Edwards' "City upon a Hill" terrorism speech

John Edwards recently spoke at Pace University in New York, laying out his strategy for combating global terrorism.

Among the wonkish (but smart) plans of establishing CITO (Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization) and a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 civilian volunteers who would work to alleviate poverty conditions, a Edwards struck a broader theme that reminded me of a speech given almost 400 years ago.

John Winthrop, a New England Puritan leader of the would-be Massachusetts Bay Colony, warned his congregants that the eyes of the world would be upon them:

For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken...we shall be made a story and a by-word throughout the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God.We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us til we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

Then president-elect Kennedy spoke with similar language in an address to a joint session of the Massachusetts "General Court:"

But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.

"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill--the eyes of all people are upon us."

Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities

For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and disorder within.

Kennedy quoted Pericles' address to the Athenians, reminding them that they were a model for others, and to conduct themselves accordingly. America has forgotten this historic and sacred duty in the past seven years. We have conducted ourselves poorly, as reactionary thugs, not as visionary leaders. It's ironic that Reagan, the supposed hero of the Republican party, spoke of a "shining city upon a hill," yet his heirs have abandoned the responsibility that city entailed.

Edwards noted that the ideological war with Al Qaeda would be won only by convincing those in the middle of the ideological spectrum - and most at risk of supporting terrorism - that America offers a better, more hopeful vision.

Yet we also should have a broader, deeper goal—to prevent terrorism from taking root in the first place. Millions of people around the world are sitting on the fence. On the one side are bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and on the other side is America. The question is which way they will go. If they perceive America as a bully, it will drive them in the other direction. If, on the other hand, they see us as the light, the country they want to be like, the country that's creating hope and opportunity, it will pull them to us like a magnet.

We have to be that light again. We need to do everything we can to prevent this generation of potential friends from becoming a generation of enemies.

This speech was a big step for Edwards. His focus on poverty and his "two Americas" theme are undeniably important, but until now he hadn't made the case that that effort was important to middle class Americans, and not just on moral grounds.

In the years after the second World War, America was a visionary leader, extending a hand to the very societies we had vanquished, pulling them up and helping them to rejoin the community of nations. The Marshall Plan has had lasting impact, and it's no coincidence that Edwards named his civilian corps the "Marshall Corps." This is what America needs.

At the end of his speech, Edwards called on the students in his audience to dedicate themselves -- and make the necessary sacrifices -- to this broad, noble fight. Let's hope his words don't go unheard.

The Principled Conservative

NYT profiles former DOJ White House legal adviser

I found the principled conservative with whom Bush could replace Gonzales. The problem, according to the Times, in its profile of Jack Goldsmith, is that there is no way Bush could hire him.

Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard, is the former head of the office of Legal Counsel, which advises the White House on, inter alia, the extent of executive powers. As Jeffrey Rosen, the author of the Times piece and friend of Goldsmith, writes:

"[T]he office has two important powers: the power to put a brake on aggressive presidential action by saying no and, conversely, the power to dispense what Goldsmith calls “free get-out-of jail cards” by saying yes. Its opinions, [Goldsmith] writes in his book, are the equivalent of “an advance pardon” for actions taken at the fuzzy edges of criminal laws."

So essentially, Goldsmith's opinions were the behind-the-scenes supports for some of the Bush gang's most nefarious and notorious policies, including the torture of detainees in the "war on terror."

Goldsmith, according to the profile, wasn't entirely all thumbs when it came to a rational analysis of a proposed exercise of executive power. Rosen describes in the article one instance in which Goldsmith didn't give his blessing to a proposed policy:

"Several hours after Goldsmith was sworn in, on Oct. 6, 2003, he recalls that he received a phone call from Gonzales: the White House needed to know as soon as possible whether the Fourth Geneva Convention, which describes protections that explicitly cover civilians in war zones like Iraq, also covered insurgents and terrorists. After several days of study, Goldsmith agreed with lawyers in several other federal agencies, who had concluded that the convention applied to all Iraqi civilians, including terrorists and insurgents. In a meeting with Ashcroft, Goldsmith explained his analysis, which Ashcroft accepted. Later, Goldsmith drove from the Justice Department to the White House for a meeting with Gonzales and Addington [then Cheney's chief legal adviser]. Goldsmith remembers his deputy Patrick Philbin turning to him in the car and saying: 'They’re going to be really mad. They’re not going to understand our decision. They’ve never been told no.'"

