The Alligator

I’ve heard a lot from the Republicans lately that the Democrats are too negative and that this is the best country in the world and we should celebrate that.  Bill O’Reilly recently appeared on a talk show and was discussing the danger of what he called social progressives and he posed the question of whether or not one would rather live here or in Denmark where their society has had a great deal of influence by the “social progressives”.

His question got me to thinking: Would living in Denmark be worse, better or the same as living here?  And for that matter how does the US stack up against other countries.  So I decided to do a little homework and see what I could find out about how our country stacks up against others. 

At the outset I want to be clear that I love this country and I think that our constitution is one of the greatest achievements of humankind.  I want this country to be great but I also believe that if we are not as great as we think we are and we bury our heads in the sand about where we are and where we are going we will slip down hill and become the albatross that was the fate of the Roman Empire, the British Empire and most other world powers that have existed throughout human history.  The decline of every world power in history has been due to a national hubris and I cannot think of one dominating world power in history that hasn’t fallen prey to that tragic flaw.  With vigilance and our eyes wide open we must shine a bright light on ourselves to guard against this all too common fate. 

I looked at data that I believe are objective and would not uphold any preconceived notions by either liberal or conservative.  I decided to look at issues such as literacy, freedom of the press, crime and punishment, health care and the economy.  Some folks may disagree with the issue areas on which I focused, but I am comfortable that these factors are a pretty accurate assessment of a nation’s quality of life. 

During my research I found facts that actually surprised me.  While my intuition told me that the quality of the United States is eroding, I didn’t have the facts to back up my sentiment.  Now I have some facts that actually show the situation is worse than I could have allowed myself to imagine.

First- let’s look at literacy rates.  For this information I used the “List of Literacy Rates” that was used in the United Nations Development Program Report for 2005.  The United States falls 55^th in the list.  If that is not appalling enough the countries that are more literate than the United States boggles the mind and filled me with shame as an American.  According to the report- the United States literacy rate is about 97% meaning that about 9 million Americans cannot read nor write and this places us 55^th of all the world’s nations.  Of course all of the Scandinavian countries (including O’Reilly’s example of Denmark) have literacy rates of 100%.  But here are a few of the countries ahead of the United States that may surprise you: Slovenia, Lithuania, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Albania, Bulgaria, Mongolia and Romania to name but a few.  How can this country continue to be a vital nation in the world arena when there is a higher literacy rate in Romania than in the United States?

Than I decided I would look at the issue of freedom of the press.  Due to our Constitution and its “guarantee” of freedom of the press, I assumed that we would be number one.  Imagine my shock when I found out that according to data from “Reporters Without Borders” we are not.  Their index was drawn up by asking journalists, researchers and legal experts to answer 50 questions about a whole range of  press freedom violations (such as murders or arrests of journalists, censorship, pressure, state monopolies in various fields, punishment of press law offenses and regulation of the media).  Using this index, the United States ranks 17^th of the 139 countries included (other countries were not included due to absence of reliable information).  Again- all of the Scandinavian countries were well ahead of the United States.  The list of nations with more freedoms of the press than the United States also includes Netherlands, the oft conservative ridiculed France, Germany, Belgium as well as Costa Rica and Slovenia.  To say that this is disturbing is an understatement.

So what about crime?  The United States had the 24^th highest murder rate in the world according to Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention).  Mind you- there are no European countries with a higher murder rate than the US (with the exception of Russia).  Only countries like Colombia and Thailand were in the ranks of countries with higher murder rates with Bulgaria andUruguay just above the United States in 22^nd and 23^rd place.  These rates do not of course include deaths that occur in war theatres.  According to The International Crime Victim Survey which is the most far-reaching program of standardized sample surveys to look a householders’ experience with crime, policing, crime prevention and feelings of un-safety in a large number of countries, the United States has the second highest percentage of the population victimized in one year (New Zealand had the highest) among industrialized nations.  These statistics just add to my concern about our standing as a great nation.

The obvious corollary to crime is punishment, just ask Fyodor Dostoevsky.  I knew that this country is addicted to incarceration but I really didn’t know the extent of the addiction.  According to the most recent report by Human Rights Watch the United States incarcerates people at a higher rate than any other country in the world, 724 per one hundred thousand residents.  Seven million people in this country, or one out of every thirty-one people in this country is living behind bars.  According to the report, more than 600,000 people annually leave prison, most of them to distressed minority neighborhoods, facing formidable barriers to successful re-entry, including laws that limit their access to education, housing, and jobs.  Prisons are rife with sexual assaults and violence from both inmates and staff and they do not have the programs to prepare them for release which results in high recidivism.  Rather sobering statistics, aren’t they? 

