Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Politics

  • Libby Found Guilty

    Of course, if I reversed the numbers, I could say, “found not guilty.” He was found guilty of 4 of 5 counts, according to the Washington Post. I would hate to second-guess the jury, even though I have grave doubts on the average IQ of a jury that could survive voir dire under the circumstances.

    But what made me want to comment was this (from the same story):

    Libby, 56, was the only person charged in a three-year federal investigation that reached the highest echelons of the Bush White House. The central question in the probe was whether anyone in the administration illegally disclosed classified information during the late spring and early summer of 2003, when they told several journalists that an early critic of the Iraq war was married to undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

    No one was ever charged with the leak, but the results of the investigation, led by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, ultimately tarnished both the administration and the Washington press corps.

    So we can’t actually prove that a crime was committed by any specific person, but we can get someone for lying about it. This kind of investigation and its result disgusts me. I think Cheney is not a very good public official. I think there are plenty of liars in Washington, but too many special prosecutor probes end up simply chasing round and round, and finally charging people with something else. Once you have an investigation such as this in progress, it’s likely you’ll catch somebody lying about something, and the resulting conviction helps make the whole exercise seem worthwhile.

    At least in this case there was a crime to investigate. And make no mistake–leaking classified information is and should be a serious crime. Nonetheless, you have to convict someone of it before you can throw them in jail, and in Washington DC, leaks are the order of the day. But a special prosecutor should, in my view, be able to charge someone with a crime before he can charge someone with lying about it. After all, if you have enough evidence to prove someone was lying, that should mean you have a good idea what did happen.

    This time it’s a conservative who is likely going to jail. Another time this happened, it was Bill Clinton. In that case he was lying about his sex life. A different set of people was talking of witch hunts then, but I find both cases troubling. I do regard marital fidelity as a factor in how I regard a candidate’s character. I do consider it ethically questionable, at a minimum, for a person in authority to have any kind of sexual contact with a young aide. But the proper people to enforce that are the voters. In the end, he agreed to a plea bargain because of the perjury.

    I dislike both of these results. The voters can act in both cases, but convicting people of lying about their sex life, or of having faulty memory (as I’m characterising it) is hardly a worthwhile close to years of investigation. I suspect that these special prosecutors are simply a fine way to keep a scandal alive so the politicians can do some more lying about it.

  • Two Stories about Prayer in School

    . . . but they supposedly recount one incident.

    The first came to me via the Traditional Values Coalition alert e-mail, which is generally quite strident. It referred me to this story on Alain’s Newsletter, which tends to make the TVC alerts look calm, collected, and irenic.

    Now here’s another story, this time from The Columbian. You need to read both stories to get the picture here. I’m not going to quote extensively from them.

    I think one can get most of the facts out of these stories, if one ignores the hyperbole and possible reconstructions. But if you look at what is reported and what is emphasized in each story, you will see an excellent example of how to slant news. It’s not by actually concocting facts from thin air. I think completely fabricated data is quite rare, but creative selection is quite another matter. Rather, it’s by means of reporting certain specific things.

    You see, if a group of students were refused permission to pray outside of class time and without disrupting the activities of the school, in other words, in good discipline, I would certainly be angry at the school. This sort of thing does happen, but it’s generally the result of ignorant school officials, lacking good judgment and sometimes fearful of lawsuits, though if they’re that stupid they should be subject to lawsuits. On this point everyone from the ACLU to the ACLJ can agree.

    I’m firmly in favor of prayer. I’ve written a couple of books on it, though only one is still in print. I teach weekend seminars on prayer. I’m not against prayer. Got that? So if the facts were solely as stated in the Alain’s Newsletter report, then no problem. Reinstate the students and let them pray.

    But there were certain things that defied probability, and so I looked for other stories to see if things would clarify themselves just a bit. I was doubtful of the claim that complaints came from “one Satanist” student. That’s one of those elements of a story that’s just too good (for the side of the writer) to be true. It might be, but I doubt it. Note that the offer of a classroom in which to offer prayer is missing from the Alain’s report.

    Now constitutionally I’m not 100% on the boundaries, but if the facts are as The Columbian reported them, I think the school officials will turn out to be within their rights, even though their reaction sounds excessive to me based on the provocation. Other facts could change my mind on that. On the other hand, if the disruption of traffic resulted from hecklers, and not from the actions of the praying students, I would be opposed to the actions of the school officials. The problem is that it is precisely key facts such as that one that are hard to dig out once emotions are high.

    I think the following facts are key:

    • The offer of a classroom and the appropriate supervision
    • Was it the praying students or hecklers who were disruptive (or a little of both)?
    • What was the response of the praying students to the school’s authority? If that authority was properly exercised, and yet resisted, that would explain greater sanctions.

