They still just don't get it

I threatened a while back to talk about politics here. I'm following through on my threat.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is still going around on one television show after another, saying things like "I'm convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of lives," as a result of what have been called "harsh interrogation techniques" -- torture. He is saying that with President Obama's absolute forbidding of torture that Americans are in danger of another terrorist attack.

As far as I can see, never before in the history of our country has a former member of the executive branch waged such a campaign against the new resident of the White House. It's unseemly and it smacks of being a poor sport because the opposition party was the one that replaced him.

I've begun to wonder if Cheney is doing this as a way to, as they say on legal tv shows, affect the jury pool in case some folks get their way and those who authorized torture during the Bush administration are arrested and tried for their actions. Cheney is giving a defense to keep himself out of prison because he knows he broke laws in what he and Bush did.

The most striking thing about this, though, is that whether or not lives were saved is completely beside the point. This is a nation of laws and the only thing that Bush and Cheney vowed to preserve, protect and defend was the Constitution. Back in Dec. 2005, Bush claimed "As president, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life." He was wrong. His responsibility was to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution.

I belonged to a politics discussion list for a number of years and at one point the discussion centered around the "ticking time bomb" scenario, where there is a bomb set to go off that will kill hundreds or thousands of people and you have a terrorist with you that you know is aware of that bomb's location. The question was whether, in that particular instance, torture would be okay.

The more conservative members of the list didn't see a problem with torture in any case, but definitely agreed that in this case it would be perfectly fine. At least one of the more liberal members said they would do it and plead not guilty if brought to court for their actions. I said that, no, neither one of those was acceptable. If I were in the position as outlined and if I fully believed that torture was the only way to get the answer in time to save people, I would use it. And then I would turn myself in to the courts, plead guilty to the charges of breaking the laws against torture, and accept whatever punishment was deemed appropriate.

There seems to be a pervasive belief that if one does a bad thing for good reasons, it ceases to be a bad thing. But I don't believe it to be the case. It's still a bad thing and before we do bad things we have to be willing to accept the responsibility for doing them.

Should Bush, Cheney and others from the previous administration be prosecuted and punished for their illegal actions? I don't know. Once again being a Libra rears up and I can see two (at least) sides. I think it's likely a mistake for a new administration to investigate and prosecute previous administrations. It sets a bad precedent. But it also sets a bad precedent for nothing to happen to people who break the laws, even if those people are at the highest level of government. Remember the whole thing with Clinton? Supposedly the reason he was impeached was because he broke the law by lying to Congress and not because he had a really stupid affair. In the '90s, the Republicans were all in favor of the absolute rule of law. Now... not so much, it would seem.

There was a person on Bill Moyers a week or so ago who suggested that what Obama should do is to pardon Bush and Cheney, even before charges are brought against them. It would avoid the problem of one administration prosecuting the previous one, but, in order for the pardon to actually go through, Bush and Cheney would have to accept it, admitting what they did. Sounds to me like the ideal solution.

I don't have to agree with someone ...

... in order to admire them.

Mary Ann Glendon, a conservative Harvard law professor who was U.S. ambassador to the Vatican under George W. Bush, has announced that she will not be accepting the Laetare Medal at the University of Notre Dame’s commencement ceremony on May 17. In her letter to Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins, Glendon stated that she would no longer be accepting, citing the conflict with President Barack Obama’s presence as both a commencement speaker and a recipient of an honorary degree.

Glendon is staunchly anti-abortion, and she expressed disappointment that Notre Dame was awarding someone -- in this case the president of the United States -- whose position on abortion is so starkly different from Catholic Church's and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops'.

Abortion Foe Declines Notre Dame Award

I hold a completely opposite position than Dr.[?] (Ms[?]) Glendon, but I can admire her for standing up for the things she believes in. She is not trying to influence legislation or chance Obama's position. She is in a position to make her opinion known, so she's doing it. It would have been easier not to say anything.

The president's response?

