's recent testing of "an underground nuclear device." NO, NO, NO! North Korea did not test "an underground nuclear device." North Korea tested a nuclear device underground.

Believe it or not, the placement of the modifier (in this case, the adjective "underground") radically changes the meaning of the sentence. What the news report literally said was that North Korea tested a nuclear device that was to be used underground. What the news report meant was that North Korea blew up a nuclear device in a test it conducted underground. The device itself could be used at ground level or even high in the atmosphere.

None of us would have much to fear from a North Korean underground nuclear device. It would be virtually impossible for North Korea to plant, undetected, an underground nuclear device where it would do us serious harm. Indeed, an underground nuclear device by definition cannot do anyone relatively great harm--that's why the first nuclear test ban treaties banned testing only in the atmosphere or otherwise above ground. Underground testing, considered the safest of the available options, was allowed because none of the treaties' signatories was willing to forgo testing entirely.

Conducting a test of a nuclear device underground, however, means that the device is of risk to us--because the device's use is not limited to the nether realms. North Korea punctuated this point by also testing several short-range missile launching vehicles this past week.

Many people who read this [that is, if any of them do--Ed.] are probably rolling their eyes and accusing me of being too picky, because "we all know what the news report meant." Maybe. Maybe not. Sloppy grammar indicates sloppy thinking. Sloppy thinking makes cogent communication impossible. Lack of cogent communication all too often starts arguments, feuds, even wars.

Though it may not make much difference, Eats, Shoots, and Leaves ought to be mandatory reading in everyone's junior high school curriculum. Maybe, just maybe, that would indirectly prevent some future bloodbath. Winston Churchill himself said it was better to "jaw, jaw, jaw" than to "war, war, war."

Political Calculus


Has anyone codified a set of Laws of Political Dynamics? I have a suggestion for one law that must be included on such a list: the level of brilliance of a President Obama decision is directly proportional to the level of hysteria amongst the far right in reaction to it . . . the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to become an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court being the quintessential illustration thereof.

There are absolutely NO principled reasons on which to oppose her nomination, so the lies, distortions, and outright nastiness of the über-right have gone way beyond hysteria and into out-and-out incomprehensibility. Consider just a few of the smears and mud being flung: (1) She is from a historically underrepresented minority ethnic background; therefore, she is a racist. (2) Her remarkable achievements in rising from the poverty that is the South Bronx to attend an Ivy League university and Yale Law (with summa cum laude graduation and editorship of the Yale Law Review being only two of her accomplishments while doing so) mean she is not at all smart and therefore must be "an affirmative action" beneficiary. [I will not even get into the side issue, which is that even if that's true, it doesn't mean she's unqualified per se--it means only that her merits would have been totally ignored and undeveloped without a little institutional assistance; in other words, a recognition of the fact that the playing field is not in fact level for all of us.--Ed.] (3) Her ability and willingness to speak her mind and argue cogently for her point of view means she's a bully. (4) Her years of experience as a prosecutor, an attorney in private practice, and as a federal judge (both at the trial and the circuit court levels), the most any nominee has brought to the Supreme Court in over a century, mean she is totally unqualified.

To anyone out there who believes the tripe: want to buy a bridge? I can get one for you wholesale!

The far right of the GOP is so caught up in talking to itself to reaffirm its own prejudices that it's losing sight of reality. [You know, if this weren't so pathetic, it would be amusing. The GOP is so out-of-touch that it cannot even see how out-of-touch it is.--Ed.} The rest of the world is NOT going to come beating down its doors to join it. We've moved way beyond its limited ideas and ideology. If the GOP wants to stay a viable, credible, nationwide influence, the GOP must stop contemplating its collective navel and start bridging the gap between its rigid ideology and where most of us actually live.

That bridge is still for sale, guys. But a deal like this won't sit around forever. You have to act now!

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Who Cares About Baseball In October?


I'd be happy if the Cubs were playing baseball now. They just finished an 0-7 road trip . . . they scored only 5 runs TOTAL in 7 games . . . and they are falling back toward the bottom of the pack in the NL Central Division. This is after the Cubs were picked by nearly everybody to win their division, the National League, and to (finally) get back to the World Series for the first time since their loss in the fall classic in 1945. Not to mention that it's been 101 years since they won one.

Baseball in October is irrelevant if they're not playing good enough to get there in the first place.