But that isn’t the end of our horrific “prison record”- our record on juvenile offenders is appalling.  According to the same report from Human Rights Watch, while the United States no longer sentences child offenders to death they do face the possibility of life without parole sentences.  The report cites that there are at least 2,225 child offenders sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison in the United States, an estimated 59% of whom received their sentence for the first offense.  The United States is one of fourteen countries in the world known to permit such sentences and according to the Human Rights Watch report research suggests that there are no more than twelve child offenders serving life sentences without the possibility of release throughout the rest of the world.  I could not have imagined a worse record. 

Additionally the United States has increased spending on prisons at astronomical rates.  According to a report by the Justice Policy Institute, between 1995 and 2000 the United States’ expenditures on prisons at the state and local level grew at six times the rate of expenditures on education.  This pithily describes part of our problem.  The lack of spending on education leads to a lower literacy rate which leads to hopelessness, poverty, drug use, crime and thus incarceration requiring more prisons to be built!  

With 46 million people uninsured in this country and being the only industrialized national without universal health coverage I did not expect that the United States would get a good grade in the area of health care and I wasn’t wrong- the facts upheld my intuition.  According to the World Health Organization our health system rates 37^th in the world.  On the level of health of its citizens, the United States ranked 72^nd in the world according to a WHO report that used statistics from 1997.  Finally the United States ranked 24^th in a healthy life expectancy of its citizens according to WHO.  In its overall attainment of healthcare goals the USA ranks 15^th and ranks first in spending money on healthcare (this includes all sources of expenditures- not just government spending).  

My conclusion from this is that we are spending more than anyone on health care and getting little bang for our buck.  With the money spent why are we not healthier.  With the money spent- why don’t we live longer?  It could be because we are the prisoners of a system that is controlled by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries that have a bottom line and have huge profits whereas other countries have public financing of healthcare that actually allows for better health outcomes with less spending.  Even in this country, Medicare is the most cost efficient provider of health coverage in the nation with much less money spent on administration than private sector providers.   

Healthcare spending leads me to my final issue area- the economy.  Let’s start with health care’s role in our economy.  According to a January 10, 2006 article in the Washington Post (“Record Share Of Economy Spent on Health Care” by Marc Kaufman and Rob Stein) health care now consume 16 percent of the nation’s economic output — the highest proportion ever.  The overall cost of health care — everything from hospital and doctor bills to the cost of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, insurance and nursing home and home-health care — doubled from 1993 to 2004, said the report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In 2004, the nation spent almost $140 billion more for health care than the year before.  In 1997, health care accounted for 13.6 percent of the gross domestic product.

“Americans rejected the tougher restrictions of managed care in the late 1990s, and yet they want all the latest advances in medical technology,” said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which researches health issues. “Since government regulation of prices and services is not in the cards, the inevitable result is higher costs.”The health care increase of 7.9 percent in 2004 was almost three times the overall national inflation rate, which was 2.7 percent. The average hourly wage for workers in private companies was essentially unchanged that year, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. According to the Post article political, medical and economic leaders and experts have long warned that health care cost trends will gradually overwhelm the economy, and many companies now complain that employee and retiree health costs are making them less competitive.

For a report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, researchers compiled data from dozens of sources collected by the federal government and others to create 179 quality measures, including 46 “core” measures.  The researchers concluded that the overall quality of care in 2005 had improved at a rate of 2.8 percent from 2003. That was the same increase as the year before, and many measures showed no improvement or even decreases.  For example, there was improvement in the percentage of patients with high blood pressure whose condition was under control, but no improvement in providing speedy treatment to people having heart attacks. So while healthcare costs are overwhelming our nation and spending is a disturbing percentage of our economy our nation plunges deeper and deeper into debt.  Under President Clinton the nation experienced balanced budgets and actual decreases in the national debt.  During the Bush administration, due primarily to the costs of waging the War in Iraq and to a lesser extent due to the out of control pork from the 109^th Congress the debt has increased exponentially to $8.2 trillion dollars.  Of this total amount outstanding at the end of the calendar year 2005, approximately $4.7 trillion was owed to the public (both foreign and domestic) in the form of treasury bonds and T-bills.  Of that $4.7 trillion, nearly half, $2.2 trillion was owed to foreign interests. A disturbing trend.  We are a nation that is heavily indebted to foreign interests.  Is this healthy?  I would posit that it is dangerous and wildly reckless.Our economy is also in an odd place- unlike any time in recent memory.  Economic indicators show a robust economy but it isn’t translating into better wages and quality of life for workers.  David Lazarus of the “San Francisco Chronicle” wrote an excellent analysis of this anomaly in an October 25^th column.  Below is an excerpt from Mr. Lazarus’ article:

Since September 2004, average hourly wages have increased 6.8 percent and consumer prices have climbed 7 percent, according to the Labor Department. This means real wages over the period have declined 0.2 percent. In other words, and contrary to the president’s sunny appraisal of
U.S. workers’ fortunes, many people’s paychecks in reality are continuing to fall behind the cost of living.