“President Obama is disappointed by former Ambassador Mary Glendon’s decision," Spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki, "but he looks forward to delivering an inclusive and respectful speech at the Notre Dame graduation, a school with a rich history of fostering the exchange of ideas. While he is honored to have the support of millions of people of all faiths, he does not govern with the expectation that everyone sees eye to eye with him on every position, and the spirit of debate and healthy disagreement on important issues is part of what he loves about this country.”

Once again, I am glad that I voted for him.

A tempest in an iPod

I have been agog at the hullabaloo over the fact that President and Mrs. Obama included in iPod in the gifts that they took with them to London last week. You'd think that they gave Her Majesty a pile of dog poo or something. I got myself involved in a discussion of it on the politics mailing list I belong to and the insanity goes on and on.

Aside from the particulars of this gift-giving, which I'll get to in a moment, I have been informed that if someone gives two objects, no matter how unrelated those object might be, it is one "two-part" gift and not two gifts. And the gift that is lesser than the two is the one by which both are judged. Really. You don't believe me, do you? Well, this is a quote from a post to the list:

Or, you select a well-thought out wedding gift, say a silver bowl with a
particular pattern. Your husband thinks that's not enough and on the way to the wedding, buys a set of three dish towels. And leaves the tag on. Bowl, OK. Bowl and towels, cheesy.

The existence of the towels negates the OK-ness of the silver bowl. O-kay.

This all came up because, of course, the iPod was supposedly a cheesy gift. The fact that the Obamas also gave Her Majesty a rare autographed Richard Rodgers songbook didn't matter. The existence of the iPod made "the gift" (remember, even though there were two objects, there was only one gift) "cheesy."

Except for several things that have been ignored. Well, the fact that there was a Richard Rodgers songbook was ignored in most news reports, but there are still other other things. First, Her Majesty requested the iPod. Yes, that's right. She already had an audio iPod, which she seems to use quite a bit, but she wanted a video iPod, so someone from Buckingham Palace let it be known that Her Majesty would appreciate an upgrade. Second, while it was mentioned that there were a couple of speeches by Obama on the iPod, few reports mentioned that there was also video of Her Majesty's trip to the US in 2007 and even more video of a trip that she made to the US in 1957. It's nice to have film of one's travels.

Finally, there is the reaction from Buckingham Palace. Her Majesty wouldn't be likely to say that she didn't like the gift(s) she was given, but she could just not say anything, or say something noncommittal. A spokesman for the Queen said, "The Obamas, they scored a hit, particularly with the iPod, loaded with footage of the state visit from two years ago." That sounds like a successful gift to me.

Above all, though, is the focus on minutia like this in the midst of truly severe problems in our country and the world. I know that the conservatives are just trying to pretend that Obama is the oaf that his predecessor was, but it ain't gonna work.

A little different perspective

Just now I was reading Obama's message on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and my eyes filled with tears as my heart swelled with pride over being a small part of the reason this person is the leader of our country. I thought for a moment about those who do not feel that Obama's presidency is good for the US, who wanted McCain or even someone more conservative. It occurred to me that there are those in this country (a small number, no doubt) who felt the same way about George W. Bush as I feel about Barack Obama. I suddenly felt sorry for them. I imagined how I would feel if, when Obama leaves office, there is someone diametrically opposed to him filling his shoes.

I've been quite frustrated with a small minority in places I visit who have taken it upon themselves to pop the balloons as most of the country celebrates. At another time, I might have thought of them as "buzz-kills". I've also thought of them as being petulant children who didn't get their way so they're going to go out of their way to make everybody else as miserable as they are.

I was going to suggest that they might mellow with time as they see what actually happens with Obama in power. Some might, but I'm pretty sure that others will stay exactly as they are now, stubbornly refusing to believe that anybody but someone who agrees with them can have a positive influence on the country.

BTW, I know that people I love and respect will disagree with me on this, but I feel it was wrong for people in the crowd to boo Bush on Tuesday. I wish they would have had the style and grace that our new president and his wife showed to George and Laura.

