Accidental Blogger

My religious manifesto

In my recent post on Kathryn Lofton's take on the New Atheists (NAs) and their "misogyny," I dismissed Lofton's arguments on that point as more projection than proof. The post has now been linked at a couple of other blogs where some lengthy discussions have ensued. In one of my comments in response to another reader on the 3 Quarks Daily thread, I described at some length my overall attitude toward the religion vs atheism debate and my view of the NAs. Prasad suggested that the comment could serve as an independent post here to clarify where I stand on both issues. I thought that is a good idea. I will do so and let the post serve as reference point in the future if and when I again feel the need to discuss any other provocative subject in this particular field.

Before I go to the summation, I want to also clarify a couple of other points in the form of questions that may be asked of me:

• Have I for most of my adult life found a reason to live according to the precepts of any organized religion?
• Having rejected religion, am I ignorant of the role religion has played in human history and do I also reject any or all art, music, literature etc. which may have its origin in a religious experience, inspiration or reference?
• Do I as a non-believer find the celebration of joyous religious / cultural events like Christmas, Diwali, Passover or Eid offensive?
• Does the religious belief of others bother me unless it interferes in a negative way with my life?
• When I support a political candidate or a social commentator, does it mean that I agree with him or her about everything including the rules of etiquette they choose to adopt?

The answers to all of the above is "no."  Now the manifesto:

The "Ditchens"* don't necessarily speak for me but Cyrus Hall** does. Thanks, Cyrus!

Has Dawkins stopped secretly beating his wife? Has Hitchens? I don't know and frankly I don't care until the police starts to investigate or one of them declares that wife beating is a salutory way of maintaining domestic harmony. Neither Lofton's projections and innuendo about uber-rationality and misogyny nor the paucity of contributions of female writers in Dawkins' tract are enough evidence for me to conclude that he or the other atheists are woman haters. And if it turns out that they are, it will probably have little to do with their rejection of god and belief in scientific enquiry.

Some of the rationalist hand wringing over the strident style of the Ditchens reminds of a somewhat crude joke about liberals I had heard many years ago. The humorist said that liberals are people who when someone else farts in a crowded room, feel compelled to declare loudly that they didn't do it.

Do the Ditchens speak for me? Not all the time. I should speak for myself and I do, whenever I have the opportunity with the little voice I have. I have neither the gusto nor the forum to be heard as widely as the New Atheists do (how about neo-atheists instead of new? that sounds more official and is a nice foil for neo-cons). The core message of what many of the New Atheists wish to convey about the role of religion in society is more or less what I might say myself, but perhaps at a lower decibel. Do I want them to keep speaking and shaking things up? Definitely. My agreement with the New Atheists is limited to the idea of religion and its place in public policy. Their politics or any personal traits they may possess are different matters altogether. I have made myself clear several times on what I think of Hitchens' support of the Iraq war. But now we are getting into the territory of babies and bathwater.

For years and decades, the only voices in the public sphere regarding religion / god etc. have belonged to those with whom I disagree vehemently. The likes of Reverends Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have had the attention of sizable segments of the American public and the ears of several presidents in my time. They have influenced the national conversation and probably public policies as well. Politicians of all stripes have kow towed to them until I have felt like throwing up. No, please don't tell me that they are ignorant louts. All of them were educated with advanced degrees and commanded huge followings. I don't consider myself an intellectual who resides in the rarified towers of ivory where I can only have conversations with like minded people. I have brought up two children in red states, volunteered in schools, the Little League and the Boy Scouts and served in the community as a tutor and political campaigner amidst those who listen to Fox News and believe in the messages of the likes of Falwell and Robertson. Occasionally it has been lonely and frustrating. I also have many religious (some very) friends whose faith defines every aspect of their lives including the outcome of a football game. We get along rather nicely. I grew up with an atheist father and an observant mother in a family whose members were divided roughly equally on both sides of the religious debate and I loved them all. Things were harmonious and never did we as children, feel the pressure to believe in either ideology. So, as Cyrus points out, I am fully cognizant of the simple fact that some people indeed need god and religion in their lives to carry on and others muddle through fine without them. I am not interested in conversion. But I want to be recognized as a part of an often vilified constituency which does not wish to see the law, war, peace, health care and science education defined in religious terms. I want my opinions in these matters to count.