“Since 2003, there’s been an ongoing decline in real wages,” said Arindrajit Dube, an economist at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Industrial Relations. “There may have been increases in wages in nominal terms, but paychecks aren’t keeping up with inflation.” What makes this situation even more remarkable is that productivity keeps growing — up 2.7 percent in the first half of the year. Traditionally, increases in worker productivity are reflected in increases in workers’ compensation. No longer. And economists have been scratching their heads to come up with plausible explanations.

Two related factors appear to be the continuing trend of companies outsourcing work abroad and the waning power of labor unions. With workers increasingly skittish about their job security, the thinking goes, there have been fewer demands on employers for higher wages. This means less money is flowing to workers and more cash is remaining on companies’ ledgers. This, in turn, helps to explain the stellar performance of major businesses and the stratospheric performance of the Dow Jones industrial average, which closed Tuesday at a record 12,127.88. “The economy’s doing quite well,” said Martin Carnoy, a Stanford University labor economist. “The question is who’s getting the gains. Corporations are definitely seeing higher profits, but middle-class workers aren’t much better off than before.”  

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank, wages and salaries have grown by an average annual rate of 2 percent, adjusted for inflation, since 2001. Over that same period, average corporate profits have soared each year by 13.7 percent. “The overall pie is expanding as fast as ever, but most of that is being accrued in the form of increased profits,” said UC Berkeley’s Dube. “Over the next 15 years, if things don’t change, we’re going to have a vastly more unequal society.”

So I return to partisanship and Mr. O’Reilly’s original question about living in Denmark.  From all the research I can find, the Danes have a better quality and standard of life than we do here.  That doesn’t mean I am off to Denmark- I still have hope for this country.  After all we do have a remarkable Constitution- as long as it exists and is upheld – but with recent acts by the Bush administration that erode constitutional protections I am worried but I hope our rule of law wins out over the hubris of an out of control executive.  In fairness I think that the President thinks he is doing the right thing with some of his actions- but we aren’t a nation that is controlled by the President we are controlled by the rule of law- even the President cannot escape it.

By looking at the issue areas in this analysis and considering the recent trends in our economy, we need to be honest with ourselves.  In order to reclaim our greatness we must continually ask ourselves hard questions, if we don’t we will end up like so many other world powers that exist no more- guilty of hubris and relegated to a once great nation in the pages in human history. 

The courts are under attack.  The two other branches of government don’t like the check the courts have in the system of checks and balances.  Let’s remember that the Supreme Court delivers unanimous decisions in 40% of the cases heard.  But it is the high-profile cases, handing down decisions concerning hot-button issues like the death penalty and stem cell research that garner all the attention of the media and the politicians.  But instead of gaining respect for performing their constitutional duty, justices and other jurists are railed by politicans and labeled “judicial activists” (aka spawns of Satan).   This has been packaged to the American public by politicians as out of control nuts in black robes that have personal agendas and are out to destroy our way of life.  “Judicial activists” are just a small step up from terrorists in their desire to destroy the fabric of the country according to the rightwing dingbats. Of course the moniker is used by the social conservatives when an opinion is not in lockstep with a conservative ideology.  Justices Scalia or Thomas could write a decision that is precedent setting- but surpirsingly they are not “judicial activists”.  Someone in the Republican party has studied and excelled in vocabulary of propoganda— could it be another gift from dear Carl Rove?

The most remarkable example of the “debate” (actually partisan  rhetoric) around “judicial activism” is of course the Teri Schiavo case.  After the Florida courts did their due diligence by upholding the law carefully including the appointment of a guardian ad litem for Ms. Schiavo in order to protect her legal rights as Mr. Schiavo and the Schindler family were embroiled in a bitter legal battle.  The courts did all they should do to make a determination in this case.  But that wasn’t enough for the radical religious right.  They turned this into a political circus and created the most appalling intrusion into a personal matter every witnessed in this country when the Congress and the President took authority away from the Florida courts (when the Florida Supreme Court ruled contrary to the wishes of the right wing ) and turned it over to the Federal courts.  The right wing nut bags became unhinged when the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case.  Accusations of judicial activism flew higher and faster than a super sonic jet.

By now, we’re all familiar with the rhetoric. When Republicans are unhappy with a federal judge’s ruling, they cry out for more “strict construction.” If Democrats do not approve of a federal judicial nominee, they warn that the nominee will circumvent established law to legislate morality. To many Americans, this bickering sounds like the same old partisan politics.

Should the average citizen be concerned about judicial activism? Or are politicians just making a big fuss over nothing? And what the heck is an “activist judge” anyway?

There is no such thing as an activist judge. An activist judge is one whose ruling you disagree with. And if you agree with what the judge has done, you call them heroic and honest.  Generally, when politicians call a judge an activist, they are accusing that judge of ruling based on his or her own personal belief system, rather than according to the law.

Everyone has heard the term ”activist judges” so many times — from the president, from Congress, from the angry rightwing nutbags that you can define it- or at least know their definition of it.  Here’s the mantra- Liberal activist judges make law, as opposed to interpreting it. They ignore the plain meaning of texts to invent new rights. Superimposing their moral views onto their legal reasoning, they brazenly advance the cause of the fringe liberal elites in the culture wars.