Small town values

As sad as I was over the passing of Proposition 8 in California, this made me smile.

Some random thoughts on the election

First ... YAY!!!

That said, I'm trying to temper my enthusiasm. The last time I felt anything like this (June, 1968), things didn't go so well. I don't think it'll happen again, but, well, once burned....

At least it's a decisive win. With more than 2/3 of the electoral votes, there won't be court challenges. They would have to bring so many suits and win them all in order to affect the outcome, that it wouldn't be worth it. Which is something in favor of the electoral college. It might be possible to challenge 4 million popular votes, but not that many electoral votes.

I hope that those around the world who have assumed that all (or even most) Americans were racists have changed their opinions of us at least a little bit.

As I said to Jim this morning before he went to work, "That Mr. Obama is pretty good at speechifying. You know, he might have a future in politics."

In other election news, it looks like South Dakota won't take away a woman's right to choose, which is also a YAY!! California is teetering with their anti-gay-marriage proposition, but I still hold out hope. I haven't followed other propositions closely, so I don't know about them.

Here in Washington, the most important proposition was the Death With Dignity law, which is very similar to Oregon's law. It was very contentious with those opposed to it even hiring Martin Sheen to try to scare people into believing that it would mean that poor and disabled people could be legally murdered. It passed.

Almost all of the things and people I voted for went the way I voted. The ones that didn't were ones that I had no passion about, so I'm considering the whole election to be a win for me. :-)

I have some thoughts about McCain and his campaign, but I'll wait to express them. I know there some McCain supporters out there and I think it would be unnecessarily unkind to rub salt in the wounds at this point. I think he did make a nice concession speech.

Lots of work to do. They were just saying that Obama is heading back to the Senate to try to pass some more legislation to help the economy, even before he is inaugurated. No time like the present.

I say again... YAY!!!

Maybe Caribou Barbie got fed up

There has been a lot of talk in the past few days about Sarah Palin going "off message" and having the audacity to speak what is on her mind, rather than the scripted remarks that the RNC has fed to her. Good for her. I wouldn't vote for her in any case, but I'm rather pleased that she's starting to stand up for herself a bit.

What bothered me most about the whole $150,000 wardrobe thing and the makeup person thing was that it really does seem like the RNC is happy playing with their Caribou Barbie -- dressing her up and making her say what they want her to say. I don't think she's the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but no woman should be treated by men as just something to manipulate for their own agendas.

The whole thing just is another example of how little regard the RNC has for women in general.

Who do you love?

Sometimes it's handy to look at the issues apart from the candidates themselves. There's a little quiz sort of thing that lets you do just that.

Match-O-Matic

I came out with one McCain-ite answer. The rest was all Obama.

The Quadrennial Bicker

There's a reason that I only had one child. It wasn't that it just happened that way. I planned it. The reason was that I remembered growing up with my brother and the near-constant bickering between us. At the time, it was annoying, even though I was part of it. In retrospect, I realized how it must have driven my mother near the edge. I didn't want to deal with the same thing with my own kids, so I guaranteed that I wouldn't have to. An only child has no one to bicker with.

This morning as I was watching the "Today Show" on television, I was reminded of that decision. There were the two men who want to lead the most powerful country in the world, bickering like children. "He said such and such." "No I didn't. You're the one who said something bad." "No I didn't." Blah, blah, blah. Bicker, bicker, bicker. I turned off the television.

In every election since I've been old enough to vote, it's been the same sort of thing. Every time I start out favoring one candidate over the other, but by the time the election actually rolls around, I'm so sick of both of them that it's hard for me to cast a vote at all. I end up voting for the one who has annoyed me slightly less than the other. A couple of times I was so fed up that I just didn't vote.

I had hopes this time, naive as I am. McCain pledged to keep to the "high road" during the campaign and Obama said the same thing. From what I see, McCain started down the low road first, but now Obama has followed him down and I have no respect left for either one.