Now at last, my side of the story is being told, albeit by some who come across as agent provocateurs. I wish to have a pony in this race and I would love for a gorgeous, elegant horse to enter the track on my behalf. But that horse is not here yet and hasn't been throughout my lifetime. There however, has appeared a stubborn and bad tempered mule in the form of the Ditchens who crashed the theological party. My two bits worth of betting money is on them for now if only to mix things up at the race course.

*Ditchens = Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett & Christopher Hitchens.

**Cyrus Hall = Another commenter with whom I was in agreement.

Critical thinking may lead to misogyny!

Coming from a seemingly intelligent woman, the assertion that logic, rationality and empiricism may be at the root of misogyny, is a bit unsettling.  Kathryn Lofton, in her post So you want to be a new atheist, over at The Immanent Frame blog seems to be implying exactly that.

Lofton finds the New Atheists annoying - a bunch of know-it-all loudmouths whose style may be even more obnoxious than the substance they promulgate. She finds them arrogant, cynical, evangelical in their fervor and also curiously enough, perfectionists who want to help people. She however does not consider their social conscience an entirely wholesome trait. Lofton suspects that there is a conquest like quality to their outreach and beneath their desire to help may lurk an intention to persuade. (What a surprise!)  

If you want to be a New Atheist, first and foremost, you need to possess an unrelenting desire to help. The desire may seem at times cruel, but you have to start focusing on a higher good: the goal here is to get the cannibals to put down their wafer and wine glass. It’s not for your wellness, but for the good of mankind. As Georgetown University professor John Haught wrote in his diagnosis of the New Atheists, “To know with such certitude that religion is evil, one must first have already surrendered one’s heart and mind to what is unconditionally good.” The New Atheists may wrap themselves in torn one-liners and haggard scientism, but beneath their cynical swaddle there lies a charming Perfectionism.

The main target of Lofton's derision and despair seems to be the comedian Bill Maher and his anti-religion movie, Religulous. It is not that hard to rip apart a stand up comic who opposes organized religion as well as vaccination. But in pointing to Maher's loose lips and fuzzy logic, Lofton also takes a swipe at Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens whose arguments against faith based social and political systems are a little better thought out and substantive. It is perfectly alright for Lofton or anyone else for that matter, to take issue with the tone that many among the so called New Atheists adopt while making their case. But it would better help the cause of the religionists to also point out the flaws in their arguments and not just in their character. 

The nature of the conversation between the religious camp and the New Atheists has by now become quite familiar and predictable to those who have been paying some attention. It reminds me of the different agenda that a restaurant critic and a nutritionist bring to the table when talking about food. One focuses on the mouth watering quality of a 16 oz steak, the butter dripping crab legs, the fatty lamb biriyani and the decadent dessert immaculately prepared and presented by expert chefs and polished waiters. The other comes across as an earnest killjoy who urges you to eat your whole grains and veggies and then alarms you by warning that overindulgance in the delicious fare recommended by the gourmet foodie, poses the risk of developing clogged arteries, a sluggish liver, a ravaged kidney and extra pounds around your midriff. And the pleasurable torpor you feel after that rich meal is actually a sign of reduced energy. I have so far not heard a fine food aficionado clash with a nutritionist on the grounds that the latter has a shrill, strident style and wants to deprive others of the joys of feasting. But defenders of religion like Lofton and Karen Armstrong and the not-quite-pro-religion-but-getting-there types like Terry Eagleton invariably attack atheists for their lack of charm, style, empathy and another nebulous quality (I think of it as *mysterianism*) which keeps them from fully appreciating the true nature of religion. In the first part of her article Lofton sticks to that formula. Toward the end  however, she introduces a new accusation that I have not until now seen hurled at the new (or old) atheists.

What is religion? The New Atheists reply, with clarion diagnostic consistency: Religion is something that sells you something invisible so you may feel that which you cannot find elsewhere. It is something for which there is insufficient evidence. It is something people do because they have always done it, not because they know how to think about it. Religion is irrational, it is emotional, and it is instinctual. Religion enslaves you with its wiles, then forgets to remove the handcuffs. It is the fortune teller reading entrails, not the captain consulting his compass. It massages and preys and toys and plays and screws you over, time and again, with a promise it won’t keep because of its irrationality and its whimsy. Religion is a know-at-all with no knowledge. It makes “a virtue out of not thinking.” Religion is cutting the hedge repeatedly around an erection. Religion is, it turns out, a lot like a girl.