We all evidently believe that you’re either for the liberal activist judges or against them. Folks on the left say they protect minorities from majority tyranny, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did last year in the gay marriage decision. Folks on the right say they act as unelected superlegislators. Folks on the left say they are interpreting a living Constitution. Folks on the right say they are unmoored from any fixed point.

In order to grasp the significance of such an accusation, it is important to understand the role of the federal judiciary as defined by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution divides power equally among the three branches of our government, the legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch creates federal law in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The executive branch, i.e. the president, cabinet members, and staff, enact and enforce the laws that Congress passes.

The job of the judicial branch is to interpret the law where it is unclear or in question. When laws or rulings of lower courts are challenged, Supreme Court justices must examine the law and determine if the intention of the law has been upheld. Often, justices must determine whether federal or state laws are constitutional, or if Congress has passed a law without any constitutional authority to do so. Unless they are unanimous, Supreme Court rulings have two parts, the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion, wherein the justices explain their reasoning and their interpretation of the law.

Now this is where things get sticky. Judicial rulings become the basis for future legal arguments – this is known as legal precedent, or “case law.” Suppose a law is passed forbidding people to walk dogs in public parks. Now suppose you train your cat to walk on a leash, you walk it in the park, and a police officer gives you a ticket. You go to court and argue that the law forbids dog-walking but does not mention walking cats. The judge rules against you, reasoning that the law applies to walking any pet. Some politicians rally to your side, accusing the judge of creating a law against walking cats, where no law formerly existed. Other politicians rejoice in the decision, arguing that the judge upheld the intent, if not the letter, of the law.

This is the battle that rages in Washington, except federal judges are not deciding cases about walking cats and dogs. Instead, they are ruling on cases involving abortion, same-sex marriage, juvenile death sentences, state sovereignty, and other issues about which Americans feel passionately.

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that preventing gay couples from getting married was unconstitutional. The court upheld that nothing in the state statute restricts marriage to the union of a man and a woman. President Bush and Republican politicians immediately accused the
Massachusetts court of judicial activism – redefining marriage based on their own ideology, rather than the intent of the law.

Texas Supreme Court judge Priscilla Owen, a Bush nominee who was recently appointed to the 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, spent months defending herself against accusations of judicial activism before she was confirmed. Democrats pointed to a dissent she wrote in 2000, on a case involving parental notification of children receiving abortions. Texas law required the parents be notified, but allowed that notification to be bypassed if a judge decided it was in the best interest of the child. Owen wrote in her dissent that one of the girls in question, at age 13, was too young to make up her own mind. Political opponents cried judicial activism, citing the case as an example of Owen’s desire to deprive citizens of rights.

“To conservatives, activist judges are those who permit or compel activity in which the opinion of conservatives can only be done in the legislative branch,” Judge Napolitano said. “To liberals, activist judges are judges who prevent the government from doing the things the Legislature wants to do.” Many legal experts agree that accusations of judicial activism are nothing more than political name-calling, and that judges are supposed to interpret the law and rule according to their own interpretations.

So the core of the argument is the role of the judiciary. The framers of the Constitution recognized the importance of the judiciary branch; it differs from the other two branches in several significant ways. For instance, Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. The reasoning behind lifetime tenure is that sometimes justices must make decisions that are unpopular or counter to the will of the majority. Because they are not elected, they are free to uphold the law in spite of potential political fallout.

In response to criticism, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that judges should not have to worry about politics or public opinion. Instead, he said, judges should uphold the law, regardless of whether that makes them popular or not.

Contrary to what Americans hear daily, our country is not and never has been a democracy. Democracy is mob rule, where the will of the majority is forced on the minority, and the minority has little or no representation.  America is a constitutional republic, governed not by the majority, but by the rule of law. Since the people are represented by the politicians they elect, of course the majority party often has more representation, however the importance of a sound judiciary in a constitutional republic cannot be over-estimated. If the judiciary begins imposing the will of the majority when popular opinion stands in opposition to the law, then the judiciary is enforcing mob rule, and our constitutional republic is lost.

Because federal judges are appointed, not elected, many Americans do not know who they are or what they are doing. But the reason for that is not because judges’ actions or identities are kept secret. The reason is apathy on the part of the American public. Court opinions are widely available to anyone who wants to read them. As former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently said in a CNN interview with Jeffrey Toobin, Judges have to describe their decisions by writing opinions; neither the President nor the Congress has such a requirement.

It can be argued that the actions of the federal judiciary have the greatest impact on the daily lives of citizens, and that Supreme Court rulings shape the fabric of American society more than the legislative or executive branches ever could. The more educated the American public becomes about its judiciary, the less politicians will be able to scream “activist!” and get away with it. Americans are tired of politics as usual. Knowing what is going on behind the smoke-screen is the first step toward holding politicians accountable for name-calling, mud-slinging, and counter-productive dialogue.