Oh, I'll vote for Obama. There's no question. But unless he manages to pull himself up out of the muck, I'll have to hold my nose to do it.

And I think both of them need to sit in the corner for a while and be sent to bed without their supper.

Not So Blue After All

There is an image that those of us who live on the "left coast" of the US are more liberal than the rest -- or at least the center -- of the country. Today the Washington State Supreme Court proved that the image is not necessarily the way things are.

In 1998 Washington state passed its own version of the "Defense of Marriage Act," the only point of which was to prevent gay and lesbian couples from making a legal commitment to each other. Nineteen couples brought suit against the state legislature, saying that they were being discriminated against by being forbidden the legal right to marry whomever they choose, a right which heterosexual couples enjoy. The decision of the court was made public today.
In the majority decision, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the state's marriage law was enacted to "promote procreation and to encourage stable families." That's all that marriage is for? Then why is it legal for me to be married to Jim? I'd had a tubal ligation before he and I got married, so no procreation was possible and the only family we have that can be stable is the two of us.

The most amazing quote I've read so far is the following:

"The basic decision came down to the fact that the Supreme Court felt that by limiting marriage to opposite sex, they sustained the ability to procreate," said Gary Randall, president of the Faith & Freedom Network in Bellevue. "

Excuse me? If the court had ruled that same-sex couples could marry, how would that in any way impact the ability to procreate, either by any individual or by society as a whole? I do believe that ranks with the very top stupid statements of all time.

Another quote from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Attorneys for the state and King County -- as well as a group of state lawmakers and religious leaders opposing same-sex marriage -- argued that the question of who can marry should be left to the Legislature.
They said lawmakers had a rational reason for limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex: Only those couples are biologically capable of having children, and keeping them together is generally best for those children.

So then only couples who are biologically capable of having children should be allowed to marry. That is what they're saying. Forget requiring a Wasserman test before getting a marriage license. If this is the criterion for being allowed to get married, they should require a fertility test.

I really think that those who support the rights of everyone to get married to whomever they wish ought to propose such a bill in the state legislature, just to show how stupid the whole thing is.

Hmmmm. I think I may need to write to my state representatives.

Practicalities and Symbolism

Most of my extended family is politically very different than I am. The vast majority are in Kansas and Nebraska and they are exactly what makes the red states red: highly conservative, solidly Republican and oh, so very moral. They're nothing like us heathens who left the middle of the country for the opium dens of California. Well, they're not really bad people. They just have what I consider to be a very warped view of the world.

The most recent thing I got from my cousin Jeanne was telling about Red Fridays -- a plan to get people to wear something red on Fridays to show support for the troops. The idea isn't bad, necessarily, but I think it's as pointless as tying yellow ribbons around every tree you come across. It makes the person who's doing it feel like they've done something, but it does absolutely nothing for the people who need it. The most annoying part of the email, though, was the claim that the "liberal media" ignores anyone who supports military personnel and that "Every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar will wear something red." Excuse me? Someone is going to determine what I think by what they happen to see or not see me wear on a given day of the week?

Also included in the email was the following: "The first thing a soldier says when asked "What can we do to make things better for you?" is...We need your support and your prayers." I would be the last person to call anyone else a liar without proof, so I will say that the second thing a soldier is likely to say is "We need lots and lots of stuff." There are tons of places on the internet that can help to facilitate supporting military personnel in a very real and practical way. AnySoldier.com has emails from people in the Middle East, listing the things they would love to have, some of which is as basic as toothbrushes. For those who want to help but don't have the time to do the shopping and packing and posting, there's TreatAnySoldier.com, which has pre-assembled packages of the most requested items. Then there's BooksForSoldiers.com, which I've only just found. Looks very good.

I wrote to my cousin, thanking her for telling me about the wearing-red-on-Friday thing, and also listed the sites above, saying that maybe doing something practical might be a little more useful than some symbolic gesture. I also told her that, while I detest the Commander in Chief, I do support the young men and women who are in a terrible circumstance over there.

