The toll of permanent war

What is the domestic damage done by a country that lurches from war to war? Chris Hedges proposes an answer at Truthdig.com: countries that are perennially at war get eaten up from the inside out:

It is a state of permanent war that is finishing off the liberal traditions in Israel and the United States. The moral and intellectual trolls—the Dick Cheneys, the Avigdor Liebermans, the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads—personify the moral nihilism of perpetual war. They manipulate fear and paranoia. They abolish civil liberties in the name of national security. They crush legitimate dissent. They bilk state treasuries. They stoke racism.

“War,” Randolph Bourne commented acidly, “is the health of the state.”

Hedges further alleges that Obama is not in a hurry to stop the wars, because it's too much of an uphill climb and it's, in the long run, beneficial to Obama (as it was to Bush):

They support its destructive fury because it funds them. They validate its evil assumptions because to take them on is political suicide. They repeat the narrative of fear because it keeps us dormant. They do this because they have become weaker than the corporate forces that profit from permanent war.

Continue ReadingThe toll of permanent war

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts: “doctrinaire conservative”

The New Yorker has published a detailed article on the track record of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. The conclusion is that he is a "doctrinaire conservative." Here's an excerpt:

His jurisprudence, as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

But isn't Roberts simply following the law? There is an incredible amount of existing legal precedent (thousands of cases have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, and many thousands of additional cases have been decided by the numerous federal courts of appeals and federal district courts. Careful readings of these cases demonstrate that considerable numbers of these legal holdings conflict in both minor and major ways with one another. This ever-growing sometimes convoluted body of decided cases is the backdrop the work of judges, and they are charged to follow precedent, except when they choose not to, and--this is a critical point--their breaks from precedent (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education) constitute some of the Court's best moments. This backdrop makes for a strange formula for jurisprudential "rigor." So let's not pretend that judges are simply sitting on the bench to "follow the law" as though they were solving binomial equations. There is immense opportunity to insert one's own personal biases in a legal opinion, thanks to the many paths offered by precedent combined with human ingenuity. Recent examples of legal analysis by Jay Bybee (now JUDGE Bybee) would suggest that there is no limitation at all--that legal reasoning is merely a political power exercised by a person wearing a robe. Lest someone think that this is a hatchet piece on Roberts, I need to point out that I am sympathetic with a few of Roberts "conservative" themes. As one example, I am highly suspicious of judicial remedies for "racial" discrimination where those remedies impose widespread societal changes based on "race." We should be moving away from a belief in "race," not further legitimizing it. My personal bias is that we need to get to the point where we can all proudly say that we are all human beings or even that "We are all Africans." No one denies that Roberts is affable or that he is a lawyer who knows "the law" inside and out. Based on the convoluted set of existing law, though, combined with the immense discretion available to judges (under the cloak of "follow the law"), lawyers and judges can almost always find principles and cases to support almost any position they care to take. Throughout the history of jurisprudence, then, recurring questions are how should a judge choose among competing precedent and how should a judge apply that precedent? The point was illustrated well by Barack Obama, who as a Senator cast a vote opposing the appointment of Roberts:

In his Senate speech on that vote, Obama praised Roberts’s intellect and integrity and said that he would trust his judgment in about ninety-five per cent of the cases before the Supreme Court. “In those five per cent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision,” Obama said. “In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions . . . the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” Obama did not trust Roberts’s heart.

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Justice John Roberts: “doctrinaire conservative”

Obama directly addresses abortion at Notre Dame

I've really got to give Obama credit. No use shying away from difficult topics. Even if they're intractable disputes, he at least goes in and reminds us to be civil when we discuss the topic (in addition to reminding us that the disputes are, indeed, intractable). Consider the speech Obama gave today, especially his discussion of the abortion issue:

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

Continue ReadingObama directly addresses abortion at Notre Dame

More Catholic than the Pope

With many American Catholics outraged that Notre Dame university has invited Barack Obama to deliver its commencement address -- a position the Pope himself apparently finds untroubling -- one wonders if America's Catholic conservatives are more concerned about politics than about any genuine religious doctrine. Indeed, the Vatican's own official publication, L'Osservatore Romano has labeled Obama's first three months in office as "One hundred days that didn't shake the world." Meanwhile, the American anti-abortion-rights group, National Right to Life Committee, has moved to criticize the Vatican's "surprisingly positive assessment" of President Obama's approach to life issues and called on Notre Dame university to rescind the Obama invitation. According to the NRLC, Notre Dame's invitation is "an affront to all who believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life." Since Pope Benedict does not seem to consider the Obama invitation "an affront," the NRLC would apparently exclude Pope Benedict from its list of those who believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life. If extremism like that informs America's Republican party, America's conservatives should perhaps anticipate a much longer period of Democratic rule. And for good reason.

Continue ReadingMore Catholic than the Pope

Obama strikes all funding for abstinence-only sex education

As reported at Daily Kos:

Yesterday, President Obama struck a blow to the abstinence-only community, cutting ALL of their funding streams in his new 2010 budget. Obama made it clear that our government should no longer fund these failed programs that promote misinformation, misogyny, discrimination and, of course, juggling and cinder block wielding abstinence clowns.

Watch the videos posted at Daily Kos to get a real flavor for the opposition (Ms. Unruh), who repeatdly claims that babies are good, we need babies, and that birth control pills are attempts by the pharmaceutical companies to oppress women. She claims that using real birth control is an attempt to turn women into men.

Continue ReadingObama strikes all funding for abstinence-only sex education