I'm still rooting for them. Several key players have been injured all at the same time during these last 10 days or so; I don't think the offense is going to get back on track until Aramis Ramirez comes back--healthy--whenever that might be.

Yes, I'm still rooting for them, even through my current agonies. I'm a Cubs fan. I have a lot of bad habits.

Still More Lack Of Clarity On The Concept


In Wausau, Wisconsin, a woman was just convicted of negligent homicide. She and her husband and her prayer group did not seek medical help while her ll-year-old daughter lay dying . . . until it was too late. The woman's husband, who is scheduled in July to face trial on the same charges, decried the verdict and claimed this meant the end of freedom of religion in America. He says he'll appeal the case all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

Here's a small news flash: the man is wrong. Freedom of religion has not died in America. In America, anyone is free to believe--or not--as s/he wishes. What anyone is NOT free to do is to endanger someone else's life while acting out those beliefs. There exist an uncounted number of Supreme Court decisions over the decades which establish that. The most famous case, the first one taught to law school freshmen, is the infamous "snake-handling" case. A particular stripe of fundamentalist Christians believed that handling poisonous snakes was a necessary part of their religious service, a demonstration of their faith that God would not let them suffer harm. The Supremes said the believers were perfectly free to believe that handling poisonous snakes was a necessary demonstration of their faith, but they were not free to do it. For one thing, children were present. For another, the snakes could escape and put non-believers at risk. Not to mention the risks to any medical personnel who would be called to the scene if a church member were, in fact, bitten.

In short, the Court determined that there was a larger, overriding public good in preventing the church members from putting their beliefs into action. They were still free to hold their beliefs; they just were not free to endanger themselves or others to act them out.

What appals me most about this Wisconsin case is that any attorney would raise the smokescreen of "freedom of religion" as a defense. It has been thoroughly repudiated by an unbroken string of Supreme Court precedents. Yes, every defendant is entitled to make the state prove its case. Yes, every defendant is entitled to the most zealous representation possible. But to take money for using such a thoroughly rejected argument borders on the unethical. Once again, the attorneys are unclear on the concept. "Zealous representation" is NOT the same as "going along with whatever your client says s/he wants." Sometimes, "zealous representation" means making the realities of the situation plain to the client, and working out the best possible plea bargain.

Still, I shouldn't be surprised that so much fuzzy thinking is still going on in the world of the law. After all, the governors of several states are suddenly talking about secession again. Excuse me for throwing water on you, governors, but the Civil War established once and for all time that secession is not an option in the American system of government. You lost. One-hundred-and-fifty years ago. Get over it, already!

But why do I waste my electronic ink pointing out such obvious truths? I keep hoping that reason and rationality will win the day. However, there are too many people out there who do not want to be confused with the facts, as they have already made up their minds. I understand from the published quotes of several Republican politicians and fund-raisers that they've already put together a package condemning whomever President Obama nominates to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter. They're just waiting to fill in the name.

If that's a joke, it's not funny--for any number of reasons. Despite the oblique reference to Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers ("Whatever it is, I'm against it!"), it's not funny. Despite the ludicrous implication that everyone Obama nominates will have the identical and specific set of negatives to expose, it's not funny. Despite that fact that it makes a mockery of the US Senate's duty to investigate and confirm (or reject) presidential nominees, it's not funny. Despite the fact that the GOP claim to be ready to do battle was said with a perfectly straight face, it's not funny.

Then again, these are the same people who think they lost last November because the GOP was not far enough to the right. They've completely lost sight of reality. Reality is that no one who cannot attract moderate and independent voters can win a national election in this day and age.

So the GOP is flushing itself down the proverbial toilet. But that's not funny, either. That the party of Lincoln has sunk to this is just plain sad.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Really Unclear On The Concept



So the GOP is trying to change the subject--again. Instead of recognizing that "who knew what, when" is a problem for the entire country when it comes to waterboarding, Republicans in Congress are trying to taint Democrats with the same dirty brush. "They knew and they did nothing, so leave us alone!" seems to be the gist of their defense and their justification for what truly is unjustifiable.

News flash: this is NOT about partisan politics. It is about the good of the entire nation. As far as I'm concerned, any Democrats who knew that waterboarding was going on and who did nothing about it are just as guilty as the Dubya Administration toadies who authorized it and used it. Those Democrats, too, should be punished for their transgressions of the law and of treaties to which the US is a signatory.

Period.