    But more important than the legal issues, which are not my forte in any case, are the issues of Christian values. When we pray publicly, what message is it that we are trying to send? There is a good point here in Matthew 6:5-6. I don’t think we should read such a short message as condemning public prayer, as I have heard done, but the purpose of prayer should be questioned. If the purpose of the prayer is to make a show, to shove it in people’s face, then I think we need to reevaluate our actions. For example, if a classroom was indeed offered, as the school spokesman indicated, then the question would be why pray in the commons?

    Again, I think it is quite possible that more facts need to be brought out in this case, but based on what I have seen I would have serious concerns, both about the actions of the students and the sanctions imposed. I’ll have my eyes open for more clarification.

  • Civility in Political and Religious Debate

    Joe Carter at the evangelical outpost is going after Ann Coulter. He’s very concerned about civility:

    Our political culture has truly become debased when even conservatives now accept what James Q. Wilson has described as the elevation of self-expression over self-control. (Perhaps it is to be expected, though, of a movement that has replaced the wisdom of Russell Kirk with the soundbites of Rush Limbaugh.) We have heartily embraced the leftist ideal that we have an inherent right to be as stupid and as banal as we want. . . .

    Now I’m not a conservative, and I believe that Ann Coulter is definitely an excellent target, though I would prefer to deal with how totally wrong she is than how rude. From my point of view there are plenty of rude people on both sides of the political spectrum, but I don’t think rudeness or incivility is their primary problem.

    I’m led to wonder whether one of the signs of trouble in our political process is that we’re talking so much about how we say things rather than about what we say. I do believe how we say things is important. There are words and ways of expression that tend to produce dialogue and discussion, and there are others that tend to destroy it.

    At the same time, despite any preference for civil debate, there are people out there who are just plain stupid. In fact I’m pretty sure it was Russell Kirk, whom Carter quotes favorably, and whose prose I truly enjoy despite differing from his positions substantially on many points, whom I heard lecture at an Intercollegiate Studies Institute gathering when I was an undergraduate. One of the students perceived him as being excessively negative about the American people and asked him about it. His response? “But I don’t like the American people. I think they’re dumb.” (This is strictly from memory, and the year was 1975 or 1976, so I could be wrong on my memory.)

    The problem is that there is a point to civility that all political movements need to take into account. There is a big difference between persuading others in dialogue and firing up your own base. I really deal with this more in religious dialogue. Frequently people bring me jokes about various varieties of non-Christians, things that they think are a real killer. “How would a such-and-such answer this?” they ask me. Generally I have to say that they won’t be impressed. Atheists jokes may fire up the congregation by making them feel that they’re smarter than the supid atheist portrayed in the joke, but trust me, actual atheists you meet won’t generally be stupid, and they won’t be impressed with your joke that suggests they are.

    The same thing goes for Republican jokes, Democratic jokes, or for that matter Moderate jokes. If you make the standard “nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead skunks,” I won’t even get offended while I catalog you as stupid and shallow. There’s a whole rhetoric involved in reaffirming our own beliefs and our own side, and assuring ourselves that we’re really smarter than average and better than all our opponents. In general, it fires us up for the fights against all those other people.

    I expect such things will continue, whether I like them or not. When it all becomes a serious problem is when the fight rhetoric, the locker room hype becomes the sole way in which one communicates one’s message. That seems to me what’s been going on in American politics. I see it on both sides. Right now I hear repeatedly from conservatives here in the south (I live in a congressional district that went overwhelmingly for Bush in both 2000 and 2004) about how awful it is that people say the things they do about “our president.” But many of the very same people were saying quite similar things about Bill Clinton when he was president.

    Which sneakily leads to my next point. Criticism is necessary and essential. If I think the war in Iraq is a mistake, it is dishonest and irresponsible for me to pretend it is a good thing. It is right and good to criticize the government and its officials for bad policies. We need to have a vigorous debate, but target that debate in such a way as to persuade. I could suggest attacking policies rather than people, but I think that misses the point. What I need to do is attack people for specifics if I want to persuade people who can be persuaded.

    That is the distinction that I’m looking for: We need to express ideas with vigor, but use ways that have a chance to inform and persuade those who are in any sense open to it. From outside the conservative camp, I can say that Ann Coulter’s rhetoric is not all that helpful. It may stir up the conservative troops but it alienates even the “slightly less conservative” crowds. But at the same time I don’t want to see conservatives or liberals fail to express their viewpoints vigorously. Too frequently we see the alternative to rude attacks as being watered down statements that are practically meaningless so they won’t offend.