I wonder if I'll get a response.

A Man of Grace and Conviction

When I saw on the news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been killed, before I could even decide how I felt about it, I saw an interview with Michael Berg. Michael is the father of Nicholas Berg, the young contractor who was beheaded on a live internet feed, very probably by al-Zarqawi himself. It would be perfectly understandable for him to have jumped for joy at the news of the death of the man who had murdered his son so brutally, but he didn't. He said that it was a tragedy and that he felt for the al-Zarqawi's family who would be grieving just as the Berg family had been grieving.

I found an article that gave a little more of what Berg said.

"I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy," Michael Berg told The Associated Press after learning a U.S. airstrike had killed the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge."...

Michael Berg, a pacifist who is running for Delaware's lone House seat on the Green Party ticket, said al-Zarqawi's death is likely to foster anti-American resentment among al-Qaida members who feel they have nothing left to lose.

Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush, who he said is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi."

"Zarqawi felt my son's breath on his hand as held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes when he did it," Berg added, pausing to collect himself. "George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist."
Berg: No Good in Al-Zarqawi's Death

I am deeply humbled by this man. I, too, am a pacifist from as far back as I had any knowledge of war, but I'm not sure I could have the grace to apply it to the person who murdered my child with his own hands. It's things like this that remind me of how much I still need to learn.

Farewell to Luna

Most people probably don't know anything about Luna, the orca, but he's been in the news off and on for about five years around here. Poor little guy got in the middle of human politics and paid the price He was born in the summer of 2000 to a pod of whales that lives off of Vancouver Island in Canada. At that point, he didn't have a name that humans could pronounce. The scientists who study whale pods called him L98 in their records.

When he was about a year old, he got separated from his family. It seems that he was a very curious little fella and liked following the boats that travel around Nootka Sound. He stayed in the Sound while the rest of the family went back to their normal hunting grounds in US waters. The humans who enjoyed his company called him "Luna."

The next year, while Luna was still wandering around Nootka Sound, another young whale called "Springer" was separated from her pod. Her family was usually in Canadian waters, but she somehow strayed into Puget Sound. Orcas are very sociable animals and without her own kind to interact with, she sought out other mammals who just happened to be traveling in motorboats and ferries. She was quite a tourist attraction, but everyone knew that it would be best for her to go back to her family. So money was raised and scientists arranged to capture her and take her back to her home pod. It wasn't certain that she would be accepted back into the pod after having been away from them, but she was accepted and was still with them as of last fall.

Meanwhile, Luna was still in Nootka Sound, growing like a whale and interacting more and more with people. In May 2003, a woman was fined for touching Luna, which is against the law in Canada. (Similar laws exist in the US. Both are designed as protection for the animals.) In September of that same year, the Canadian authorities started to consider capturing Luna, spurred both by the success with Springer and an incident where Luna nearly caused a crash of a float plane that was landing.

Plans for relocation were announced, but then members of the local First Nations band stepped in and said that Luna was the reincarnation of a chief of theirs who had died and they wanted him to stay. Still, a joint Canadian/US effort was launched, money was raised and things were set into motion. In June 2004, the plan was put into effect, but the First Nations members lured Luna away from the scientists, and the plan had to be abandoned. The First Nations people were jubilant at their success.

Yesterday morning, still in Nootka Sound, a considerably larger Luna decided to be friendly with a tug boat. He swam too near the propellers and was killed. I wonder how jubilant those First Nations folk are now.

There are those who say that it's just the way things are and that the scientists shouldn't intervene in nature. I would agree if it wasn't humans who likely caused Luna to stray in the first place and if it wasn't humans who have caused the numbers of orcas to dwindle so dramatically.

I've seen people on the news say that it was the Canadian fisheries department who is to blame because they didn't consult with the First Nations before making a decision. Possibly that would have been preferable, but is the pride of the First Nations more important than the life of a creature they claim to revere? If what they say is true, then Luna is merely a victim of human politics, which is one of the saddest things I can think of.