Religion as effeminacy is nothing new. Nor indeed is the accusation that religion is socially sanctioned lunacy. Treating it as a neurological disorder, however, sets the New Atheists within a long tradition of critical misogyny. Under the guise of protecting your children, in the effort to best serve your sweet flock of idiots, if you want to be a New Atheist you have reclaimed a New Virility to counter your post-industrial emasculation. This virility plays out in demonstrations of protective strength, plowing away at the big two nemeses (Christianity and Islam) in the interest of protecting the little guy. It is also exhibited in grand tours of scientific proof, or plodding expulsions of religious duplicity. 

Wait a minute!  Have atheists and skeptics ever said that religion is like a girl? (Not that there is anything wrong with being a girl)  Or that believing in unverifiable myths for comfort is exclusively a womanly quality? Have atheists refused to admit women into their fold? Do they claim that women are genetically incapable of possessing rational minds? On the other hand, organized religion has diligently kept women out of leadership roles through much of history. So, the charge of misogyny from a defender of "faith" sounds strange.  

Unless the New Atheists have categorically called religion a girlish pursuit or religious males girly men, (Lofton does not say that they have) it is plausible that it is Lofton herself who conflates irrationality and emotionalism with feminine traits and critical thinking and reason with manly characteristics. She may have again confused style with substance. After all, the majority of the high profile and vocal atheists in the public square are all males. Most of them also assume a combative stance while arguing their points of view.  Even if Lofton considers the New Atheists arrogant, self absorbed and boorish, based on her opinion of their discursive temperaments, where did she get misogyny? Perhaps in her eagerness to condemn, Lofton uses the red herring of misogyny without any supporting evidence because it fits the rest of her perception of the atheists. Are some atheists women haters? Of course. Could there be a few among the ones she names? Possible. But it has nothing to do with critical thinking which does not bar women from becoming practitioners. And what is the score in the department of misogyny on the religious side? Start your count with the priestly class and the orthodox. 

Whom does Lofton think she is kidding with her innuendo about misogyny and atheism? It is particularly galling coming from someone who is presumably a spokesperson for religion. The sacred bastion of virility, organized religion, is thickly populated by misogynistic power hungry males and at least in the Abrahamic tradition, god too is a masculine deity whose behavior is akin to that of an old fashioned patriarch - one who protects, smites and slays at whim. Whereas misogyny can often be a product of politics, commerce and other secular cultural traditions, I doubt that women have been more systematically and ritually degraded within the realm of any other human enterprise than that of organized religion. Only religion explicitly sanctions misogyny. Think Adam's Rib, eater of the forbidden fruit, the temptress, the virgin who is to be alternately worshiped and sacrificed, the ideal of the Sati, stoning to death of an adulteress, the unclean half of the population which menstruates and undergoes messy child birth... on and on ad nauseum. Now Lofton tells us that the source of misogyny actually lies in empiricism and scientific enquiry. Well, you could have knocked me down with a feather!  

[thanks to Prasad for the pointer]

Not even a lump of coal

As is the custom around this time of the year, Houston is gearing up for the festive season. Christmas decorations are going up in private homes, city streets, public buildings and of course, retail stores. The city is even expecting a smattering of snow later this week - a rare weather phenomenon around these parts. Amidst the seasonal cheer, the grim effects of the recession plague many individuals, businesses and even charities. Demand for charitable services is up this year. Philanthropic organizations are feeling the pressure of the increasing demands and some have set out to monitor the eligibility of potential recipients. Tough times require a cold eye even in the season of warm hearts. Some of the charities that are doing background checks to determine who gets a gift this year, also happen to be  sponosors of popular children's toy drives. A few of those plan to check the immigration status of the parents to ensure that Christmas toys go only to kids who are legal residents of Houston. I guess in hard economic times the spirit of the season must be limited by political borders.

They don't claim to know who's been naughty or nice, but some Houston charities are asking whether children are in the country legally before giving them toys.

In a year when more families than ever have asked for help, several programs providing Christmas gifts for needy children require at least one member of the household to be a U.S. citizen. Others ask for proof of income or rely on churches and schools to suggest recipients.

The Salvation Army and a charity affiliated with the Houston Fire Department are among those that consider immigration status, asking for birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children.