    I appreciate vigorous statements of opposing postions. I expect to make vigorous statements of my own positions. Nonetheless, for the most part, I view the advocates of opposing positions as decent and sincere people who do believe that their policies–stupid as they sound to me–are for the good of their community or country. That is what I’d like to see in American politics–vigorous, clear debate on specifics, along with the acceptance that most of us want what’s best for the country.

    I’m not sure that balance can be maintained, but I try. 🙂

  • The Definition of Reasonable

    I have great sympathy with the Libby jury, which now wants to know just how to define “reasonable” according to this Washington Post story.

    I have always wondered just what “reasonable doubt” means, and it appears that lawyers really have very little idea either. Perhaps my own problem is that I find doubt so eminently reasonable. My Christianity is a serious conviction, but most of the details are quite subject to doubt. I’m quite willing to say “I don’t know.” In some ways, belief in God is simply a huge “I don’t know.”

    But these little incidents with the jury system always set me to wondering just how valuable the jury system is at this point. From my layman’s point of view it seems that we gather a group of people who are too stupid, too busy, or too apathetic to be aware of an incredibly high profile case, then we put them in the jury box, and feed them precisely what the judge determines they ought to hear, and tell them to decide someone’s life.

    After I’ve thought about it for a bit, I generally come back to the conclusion that with all of its faults, the jury system is better than the alternatives. If I was innocent, I think I’d prefer a kind of expert panel. In Libby’s case, for example, we could find a couple of neutral experts on memory, others on jury and investigative procedure, others on administration in political offices. It seems to me that such people would be much more capable of making a determination.

    In its earlier form, a jury trial made it harder for a superior to pack the case. After all it’s easier to appoint one corrupt judge than it is to pack a jury. Now our concern is more with popular influence and with access to evidence that is not part of the record, the record being all-sacred to attorney’s. It reminds me of a chat I had with one of my college professors who was also an attorney, and had a part time practice. He explained his strategy for a criminal case, and a question he was going to ask a certain witness. I said that not being an attorney, I would hate to argue with him, but it sounded like the answer to that question would be inadmissable. He said I was absolutely right, but by the time that was settled, it would be in the jury’s minds, and while stricken from the record it would stay there.

    I’ve never been summoned for jury duty, something that surprises me since a number of people I know have been summoned several times. But now I wonder if I would make it past voir dire. Perhaps my definition of reasonable would not seem reasonable to the legal profession. After reading the extensive discussion of jury selection for this trial, I wonder even more whether we can end up with a group of people who have any chance of determining “reasonable.”

    Perhaps I just don’t trust “the people” enough. Actually, I’m pretty certain I don’t. The only people I trust less are the people’s leaders.

  • Could I Be the Antichrist?

    I found this article via WorldNetDaily: Pope is warned of a green Antichrist.

    According to Cardinal Biffi, who gave the Lenten message this year, the antichrist could be “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”.

    OK, I resemble that remark. Of course, I’m not nearly important enough to be the actual antichrist. Probably I could just encourage and support him:

    Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, 78, who retired as Archbishop of Bologna three years ago, quoted Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), the Russian philosopher and mystic, as predicting that the Antichrist “will convoke an ecumenical council and seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions”.

    So I can’t convoke an ecumenical council, but I can really wish one would happen, and pray for it regularly. I can be pretty green on environmental issues, and I can pursue peace. Does that count?

    For further proof that one need not be intelligent to be a cardinal, consider this:

    Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.

    I’m glad to hear that “beauty” is a more absolute value than say “love of peace.” Got that.

  • A Dangerous Precedent?

    I commented earlier on Rep. Jefferson and his planned appointment to the Homeland Security committee. Republicans are now planning to force a recorded vote on the appointment, according to a Washington Post report, on the assumption that some Democrats will be unwilling to go public with their support of this nomination.

    What’s more interesting to me, is the reaction of a Pelosi spokesman:

    Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said that if Republicans follow through on their threat, they would set a “dangerous precedent. A number of their own members are under investigation,” he said, referring to Republicans allegedly under scrutiny by the Justice Department.

    In just what way would it be bad to open up those individuals to further scrutiny? Perhaps corrupt representatives should object, in the interest of self-preservation, but why should others? I would not maintain that everyone under investigation should be refused appointments, though I do think there is a serious problem when such a committee has access to classified information. Nonetheless, I think it would be an excellent idea for every congressman to put his view on the record in such cases. Come election season, we could check the votes and the disposition of the cases and see whether our congressman used good judgment in supporting such candidates. In fact, I think it would be wonderful if there were a recorded vote on anyone under investigation. In order to provide time for such activity one could cancel some of the maneuvering and political “face time” provided by the manner in which congressional debate is managed.