Okay, let’s start off very clearly- I am a liberal and I am a registered Democrat.  That being said, I have respect for Republicans who are committed to their belief.  Our differences are usually about the role of government, how best to be good stewards of our nation and how best to deal with the social ills in our country. 

True, Republicans believe that making the wealthy wealthier benefits us all (G.H.W. Bush called that voodoo economics) and I believe that making sure that all economics levels should be considered when developing economic policy- but it is still a policy argument. 

As the religious radical right has taken a foothold in the Republican party I find our differences are more difficult to reconcile because there is an air of judgment, smug superiority and mean spiritedness that has appeared.  But that mean spiritedness has reached new depths in the past week thanks to the supreme bloviating shill of radical conservatives Rush Limbaugh and the outrageousness of the Republican National Committee’s race baiting ad in Tennessee. 

Possibly worse than making fun of someone’s disability is saying that it’s imaginary- that is not to mock someone’s body, but to challenge a person’s guts, integrity, and/or sanity.  To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.

“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease,” Limbaugh told listeners. “He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”

Limbaugh was reacting to Fox’s appearance in another one of the spots, for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent.  But the Cardin ad is similar. It is hard to watch, unless, for some reason, you don’t believe it. As he speaks, Fox’s restless torso weaves and writhes in a private dance. His head bobs from side to side, almost leaving the video frame.

“This is the only time I’ve ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has,” Limbaugh said. “He can barely control himself.”

Later Monday, still on the air, Limbaugh would apologize, but barely.  After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox.  Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: “Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician.”

So first Fox was a fake and now he’s a dupe.  How offensive can one man be?  I’d like to think that Limbaugh didn’t have his daily hit of OxyContin that day and was suffering from drug withdrawal, but sadly this is vintage Limbaugh- mean, judgmental and just plan stupid. 

But after Limbaugh the RNC comes rushing in.  The ad targeted Democratic candidate Harold Ford Jr. in a way that critics - including the NAACP - called racist sexual innuendo about a black man and white woman.In the ad, a white woman with blond hair and bare shoulders looks into the camera and whispers, “Harold, call me,” then winks.

“It is a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women,” Hilary Shelton, head of the Washington NAACP office, told the Los Angeles Times.The Corker campaign denounced the ad, saying it is “tacky, over the top and is not reflective of the kind of campaign we are runnning.  But the RNC, which paid for the ad, denied it had racial subtext. Party Chairman Ken Mehlman said it was produced by an independent organization.

In my opinion the ad is disgusting and panders to the very worse in people.  Quite simply it is race baiting.  Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s “Hardball” and NBC’s “Chris Matthew’s Show” made the most insightful comment when he said that he thought it was ironic and sad that the United States is in Iraq lecturing the Sh’ia, Sunni and Kurds how to live together and the same American political party that got us into that situation is playing to the most divisive and ugly issue in our nation’s culture- racism. So after race baiting and mocking people with disabilities what tactics will the GOP try next? I don’t think that my mind is capable of thinking of anything more reprehensible, but I’ll bet my last dollar that they are up to the challenge.  

Anyone in the New York metro area, or anyone who has ever lived in the
New York metro area knows that one doesn’t go to the beach or the seaside in New Jersey; you go to the shore- the Jersey shore (said Joisey shoh) to be exact.  Now maybe some of the resorts in Atlantic City or the beaches of lovely Cape May will become honeymoon destinations for gay and lesbian couples but will they be celebrating a marriage or a civil union?

Yesterday the New Jersey Supreme Court made history when all seven justices agreed that the state’s Constitution demands full legal rights for same sex partners.  But its ruling, 4 to 3, revealed a split in how to proceed. The majority said that lawmakers, not the court, should decide whether to call those arrangements a marriage, a civil union or something else. The three dissenters went further, asserting that gay couples, like their heterosexual counterparts, must be allowed to wed.

In a decision filled with bold and sweeping pronouncements about equality, the New Jersey Supreme Court gave the Democratic-controlled Legislature 180 days to either expand existing laws or come up with new ones to provide gay couples benefits including tuition assistance, survivors’ benefits under workers’ compensation laws, and spousal privilege in criminal trials.  

 The New Jersey court did not go as far as Massachusetts, which in 2003 became the first state to permit gay marriage. Instead, it could be considered the new Vermont, which created civil unions for gay couples in 2000, in the politically, legally and culturally charged world of same-sex marriage.

“Our decision today significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians,” Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the majority. “We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples.”  

But the ruling passed along the thorniest question, of whether true equality demands the same name, to the Legislature, saying “such change must come from the crucible of the democratic process.”

While I am pleased that the New Jersey Supreme Court is insisting that New Jersey provide the same level of benefits to gay and lesbian couples as to heterosexual couples, I continue to be perplexed by the volatility around the “M- word” (marriage).