The point isn't to punish the children but to ensure that their parents are either citizens, legal immigrants or working to become legal residents, said Lorugene Young, whose Outreach Program Inc. is one of three groups that distribute toys collected by firefighters.

“It's not our desire to turn anyone down,” she said. “Those kids are not responsible if they are here illegally. It is the parents' responsibility.”

The idea of a charity turning away children because of decisions made by their parents unsettled some immigration activists.

“It is very disturbing to think a holiday like Christmas would be tainted with things like this,” said Cesar Espinoza, executive director of America for All, a Houston-based advocacy group. “Usually, people target the adults because the adults made the decision to migrate, where the children are just brought through no fault of their own.”

Other groups don't require specific documentation, relying instead on outside groups to recommend families.

“When you distribute toys to 10,000 to 12,000 kids, it's impossible to background (check) every child,” said Fred Joe Pyland, a Houston police officer who oversees the Blue Santa program. Blue Santa doesn't consider immigration status but collects names from police officers, schools and churches.

Those who do check immigration status or other qualifications say they are trying to ensure they make the best decisions about whom to help.

“We want to be good stewards, so the people that are donating to us trust we're going to do the right thing,” said Sonya Scott, manager of care ministries at West Houston Assistance Ministries. The group does not check immigration but requires identification, including birth certificates for children, and proof of income.

It has registered 686 children to provide with gifts this year, up from 613 last year.

At the Salvation Army, 30,000 children have registered for the Angel Tree program, which allows children to request the gifts they want most. That's up 20 percent from last year, spokesman Juan Alan said.

The rest of the story here.

Direct Democracy - Unintended(?) Fallouts

While direct democracy is an enticing concept, it is always troubling when the fate of minorities is left to the decision of the majority - think recent voter initiatives on gay marriage in several US states.  Here is another, from Switzerland, the directest democracy in today's world.

GENEVA — In a vote that displayed a widespread anxiety about Islam and undermined the country’s reputation for religious tolerance, the Swiss on Sunday overwhelmingly imposed a national ban on the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques, in a referendum drawn up by the far right and opposed by the government.

The referendum, which passed with a clear majority of 57.5 percent of the voters and in 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, was a victory for the right. The vote against was 42.5 percent. Because the ban gained a majority of votes and passed in a majority of the cantons, it will be added to the Constitution.

The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

The Swiss government said it would respect the vote and sought to reassure the Muslim population — mostly immigrants from other parts of Europe, like Kosovo and Turkey — that the minaret ban was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.”

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the justice minister, said the result “reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies.”

Is putting the kibosh on minaret building in any way comparable to the head scarf ban in France? The French threw in all conspicuous religious symbols in the mix to deflect attention from the fact that Muslim head scarves were probably the only real target.  So, what were the Swiss thinking? That allowing Islamic architectural symbols will gradually lead to the spread of the Islamic dress code, demand for Sharia laws and if not granted, to domestic terrorism in pristine Heidiland? I don't know. But it sure appears that the propaganda of the rightist  Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P. may have led voters to fear just that.  My two years stay in northern Germany taught me the extent to which the Teutonic races worship and enforce uniformity and order. I was wondering if the Swiss are merely objecting to the aesthetics of culturally alien structures among the Alpine landscape. But the right wing poster depicting minarets as missiles tells a different story, more like the Danish cartoon showing Prophet Mohammed with a bomb ticking in his turban.

On the other hand, in today's virulent "sauce for the goose and the gander" style global religious tensions, here is a similar story from a different part of the world (link: Louise Gordon). I want to know how many Islamic countries (granted, most are not democracies) allow the building or the exhibition of non-Islamic symbols, icons or architecture? Forget Saudi Arabia, Iran and other theocratic / totalitarian Islamic nations.  Malaysia is supposedly a democracy. So is Pakistan.  At least, they have parliamentary elections. I know they tolerate Christian churches somewhat grudgingly although bombing them from time to time is commonplace in Pakistan.  But can one easily (or at all) build a Hindu/ Buddhist / Sikh / Jewish temple in Pakistan today? I would like to know. What about in Malaysia, Egypt, Iraq or Turkey?