  • Abortion and Moral Good-An Illustration of Extremes

    A post on the evangelical outpost alerted me to a minor tempest about abortion rights. It seems that Amanda Marcotte believes that abortion is a moral good, something to be celebrated.

    Having recently encountered the notion that one trully cannot take the position I do, that abortion in the bulk of cases is to be abhorred, but that making it unlawful is not the best strategy for limiting it in our society, I find it interesting to see the same position taken by the other side. Marcotte says:

    Also, saying that abortion is morally questionable, even if you’re pro-choice, is a huge insult to the brave men and women who risk life and limb to perform them.

    Which simply adds that to a whole list of other things I can’t possibly do, but do anyhow, such as supporting our troops, but opposing the war our political leaders have sent them to fight. As a moral choice, I think that there are a very few cases in which I could morally support the decision for someone to have an abortion, such as serious risk to the life of the mother. I don’t buy the notion that we can’t decide who lives or dies–we do that every day. We just like to pretend that we’re leaving it in God’s hands.

    As an aside, this whole business of “leaving it in God’s hands” suggests to me the picture of someone in a hospital bed, with machines breathing for him, tubes feeding him, and various monitors attached to every part of his body. Then somebody says, “We can’t disconnect the tubes, we need to leave it in the hands of God.” Well if those tubes are sticking out of me, or if my life is being preserved on the off chance that I might come out of a coma some years later, pull the tubes and truly leave it in God’s hands. (And yes, the responsible parties, including my health-care surrogate are aware of my views.)

    What I think is morally reprehensible is the notion that we can’t choose responsible behavior in the first place, i.e. that the decision to produce the baby in the first place is too difficult, yet it’s OK to make abortion an easy option. I don’t think it can be, or will be, an easy option no matter what you do. For various reasons, I want to keep it legal, but “legal” and “right” are not equivalent in my view.

    Thus I’m angered by Marcotte’s rhetoric, but I simply see it as part of the continued insistence by people on both sides of this debate to leave the majority of the country out of the debate, or alternatively to define them into one camp or the other whether they fit there or not.

  • Why I Dislike Both Major Parties

    One of the few things the Democrats and Republicans can agree on is measures to keep themselves in power. This includes limiting access to the ballot and making sure that the election system continues to favor the two major parties.

    Thus, it’s good news that the supreme court has agreed to review the appeals court decision that has set aside the voting system in Washington state as unconstitutional (scotusblog and story on CQPolitics).

    I lived in Washington in the good old days of the pre-2003 open primary system, and I truly appreciated it. Anyone could get on the initial ballot, but you were guaranteed a general election ballot with a limited number of candidates. That system was abandoned earlier as unconstitutional.

    I’m not going to get into the details of constitutional law on this one, but I believe it’s a stretch to call these unconstitutional. The 9 robed ones in the other Washington get to make that decision. But from a political point of view, I believe the country would benefit from this type of system nationwide. The idea that we must choose between an abominable Republican and an obnoxious Democrat (or vice versa) is one of the causes of political apathy, not that I allow such an excuse–in a democracy all should get involved and have only themselves to blame for the result if they don’t.

    I believe the problem the two parties have with this is not that someone who is not really a Republican or really a Democrat (who can tell?) might get on the ballot against the will of the party. Rather, their problem is that in the initial election everyone starts equal. There is no automatical appearance for a Democratic or Republican candidate. There is no particular benefit, except for the effort a party can make for the candidate, to being affiliated with a party.

    The Washington state system solves many perceived problems of minor party participation. What about the multiplicity of parties diluting the vote so that a candidate who actually only represents a minority of the constituency can be elected? Ignoring the fact that in many cases the “hold your nose” vote probably means much the same thing, the Washington system still provides only two candidates for the general election. The legal issues may be a bit thornier, but in practical terms, I think it’s an excellent solution. Opposition by both the Democratic and Republican parties of Washtingon only makes me more certain. Anything those guys can agree on, I’m probably against!

  • Arrogant Reporters

    One of the interesting things about commentary on the war is that though Laura of Pursuing Holiness and I disagree almost completely on the war in Iraq, we can agree that the press has done a miserable job of reporting it. In addition, we can agree that the press tends to combine incompetence and arrogance in pretty much the most annoying measure possible.

    Today in her post The Breathtaking Arrogance of Reporters she provides some quotes, and also some statistics:

    While 85.3% of people describe “professional journalism

  • Criminal Blogging

    An Egyptian court has charged a blogger for criticizing his university and the government, and now have sentenced him to four years in prison. And these guys are supposed to be our moderate friends.

    Even I can’t stretch the definition of “moderate” far enough to cover a government that will commit such an outrage.

    Hat tip: Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Ed’s comments on this are very well written and to the point, and he’s one of the few people I know who are 100% consistent on this type of free speech issue.