In the context of civil law, marriage is a civil union- it does not have any religious meaning in the canon of civil law.  Marriage in religious traditions and in ecclesiastical law has obvious overtones that are guarded by the dogma of the particular religion in question.  We are not talking about making same sex marriage a rite, but rather we are talking about making same sex marriage a right.

So if we are really going to be fair here- why don’t we call all unions between couples (straight or gay) civil unions since the Civil Law outlines the rights and responsibilities of said unions and leave “marriage” to the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples?  I mean if we are going to have an argument about semantics let’s have an honest and intelligent argument about the terms civil union and marriage.  But I think there would be a massive revolt in the heterosexual community if we re-difined civil marriage as civil union.

Precise definitions of marriage vary historically and between and within cultures: modern understanding emphasizes the legitimacy of sexual relations in marriage, yet the universal and unique attribute of marriage is the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). Traditionally, societies encourage one to marry “out” far enough to strengthen the ties, but “close” enough so that the in-laws are “one of us” or “our kind”. Exception to this rule has been found in the marriages whose aim is to strengthen concentration of wealth and power rather than to create affinal ties. Even in this case, the individual was often encouraged to marry “within” close family limits.  In one form or another, marriage is found in virtually every society. The very oldest records that refer to it speak of it as an established custom. Despite attempts by anthropologists to trace its origin (and test the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity), evidence is lacking. 

In its entry about marriage the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia begins with this paragraph: 

A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants. The fact that marriage often has the dual nature of a binding legal contract plus a moral promise can make it difficult to characterize.

That second sentence is where the difficulty lies.  Marriage is seen as a legal contract and a moral promise.  But in my mind it still begs the issue.  In Civil Law, marriage is a binding legal contract- nothing more.  Civil law does not apply to a “a moral promise”- that is the purvue of philosophers, and relgion.  So we have a legal definition and a relgious/philophical definition of marriage. 

A hallmark of the freedoms granted to citizens of the United States is found within the conecpt of separation of church and state.  So the “Moral promise” definition of marriage has no place in the law; therefore marriage in our civil society is a legal contract, pure and simple.  So what’s the problem with calling a union between same sex couples a marriage?  It is the term used in legal documents to describe this legal contract and therefore it should be the term used for all couples entering into such a contract.   

This argument over symantics is asbsurd.  I always thought if it sounded like a duck, looked like a duck and walked like a duck it was a duck.  But I guess in our current society if it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and walks like a duck it is an elephant.  Let’s just be honest- and call civil unions what they are in civil law- marriage.

Does the Bush administration have inconsistent foreign policy?  I don’t think it takes more than a nanosecond to answer that question in the affirmative.  After the hunt for WMDs in Iraq came up empty, suddenly the rationale for the Iraq War was that Saddam Hussein is a bad man, a corrupt leader, a leader who thumbed his nose at international law by ignoring United Nations resolutions and committed genocide against the Kurds.  All of those heinous attributes are true- but as has been pointed out, Saddam isn’t the world’s only bad guy.

Let’s take Sudan’s leader Hassan al-Bashir.  He has shown complete disdain for international law and has refused to allow United Nations peace keeping troops in war torn Darfur- the location of the 21^st century’s first documented genocide.  Genocide, indifference to international law- it all sounds eerily familiar.  But we preemptively invaded Iraq and our policy with Sudan is to stomp our feet and protest the horrific actions of the government in
Khartoum.

Both countries have oil, so they both fit the argument that we only take military action in cases of national interest.  It seems that recently our “national interest” is synonymous with “oil”.  So it goes back to the question Why Iraq and not Sudan?

Saddam Hussein rose to high rank in the Iraqi government and in 1979 he finally assumed the supreme leadership. His dictatorship was marked by extreme cruelty and repression against all his opponents. He waged a long and costly war against neighboring  Iran (1980-88), backed by arms and aid from the US-UK, as well as France, Russia, Germany and others. No one in
Washington complained about his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs in the 1980s, while he was viewed as a useful ally against the Iranian “threat.” Rather, Washington gave him military advisors, satellite intelligence and even targeting for his chemical weapons attacks against Iranian forces. But Saddam provoked  Washington’s ire when he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, leading to UN sanctions and then a UN-approved military action, led by the  United States. From that time forward the former favorite Saddam was depicted by  Washington as one of the world’s most dangerous and violent criminals.  Additionally, it was well known that Saddam had no use for Osama bin Laden and during his dictatorship. Iraq was in no way a haven for terrorists- if anything it was a dangerous place for terrorists.