"They've never been told no." A more succinct indictment of the Bush administration's excesses has yet to be written. That sentence captures the arrogance with which Bush and his cronies have squandered American prestige and the good will of the immediate post-Sept. 11 environment by eschewing entirely the rule of law. The Bushies counted on Americans to trade a essential liberties for a little temporary safety. Maddeningly, that's exactly what we did, every time the issue came up. And Bush's team knew it.

“We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court,” Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004."

The "unitary executive" theory of presidential authority espoused by the Bush gang has effectively squandered America's reputation with the rest of the world. The go-it-alone approach with which they approached their Iraq boondoggle has mirrored in their approach to domestic politics:

“The Bush administration has operated on an entirely different concept of power that relies on minimal deliberation, unilateral action and legalistic defense,” Goldsmith concludes in his book.

Ironic, since for seven years, Bush had an extremely acquiescent legislative branch, ready to roll over at the very threat of being made to appear "soft on terror."

The results of Bush's attempt to solidify the power of the executive branch have in all likelihood backfired with staggering brilliance. Rosen notes that future presidents, as opposed to enjoying more expansive executive authority, will find themselves hemmed in by ever more skeptical legislative and judicial branches:

“I don’t think any president in the near future can have the same attitude toward executive power, because the other institutions of government won’t allow it,” he said softly. “The Bush administration has borrowed its power against future presidents.”

It will be interesting to see, in only a couple of short years, what a federalist government premised on separation of powers looks like. Thanks to Bush, we're virtually assured that's what's coming.

Standing for principle

DOJ lawyers refusing to work on Guantanamo detainee appeals: report

Jurist reports that up to 1/4 of DOJ civil appellate attorneys are refusing to represent the government in Guantanamo detainee appellate proceedings. I'm guessing that these are not the political hires Monica Goodling bragged about.

The article notes that DOJ doesn't have a formal structure to allow lawyers to recuse themselves from cases because they disagree with the legal arguments in those cases. So in all probability, their jobs are in jeopardy. A salute to them, then, for standing for principle even when the personal cost is likely to be great.

Bye-bye, Gonzo

The House Lawyer Departs - New York Times

It's one small step for man... one giant leap for the Constitution. Well, probably not giant. But certainly significant.

It's about time Alberto Gonzales resigned. The "loyal Bushie" has managed, in a rather short tenure, to do serious and lasting damage to the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. From the beginning of his time as the titular monarch of the Justice Department, his name has been associated with projects and policies representing a complete departure from American values - indeed, from the rule of law.

The torture memo (with its classic line: "the new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners...") he co-authored was despicable. Spying on Americans without authorization from the FISA courts (an incredibly low hurdle) was appalling. Arguing for the suspension of the Geneva convention and supervising the torture of detainees at Guantanamo was repugnant. The firing of US Attorneys for the most thinly veiled political reasons would have been amusing if the consequences weren't the destruction Justice's independence, not to mention the careers of the Attorneys themselves.

An NPR commentator observed last night that President Bush tends to let staff situations fester until, at the brink of their becoming gangrenous, he is forced to resolve them. Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft, was the target of similar attacks. Bush defended Don Rumsfeld, his Defense Secretary, and his ludicrous and disastrous reversal of the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, until irreparable harm had been done to the US war effort. That's not to begin to address the fool's errand of the war in the first place.

Another Bush crony, Harriet Miers, was vaulted into contention for a seat on the high court with a laughable lack of credentials. The list goes on. (Rove, anyone?)

The Times editorial, supra, suggests that Bush nominate someone of unimpeachable character and ability to begin the arduous task of rebuilding the credibility of the Justice Department. Let's hope he can do so. Current speculation that Michael Chertoff, current head of Homeland Security, might be Bush's pick. That's predictable -- he proved his loyalty, and his incompetence, following the Katrina disaster. But the country deserves better. Surely there must be some respected conservative that Bush can nominate. Surely he'll want to take this opportunity, with a year and a half left until he rides off into the sunset of history, to attempt in some small measure to improve his horrendous legacy. But the smart money is that Bush will nominate yet another incompetent, committed insider who will continue Bush's assault on the fundamental fabric of American democracy.