Uneasy Alliances

Since Ronald Reagan first began flirting with the religious right, the ultra conservative base of the Republican Party has become steadily more empowered. Although for both Reagan and Bush Sr. lip service to the far right wing was political expediency, nearly three decades later, the one time fringe players have become the king makers of the GOP. Paul Krugman chronicles the transformation of the wing nuts from the role of the exploited to that of whip crackers.  Conservatism is no longer defined merely by its opposition to taxes and social services. Anyone seeking leadership in the Republican Party must also prove their Christian credentials. Rather unsurprisingly, the party's politicians are caught in a trap of their own making. As Pakistan is finding out, you cannot cynically pander to religious fundamentalism for political gain and hope not to play by its rules. Newt Gingrich is the latest GOP hot shot to realize that to succeed in his own party, he must bear the cross.

In another part of the world, where the west is fighting an ill defined war, it is hard to tell between friend and foe. Sometimes therefore, friends end up paying a steep price. (Link: my sister, Mandira)

The AMA questions US government policies towards gays

The American Medical Association (AMA) has just concluded its bi-annual policy conference in Houston during which the organization addressed public health policies including the cost and management of medical care in America. This year the AMA has come out in favor of health care and insurance reform. Also, it has weighed in on gay marriage and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of the US military. The AMA favors the former and opposes the latter. According to the largest physicians' group in the US, denying marriage (or legal partnership) rights to gay Americans and requring them to conceal their sexual orientation while serving in the armed forces, jeopardize their health. 

Weighing in on two contentious gay-rights issues, the nation's largest group of doctors sent the message Tuesday that government policy is hazardous to homosexuals' health.

The policy-making arm of the American Medical Association, wrapping up its four-day biannual meeting in Houston, adopted one resolution saying that bans on same-sex marriage contribute to health care disparities, and another calling for a repeal of the military's “don't ask, don't tell” policy because the AMA says it's detrimental to the health of gay and lesbian individuals in the service.

“The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force thanks the AMA for taking these positions today,” Rea Carey, executive director of the Washington-based advocacy organization, said in a statement. “The AMA is making it clear that these discriminatory policies pose significant, real-life threats to the health and well-being of thousands of people across the country.”

Jenny Tyree of the Christian advocacy group Focus on the Family responded that the same-sex marriage resolution seemed based on information drawn from gay rights groups and reflected that “political agenda.” She said such disparities are a health insurance problem, not a marriage problem, and added that the insurance problem “should be fixed rather than mess with marriage.”

The AMA took no position on whether gay marriage should be legal.

(cartoon by Tom Toles)

Maddy wants patient choice!

Babies and cute animals sell products. Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona set out to take that marketing ploy a bit too far, in fact nauseatingly so.  During last Saturday's debate on health care reform, he used an infant like a ventriloquist's dummy to make his case against publicly funded medical insurance. Even by the low standards of honesty and decency set by the Republicans, Rep Shadegg's exploitative grandstanding was cringeworthy. 

Meanwhile, the number of uninsured Arizonans is depressingly high and rising. 

 

 

Putting the caste system on notice

The United Nations high commissioner on human rights has decided to target India's caste system.

Navi Pillay, the South African judge who became the United Nations high commissioner for human rights last year, is moving to the forefront of a campaign to free more than 250 million people from the indignities and horrors of caste discrimination. No previous commissioner has dared to openly take on this pernicious system, the majority of whose miserable victims live in India.

"This is the year 2009, and people have been talking about caste oppression for more than a hundred years," Pillay says. "It's time to move on this issue."

For Pillay, who is of Indian descent, the subject of caste has been hidden too long by obfuscation on the part of governments, not only in India, that have successfully argued in UN conferences that existing international conventions against human rights abuses do not apply. Caste did not figure in the official conclusions of a conference on racism and other forms of intolerance in Durban in 2001, after intense lobbying by India, and remained on the periphery of a review of that conference earlier this year.

That being the case, Pillay said in an interview in her New York office on a visit from her headquarters in Geneva, there may well have to be a new international convention written to apply directly to caste.

The campaign is gathering momentum among a wide range of global nongovernmental organizations, religious groups and, lately, a few governments working from a draft document on eliminating discrimination based on work or descent--in other words, being born into predestined deprivation, assigned to the most menial of jobs and segregated socially from the better born.

Pillay would like to see this draft endorsed by the member nations of the Human Rights Council and by all governments, many of which are in denial over the harmful effects of the caste system.

She relayed a story about a group of women who came to her in Geneva recently with a brick from a latrine they had torn down in protest against being forced to carry away human excrement in their bare hands. They wanted to make the point that despite India's frequent assertions that "untouchables," who call themselves Dalits ("broken people"), were no longer condemned by birth to do this job, there were still tens of thousands of such latrines in the country, and the filthy, soul-destroying work continues.