Becoming a general by the 1980s, al-Bashir took charge of a Sudanese military coup in 1989. Al-Bashir immediately banned all political parties, repressed the press, and dissolved Parliament upon assuming control of the nation. He then became Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation and assumed the posts of chief of state, prime minister, chief of the armed forces, and minister of defense. On October 16, 1993, al-Bashir became even more powerful when he was appointed president of the country, after which time the Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation was dissolved. The executive and legislative powers of the council were subsequently given to al-Bashir, who virtually ruled the nation as a dictator from that point on. He was later “elected” president (with a five year term) in a showcase national election in 1996. In 1998, al-Bashir and the Presidential Committee put into effect a new constitution. In 1999, al-Bashir and the Parliament made a law which allowed limited political “associations” in opposition to al-Bashir and his supporters to be formed, although these groups have failed to gain any significant access to governmental power.  He has long been accused of harboring and aiding terrorists and Islamic extremists. Osama bin Laden lived and operated in Sudan for five years until he was removed and banned from the country in May 1996.

When rebels in the western province of Darfur arose in opposition to the government, al-Bashir gave governmental support and money to Islamic militias, the Janjaweed, to combat the rebels instead of sending the military to intervene (which al-Bashir officially denies). These militias have been accused of ethnic cleansing, and many thousands of people in Darfur have died and been displaced so far as a result of the violence in the region. The United States Government determined in September 2004 “that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility and that “genocide may still be occurring“.  It seems pretty clear the genocide IS STILL OCCURRING.

So why invade a former ally who committed horrible acts and also hated bin Laden and just admonish a country that has given aid and comfort to bin Laden and has committed many of the same horrible acts- if not worse ones?

The answer is not that difficult to figure out.  The Neoconservatives that rose in power with the presidency of George W. Bush had a plan for a foothold in the Middle East.  The Sudan doesn’t offer that same strategic plumb. 

In, Beyond Regime Change, a 2002 piece that appeared in the LA Times, Sandy Tolan and Jason Felch write the following:

“If you want to know what the administration has in mind for Iraq, here’s a hint: It has less to do with weapons of mass destruction than with implementing an ambitious U.S. vision to redraw the map of the Middle East. The new map would be drawn with an eye to two main objectives: controlling the flow of oil and ensuring Israel’s continued regional military superiority. The plan is, in its way, as ambitious as the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between the empires of Britain and France, which carved up the region at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial vision, which can be ascertained from the writings of key administration figures and their co-visionaries in influential conservative think tanks, includes not only regime change in Iraq but control of Iraqi oil, a possible end to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and newly compliant governments in Syria and  Iran — either by force or internal rebellion.”

Undoubtedly this is what would have happened in Iraq if the strategy hadn’t met with the reality of those pesky insurgents and been plummeted into a violent sectarian civil war.  But of course the Bush administration still has its eyes on that prize or we would have admitted our reasons for the war were wrong and that we need to withdraw from the situation.

No such prize exists in Sudan.  If one were to rate the horror of a regime it is clear that al-Bashir gets a higher rating that Saddam.  So let’s not be tricked by the rhetoric that we went into Iraq on a noble mission to rid the world of a horrible leader.  If that were the case we would be fighting a war in Sudan.  It was the Neoconservative need to have a foothold in the Middle East that is the real rationale for war.   As the genocide in Darfur continues it makes me sick to my stomach that the Bush administration continues its insulting rhetoric about the Iraq War.  

Yes it is a bullish market.  The Dow reaches 12,000 and even closed there this week.  But what does that mean?  We are told that our economy is booming, but for whom?  To steal a phrase – “For whom does the ‘closing bell’ toll?”

Our corporations are making money hand over fist.  The oil companies, the pharmaceuticals, the banks- they are all sitting pretty right now.  CEO’s rake in tens of millions, but what about the workers?  What about working men and women?  Where is their part of this Wall Street boon?  For them it is just a boondoggle.

Of course corporations are doing well.  They have been deregulated, they have been outsourcing employment to markets that pay white collar workers about the same wage as the undocumented Latina maid in Beverly Hills, and they are reducing, if not eliminating, pensions and health care coverage.   Here’s a question- who did NAFTA benefit?  Not American workers, not Canadian workers and not Mexican workers.  AMERICAN CORPORATIONS!

The numbers are good – but the reality sucks.  Can the Republicans really get the American people to swallow the bilge water they are spewing about how well we are doing?  Just look at the average American.  More Americans are in more debt than ever.  And what about home sales?  Four out of ten homes sold in this country are SECOND HOMES.  Ah yes- the rich minority again are the ones who reap the harvest of this tilted economy.

Economics have changed.  Our global economy makes it difficult to get a handle on how corporate economics actually affects the lives of the peoples of countries.  Corporations have turned into the new global powers.  Countries- the political delineations are the powers of yesteryear.  Corporations are the real players.  In the history of the western world we have gone from religious power dominated by the church to political power dominated by countries to economic power dominated by huge multinational corporations.

I am all for corporate profits when they benefit the society, but right now corporations are benefiting no one but their own bottom lines. 

Has there ever been a more poignant lesson on life, love, grief, and forgiveness? 

A grieving grandfather told young relatives not to hate the gunman who killed five girls in an Amish schoolhouse massacre, a pastor said on Wednesday.  “As we were standing next to the body of this 13-year-old girl, the grandfather was tutoring the young boys, he was making a point, just saying to the family, ‘We must not think evil of this man,’ ” the Rev. Robert Schenck told CNN.