So long, Alberto Gonzales. Good riddance.

France: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

French Leader Raises Possibility of Force in Iran - New York Times

When the French president took power, he promised a new era in terms of Franco-American interrelations. I hope this isn't what he meant.

The world certainly doesn't need, and may not be able comfortably to absorb, another neo-conservative excursionist into Middle Eastern affairs. Our own has mucked up the already chaotic region quite sufficiently.

I wonder, however, whether this change in the cant of French politics might portend an equivalent change in the attitude of the right in this country toward France. Might the "Freedom Fries" in the House cafeteria go back to their original name? (Note: I know. It's a joke. Relax, fact-check police.)

Holy Crap: A review of the Creation Museum

I finally got a chance to see the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky. I've been struggling to decide how to respond to the experience. I didn't change my mind about the veracity of the claims the "museum" makes -- of course, they're complete bunk. The reason I've been struggling is because I was trying to decide how to view the museum: as an innocuous testament to the odd and illogical beliefs of a few, or a vicious attack on truth and reason. As I was going through some pictures I took at the museum, I came up with my answer.

The museum is laid out somewhat logically: one enters and is immediately greeted by workers wearing safari vests with "Prepare to Believe" embroidered on the back. This, presumably, is by way of mise en scene: we're about to take a journey through "history." The place has kind of a Jurassic Park feel. Look out the window to the "botanical garden" and you can see a scale model of the Loch Ness Monster in the pond out back. I'm sure the metaphor was unintentional. Rounding the corner from the ticket window ($20 per person!), the dinosaurs themselves come out.

Not just dinosaurs, though. The New York Times describes the scene this way:

Two prehistoric children play near a burbling waterfall, thoroughly at home in the natural world. Dinosaurs cavort nearby, their animatronic mechanisms turning them into alluring companions, their gaping mouths seeming not threatening, but almost welcoming, as an Apatosaurus munches on leaves a few yards away.

You read that correctly. There are human children in the same diorama as dinosaurs. Never mind that carbon dating of fossils illustrates the absurdity and impossibility of the scene. The museum's response? Fossils came from Noah's flood, and carbon dating doesn't work. But I'll get to that.

The rest of the museum was more of the same. I'm not going to go through each exhibit pointing out the logical flaws. For one reason, that post would take too long. For another, it's already been done. Instead, I'm going to address the basic premise of the museum, because as far as I'm concerned, it's the most dangerous.

Wikipedia reports an ABC poll indicating that 60% of Americans believe that "God created the world in six days." 48% believe, according to Newsweek, that "God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

One of the greatest strengths of America is the ability of its citizens to believe, speak openly about, and debate any view of their choosing. If adults want to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or unicorns, or the Easter Bunny, nothing prevents them from so doing. I say "adults" as opposed to "people," because adults should, in theory, have the cognitive capacity to weigh an idea, considering the arguments for and against it, and make a reasoned choice of whether or not to support that idea. If people subject Flat Earth Creationism to that scrutiny, so be it. Let's just hope they don't organize politically and begin to influence our elections.

But of course, the Creation Museum doesn't intend to be a harmless gathering grounds for, shall we say, eccentric adults. Its stated purpose is to indoctrinate children. Again according to Wikipedia (with citation to the museum's web page),

The facility's stated mission is to "exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer," to "equip Christians to better evangelize the lost," and to "challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord."

All well and good. OK, not good, but at least tolerable. But the museum goes much further. The emphasis on dinosaurs, and the attention to detail on the dinosaur displays, clearly identifies one of the museum's core audiences: young children. Kids love dinosaurs (I know this first hand). Kids are voracious consumers of any dino-knowledge. By focusing on dinosaurs as the vehicle for the museum's anti-Enlightenment message, it is brainwashing innocent children.