So stop trying to change the subject; stop trying to skew the discussion; stop trying to argue that since "everybody else knew," it's not wrong. Face up to facts, and let all the facts come out. And let EVERYBODY who shares responsibility face the consequences of their actions--or non-actions, as the case may be.

Idiots.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Mr. President, You're Wrong Again



News reports this morning say that President Obama has decided to change his mind and not release additional photos of detainees being tortured at Abu Ghraib. Back in February, he said he would release the photos, but now, his administration is going to fight their release.

I understand the shrewdness of his move from a political standpoint. Federal courts have uniformly ordered (in prior cases) that such photos be released. He's going to lose in court, and the photos will be published widely. In the meantime, however, he curries favor with those segments of our body politic which did not at all like his release of the CIA's torture memos. He also can tell US soldiers that he stands in solidarity with them.

So for him, it's a win-win. But as a matter of principle, it looks B-A-D. And some principles should never be compromised, period. "We will die as a nation, to preserve who we are." The minute we start compromising on who we are, we have killed ourselves and that which makes America unique in all the world's history. And then the terrorists have won, indeed.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Unclear On The Concept? You Betcha!


Several recent letters to the editor published in the Omaha World-Herald's "Public Pulse" feature have claimed that the reason the Republican Party is not doing well right now is that the GOP is not far enough to the right. They point to John McCain's loss in the presidential election in November as proof that "moderate" Republicans cannot win.

Boy, are some people unclear on the concept! McCain's thumping was due primarily to two things: (1) his "all-over-the-place" reaction to the economic crisis last September; (2) his being saddled with the uber-right wing Sarah Palin as a running mate. In neither instance did McCain come off as a leader with a calm and steady hand, a rational thinker who'd make sound decisions based on facts and not on careening emotions.

Still, I cannot help but think that it's not a bad thing that the hard-core GOP toadies want to move the party even farther to the right than it already is. They would only increase the level of their marginalization from the mainstream of American politics. And while that may mean we have to listen to their excessive bleating and whining, all out of proportion to their actual numbers, for a time, it would be worth it to me--for the long term health of the American body politic.

We need people in office who can have principled, civil, on-the-facts differences of opinion, yet who are willing to work together for the larger good of the nation as a whole, not a bunch of crybaby "my way or the highway" children throwing tantrums.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I made the mistake yesterday of weighing in on the Yahoo! News item about CBS golf analyst John Feherty's recent in-print stupidity. Feherty opined that if any American military member found himself trapped in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, and he had a gun and two bullets, he'd shoot Pelosi twice and strangle Reid and bin Laden.

I pointed out that not only are there many, many members of the American military who are not ultra-right zealots, but that every member of the American military, whatever his/her personal politics, would take offense at the notion that he/she would kill elected American political leaders. All military personnel take an oath that recognizes the military is subordinate to the civilian authority in our system, and they all believe fervently that the way things change in America is via the ballot box, not the bullet.

A response to my comment said, and I quote, "your wrong," and that conservatives were on the correct side of history. Really? Is that why we're still living in a slave-owning monarchical system where no one can rise above the station of his/her birth no matter how creative and intelligent s/he is?

Besides, I find it difficult to give credibility to anyone who does not know the difference between "your" and "you're." I AM a historian. I've taught history. I study history every day of my life. I've forgotten more history that that commentator will ever know. That commentator needs to take Mark Twain's advice: when given the choice, keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're an idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt.

However, I, too, should heed another of the sage Twain's directives: never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Monday, May 04, 2009

Distressed Signals



I was saddened last year when John Edwards abandoned his bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. I was sickened to learn of his betrayal of his wife, Elizabeth, by having an affair while Elizabeth was battling resurgent breast cancer. I am distressed and disgusted to learn that Edwards is now being investigated for misusing campaign funds.

I still think Edwards has some marvelous ideas. He was the only candidate from either major party who had the guts to make eradicating poverty the centerpiece of his campaign. Having failed to become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, he'd have made a fine Attorney General. He understands how the rich manipulate the legal system for their own ends; he'd have been a wonder at cleaning up the mess in the Department of Justice that Dubya's minions made.