Just about anywhere, a deadly school shooting would have brought demands for tighter gun laws and better security, and the victims’ loved ones would have lashed out at the gunman’s family or threatened to sue.  But after the slayings of five children in a one-room schoolhouse, the Amish people in Nickel Mines urge forgiveness of the killer.The Amish look inward, relying on themselves and their faith, as they have for centuries. They hold themselves apart from the modern world.  The Amish also have been reaching out to the family of the gunman, Charles Carl Roberts IV, 32, who committed suicide during the attack. Dwight Lefever, a family spokesman, said an Amish neighbor comforted the Roberts family hours after the shooting and extended forgiveness.

The money sent to the fund for the victims of the shooting will be shared with the Roberts family as per the request of the families of the slain Amish girls. 

What a legacy these people have left for our country.  What an example of true Christian love and charity- not the sort of vengeful and judgmental hate mongering that has come to exemplify the “religious” in this country thanks to the poor examples set by the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson.  Would any of these three men exemplify the forgiveness that the Amish have?  The answer is a resounding NO.

Too often in this country Christianity has become a bludgeon; a sword to swing with a swagger of moral superiority.  Thanks to that hateful and bigoted distortion of Christianity this has been how American Christianity has been identified.  That’s a shame- but the truth. 

How would this country be different if the political religious right practiced the sort of Christianity exemplified by the Amish during this horrible tragedy?  Forgiveness is so foreign to our way of thinking and vengeance is so commonplace that the Amish act of forgiveness became a news story itself.  Shouldn’t forgiveness be something that is not newsworthy but something that is commonplace in our society?

But in our world we have gone back to the Old Testament of an eye for an eye rather than to love one’s neighbor.  The Amish live and breathe the word of Jesus Christ as stated in the Sermon on the Mount.  That is their gospel.  While I am not a biblical scholar – I think that I would be more inclined to listen to those words than the words of the Old Testament meant to set the law for a nomadic desert tribe or of St. Paul who was beginning to teach intolerance in his zeal to convert.  It’s easier to manipulate and convert when you add a dose of moral superiority.

We live in a world that, through vengeance, the need to be superior and right rather than tolerant and understanding has become a world of violence. 

Margaret Bourke White once asked Mahatma Gandhi if nonviolent means would have worked against a man as evil as Hitler.  He said it would- there would have been set backs, but eventually the world would rid itself of that evil.

Imagine a world where we had the forgiveness and charity of the Amish and the world view of Gandhi.  We certainly are no where near that world in 2006.  I wish we were.

Congressman Foley’s (R-FL) despicable emails and instant messages to Congressional pages and former Congressional pages is sickening.  It is of course the height of irony that this man co-chaired the very committee that looks to protect missing and exploited children.  Foley’s being gay is beside the point- most pedophiles are heterosexual.- this one just happened to be gay.

It was despicable that the Republicans attempted to paint this as a bunch of gay staffers protecting gay members- as if there is some sort of Congressional gay cabal.  In all actuality- it was the Republican leadership that covered up this mess.  Why?  For fear of losing power – isn’t the answer obvious?  Congressman Ray LaHood (R-IL) and others have been attempting to deflect the Republican leadership mess by putting the onus on the page program itself- calling to disband this program or completely overhaul it.  Why?  These young people did nothing wrong.  This program is a unique opportunity for talented high school students to learn about the federal government from the inside out.  It is a remarkable opportunity- and is one of those nuggets of opportunity that our often impenetrable government allows for the neophyte.  The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

Congressman LaHood and others who call for the ending of the program are attempting to keep the fire off their party’s leadership.  Speaker Hastert was a teacher and a coach we are told by the President and others in his corner.  So what?  Obviously Speaker Hastert is more of a Republican hack than a protector of the rights of vulnerable young people.

My goodness- President Clinton’s lie about Monica Lewinsky was enough for the Republicans to call for and get impeachment.  But they cry foul and partisan politics when the Democrats dare question the moral authority of the Republican Congressional leadership.  Where is the equity here?  Do these lame (ideally lame duck) Republicans have such short term memory loss that they cannot remember the very arguments that they made in the Clinton – Lewinsky affair?

As horrible as Mark Foley’s actions are- it is unlikely that anything was done that was “illegal”.  In theDistrict of Columbia the age of consent is 16 and that is the minimum age for a Congressional page.  That is, of course, no excuse for the Congressman’s actions.  I was particularly “creeped out” by the Congressman’s farewell to the pages where he talked about the winning of a lunch with him.  The little boy excitement and animation, in retrospect to the revelations, is just too twisted for color TV.

But the Republicans have put party power ahead of the protection of the young people they are charged to protect during their time on the Hill.  Clinton never did that.  My statement to House Republicans is “Remember Clinton/ Lewinsky and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.