Anti-Enlightenment is not my interpretation of the museum's message. It's stated in so many words. After the "cave of sorrows," featuring a parade of horribles like stem cell research, gay marriage, pornography, and ACLU, all of which resulted from eating some fruit, the museum gets into the history of the battle against flat-earth creationism. A video describes the "atrocity" of the ACLU during the Scopes Monkey Trial, during which "ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow" viciously attacked and mercilessly mocked William Jennings Bryan for his literal interpretation of the Bible.

I grant them that point, though of course I don't subscribe to their interpretation. Darrow did savage Bryan quite deliciously:

[Counsel] objected [to Darrow's questioning of Bryan], demanding to know the legal purpose of Darrow's questioning. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that its purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible." Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted, "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

Further, several posters detail "tragic" historic events, like when "In the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, the infidel philosopher Voltaire forecast that within a century no Bibles would be left on earth." Luckily, "... fifty years after he died, the Geneva Bible Society took over his house and printing press to produce thousands of Bibles." I guess they're still a bit miffed about Candide.

This is where the language ceases to be innocuous. One doesn't call someone "with a different starting point ... [who reaches] different conclusions" an infidel. There's a reason why Richard Dawkins refers to "the Taliban and its American equivalent."

The museum goes further. In an explanation of why Cain's marrying his sister was not wrong, a poster explained that since there weren't too many genetic mutations in the human genome, such a marriage wouldn't result in deformed children as it would today. Furthermore, the only reason marrying one's sister was wrong was because God said so. OK. No problems there. But then it says:

Since God is the One who defined marriage in the first place, God's Word is the only standard for defining proper marriage. People who do not accept the Bible as their absolute authority have no basis for condemning someone like Cain marrying his sister.

Divine command theory has plenty of adherents. It's an intellectually lazy and vacuous theory, but that's (somewhat) beside the point. To claim, however, that it is the only basis from which to derive a standard of morality is a blatant version of the same type of arrogance the Flat Earth types accuse "Evolutionists" of having. They assume the hegemony of their worldview. Thankfully for humanity, that particular worldview was well on its way out the door when Galileo muttered "Eppur si muove."

So the problem isn't the beliefs per se. The problem is what the museum attaches to those beliefs. Teaching children that what they learned in school is wrong is obviously problematic. But foisting Flat Earth creationism onto an apparently (and appallingly) vulnerable populace is downright dangerous.

The New York Times just ran a piece about the resurgence of political theology. The author, Mark Lilla, describes the fear Hobbes had of a theocracy:

And the debilitating dynamics of belief don’t end there. For once we imagine an all-powerful God to protect us, chances are we’ll begin to fear him too. What if he gets angry? How can we appease him? Hobbes reasoned that these new religious fears were what created a market for priests and prophets claiming to understand God’s obscure demands. It was a raucous market in Hobbes’s time, with stalls for Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Ranters, Muggletonians, Fifth Monarchy Men and countless others, each with his own path to salvation and blueprint for Christian society. They disagreed with one another, and because their very souls were at stake, they fought. Which led to wars; which led to more fear; which made people more religious; which. . . .

Luckily, the Creation Museum itself is the best argument against Flat Earth creationism and its logical (no pun intended) necessities. As long as people don't check their rational minds at the door, seeing straight-faced assurances that the Grand Canyon was carved in a couple of days should pretty much absolve the view of any danger it may have had among the public at large.

The larger point, however, is this: If it becomes even more politically dangerous to label this nonsense what it is, then we may have a real problem on our hands. We laugh when George W. Bush says "the jury is still out on evolution." But when statements like that become more commonplace, and it becomes dangerous to oppose them, that's when the real nightmare scenarios come to bear.

Thomas Jefferson famously said "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." Let's hope reason remains free. As for me, I'll err on the side of reason. I'll take "I think, therefore I am" over "I am who am" any day.

I could keep going. The "museum" is vulnerable to attack on pretty much every front. But, like the punch Ali didn't throw at Foreman, I'll abstain.

FISA court coming around?

Well now. The ACLU may be making some headway in its effort to force the Bush administration to belly up to the rule of law with regard to its illegal, warrantless wiretapping program. Not much, but as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Or something like that. Check out the story on Digg.

read more | digg story