"They have good laws in India, and they have media; they have well developed civil society organizations," Pillay said. "So how come there is no implementation of these good laws, these good intentions?" Discrimination by caste is unconstitutional in India, which also has affirmative action programs for Dalits and others at the bottom of society. Dalits have risen to high office through politics, though even democracy has not helped most of them.

The UN Human Rights Council has sometimes correctly and successfully campaigned against rights violations in many oppressive countries. But the world body's resolutions and proceedings are often riddled with politics of the day. Some nations which deserve to be humiliated are rightfully condemned while egregious misconduct by some others are swept under the rug by intense lobbying and the all powerful veto of interested parties. I am sure Pillay's move against India's racist culture as practiced against its own citizens of "lower" castes will face stiff opposition from the Indian government and its allies. It will be interesting to see the American government's position, now that India is its vital ally in the "war against Islamic terrorism."  

“Religious, superstitious, nonsense” and other harsh words.

As Dean pointed out in this post, "A lot of discussion concerning A.B. over the years has taken place "under the radar," via email between the authors, usually with Ruchira at the hub of the network. We get caught up in a topic, have at it among ourselves, and then--oops, sorta accidentally--we end up publishing the proceedings as a post and comments." So it happens once again.

I must point out that Dean, who finds little time to publish his thoughts on the blog, has detailed discussions with me behind the scenes on all sorts of topics.  And frequently, he sends me links to interesting articles on the web. Just yesterday, he forwarded this piece in the WSJ Law Blog and naturally, we got to talking.

Here’s a strange little constitutional riddle for you: When can a spoken statement constitute a violation of the First Amendment?

Answer: When the speaker is a government employee and the spoken statement amounts to an “establishment” of one religion over another.

Granted, it’s a bit of a trick question, as the First Amendment violation involves the Establishment Clause rather than the Free Speech Clause, but we still think it’s kind of fun.

We came across this little quirk earlier today while reading about an interesting lawsuit heading up to the Ninth Circuit.

The backstory: In 2007, a public high-school teacher in Orange County, Calif., made some provocative statements in an AP history class slamming religion pretty hard.

The teacher, James Corbett of Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo (which graduated former Los Angeles Raider Todd Marinovich) referred to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 lecture. Corbett made a host of other controversial statements as well. One of his students, Chad Farnan, sued Corbett and the school district, alleging a violation of his First Amendment Rights.

In May, a federal judge in Santa Ana, Calif., James Selna, granted summary judgment, partly in favor of Farnan and partly in favor of the defendants. Click  herefor the opinion. Specifically, Judge James Selna ruled that the “superstitious nonsense” comment violated Farnan’s rights, but ruled that nearly two dozen statements did not. Both sides appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The exchange between Dean and me on this matter went like this: (seems like neither of us is much of an authority on the First Amendment and I don't agree with Stanley Fish as often as Dean does)

Ruchira: Great!  Did the student also sue his chemistry, physics and biology teachers? I am sure what they teach may also constitute "harsh" words (or at least summary judgment) against religion. Yeah, teachers need to be careful to temper their language.  But "superstitious nonsense" doesn't sound particularly abusive to me. But then, I guess it might if it was directed against something I held dear to my heart.
 
BTW, do parochial religious schools say "harsh" things about other religions or against atheists? Can one sue?

Dean: Your first remark echoes one of the comments to the story.

Not being religious, I can't quite figure just how insulting "superstitious nonsense" might strike me. Let's say I love the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, which I do, religiously. If a professor in a music course decided to announce that Bach's piddling and diddling can't hold a light to the masterful work of Elvis Costello, whose music I abhor, I'd just think the professor's crazy. It's easy to chalk this one up to the loony tunes in OC, of course, among them the teacher, who ought to have known better! I suspect that a rarely occasional critical remark about creationism would not amount to establishment of religion, but I can also see how a teacher who insists on trashing it--when, face it, the whole argument against it is that it's irrelevant to the course--might cross a line.