Still, on balance, I am angry with him. His confession of his affair literally made his wife sick. [I can identify with that, even though my then-husband didn't have the guts to tell me to my face. Elizabeth Edwards said she felt as though she was going to vomit when John told her what he'd done. I couldn't walk into what had been my husband's and my bedroom for nearly a year after he left--with no advance warning to me, by the way--without puking. Good thing the bathroom was only 3 or 4 steps behind me.--Ed.] It destroyed his credibility and availability to participate in the Obama administration. It made it too easy for enemies of his ideas to trash the ideas because of who said them, not because of their own merits or demerits. It also made it impossible for Elizabeth to take a leading role in the upcoming fight for health care reform. She would have been a powerful and extremely effective voice for change.

People have commented that what Edwards did in his personal life was no one's business but his and his wife's, and that they still want him to participate in public service. I wish I could agree. The problem I keep running into is that I cannot trust him anymore. Anyone who is so callous and so careless with the number one most important thing in his life cannot be trusted with the leadership of the nation in any capacity. First, it shows incredible arrogance. Second, it shows a dangerous lack of judgment. Third, it shows a total lack of discretion. Fourth, it distracts everyone from what should be our focus: making America "America" again. Fifth, it gives tons of ammunition to the enemies of reform. Sixth, and most importantly, it is downright dangerous. If you want to know how someone will behave at crunch time on the big issues, watch how s/he handles the "small," private things that no one is supposed to notice. Once you start taking shortcuts in small things, it becomes easier and easier to take shortcuts with big things . . . and eventually, you'll have no credibility or honor left.

I've often said I have the sort of luck that keeps me from jaywalking, even at 4 a.m. on a deserted street. For as sure as I stepped off the curb in the middle of the block and against the light at the intersection, a police car would come out of nowhere and I'd be busted. Rightfully. However, as long as I do not jaywalk at 4 a.m., even on a deserted street, no one will notice. But the law won't be broken.

To put it another way, "If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a glass of milk." The character that people reveal by their behavior in the "small" things is the same character that will drive their behavior in the big things. I don't wish John Edwards any ill. I hope he is found not guilty of misappropriating campaign funds. But I won't be surprised if my hopes are dashed. And then I'll be angry all over again--for what's really driving my anger is the way his selfishness torpedoed his chances to do good for the whole country.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

A-Courtin' We Will Go


United States Supreme Court Justice David Souter has announced his retirement effective the end of the Court's current term. I will be sorry to see him go. He was not some closet flaming liberal, as many on the right of our political spectrum would have you believe. He was an academic, an intellectual, and his guide was the law, not the passions of men--or of women.

Though President Obama's nominee to replace Souter will not change the current philosophical unbalance of the Court's members, it will be an important signal for the future of the country. Souter was a George H.W. Bush appointee, but he never cast his vote based on politics or ideology. He voted based on his understanding of the law. His understanding, as his devotion to the idea of a "government of laws and not of men," was often profound.

Many names of potential nominees to replace Souter are already being bandied about by the pundits. Most of them seem to be of women who have extensive experience in our legal system, be it as practicing attorneys or as academicians (there's at least one law school dean's name in circulation, I believe).

I am hoping against hope that Obama does not do the expedient thing and nominate someone whose nomination can be confirmed relatively easily. I hope he also doesn't pick his nominee from the ranks of people already holding judgeships. The vast majority of judges at all levels of our legal system started their careers as trial attorneys. Trial attorneys make excellent TRIAL court judges. Their knowledge of procedural rules and the rules of evidence and of what being "in the system" does to people stands them in good stead--on the TRIAL bench.

However, being a judge or justice at the appellate level requires different skills. The Constitution does not require any particular career background of Supreme Court justices--indeed, the Constitution doesn't even require them to be lawyers. I hope Obama nominates someone who has great depth of experience and education in widely diverse areas of life; someone who emphasizes how to think, not what to think; someone who is less likely to get hung up on the niceties of procedure and more likely to uphold not just the technical letter of our laws, but the animating spirit behind them.

Given his already-expressed desire to find a nominee who has compassion and empathy, I think the president is off to an excellent start.

Footnote: for all you idiots out there who scream about how judges should not make law, here's a news flash. ALL judges make law. It's inherent in the nature of the job. If judges didn't make law, we wouldn't need a judicial branch of government in the first place. You only dislike judges making law when the results go against your vested interests. But just because they are your vested interests doesn't mean they are correct, or in line with what all our most fundamental documents say America should be. So get over yourselves, shut up for once, and get out of the way. Until you can offer truly constructive, thought-out and on-point criticisms, all you're doing is poisoning the atmosphere. I, for one, am sick of you.