This gets to an issue Stanley Fish has been addressing much lately, namely, the injection of personal beliefs and agendas into the professional forum of the classroom. I like Fish's take if only because it's so damn sensible. Sure, all teaching imports a political or potentially religious message, but it's one thing to let it (if "let it" is the right phrase, since it's unavoidable) drip in through the vagaries of linguistic play and insidious ideological discipline, another to present it center stage at every opportunity. Of course, it's also possible the teacher was simply refuting, albeit in an imprudent manner, some student's suggestion that the creationism deserved a place on the course syllabus. The answer to that, of course, is that that's up to the State of California and, to some extent, the teacher himself. But my gosh, history teachers teach a lot about "religious, superstitious nonsense"! That's history! I'm reading a biography of Anne Boleyn right now. QED.

Parochial schools are free to say anything they care to about other religions, I imagine, short of hate speech. The First Amendment applies to state actors. Of course, parochial schools enjoy tax-exempt status, so there are avenues available to attack egregiously unconstitutional behavior. There is the Bob Jones University case as an instance of that particular dynamic

I do believe that it makes no difference that the remarks were critical of religion, and not affirmative efforts to establish any particular creed. I don't think that's how the FA works. I also know that I know little about the FA. It's one of those purportedly interesting law school topics that I have always found a little dull, scholastic, contrived, superfluous. But that's me.

Don't get battered; don't get pregnant.

We have all heard about cancer, heart disease, diabetes and even mental illness creating road blocks for people trying to get health insurance. Guess what else can qualify as a "pre-existing condition" for some insurance companies to deny you coverage? The possibility of becoming pregnant and being the victim of domestic violence!

When Peggy Robertson went shopping for a more affordable health insurance plan for her self-employed husband and two young boys, she ran into an unexpected problem: the birth of her son Luke in 2006 by caesarean section.  The healthy young mother was shocked when the Golden Rule Insurance company denied her coverage due to the C-Section birth of her son.  "I called Golden Rule and they said that if I would get sterilized, they would then be able to offer insurance to me."

and ---

With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.

It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.

Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.

Midweek Linkery

Swine Flu Once Again:

This came to me via e-mail - a doctor's guide to protect against the influenza virus, H1N1included. The doctor is Indian born and you will note that his pointers are almost identical to my own advice, posted here a couple of months ago.  

The only portals of entry of the H1N1 virus are the nostrils and mouth/throat. In a global epidemic of this nature,  it’s almost impossible not coming into contact with H1N1 in spite of all precautions. Contact with H1N1 is not so much of a problem as proliferation is.

While you are still healthy and not showing any symptoms of H1N1 infection, in order to prevent proliferation, aggravation of symptoms and development of secondary infections, some very simple steps, not fully highlighted in most official communications, can be practiced  (instead of focusing on how to stock N95 or Tamiflu):

Texas Governor Rick Perry's Arson On Decency and Compassion:

Rick "Goodhair" Perry, the governor of my state has chalked up several despicable antics on his right wing resume. He opposes health care reform, federal subsidies for job creation (although he used federal dollars to repair the governor's mansion) and Obama's speech to school children. He supports teaching creationism in science classes, prayer in public schools, every gun law favored by the NRA and paranoid vigilantes and had at one time threatened to secede from the nation. These days however, Perry is feeling a bit hot under the collar. An investigation is currently under way to determine whether the governor is culpable in the wrongful execution of a man. Even in execution-happy Texas, the case is drawing a lot of attention. Perry has impeded the investigation by firing three members of the panel looking into the charges.  

A report concluding a faulty investigation led to a Texas man's execution won't be reviewed by a state board as planned Friday after Governor Rick Perry abruptly removed three people from the panel, forcing the meeting's cancellation.

Perry replaced the head of the Texas Forensic Science Commission and two of its eight other board members Wednesday. The upheaval on the commission came just 48 hours before it was to consider a report critical of the arson finding leading to Cameron Todd Willingham's execution for the deaths of his three daughters in a 1991 fire.

Baltimore-based arson expert Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, concluded the arson finding was scientifically unsupported and investigators at the scene had "poor understandings of fire science." His report has bolstered arguments from advocacy groups that Willingham was innocent and wrongly executed.

The Flushing Brides of India:

In the northern Indian state of Haryana, some prospective brides are calling the shots in what used to be a wholly male dominated marriage market. The power reversal may have come to pass partly due to the fact that Haryana is also one of the states which now has an unnaturally skewed male : female ratio (males outnumbering females) due to widespread selective abortions of female fetuses. No, it is not about dowry. The young women are concerned about personal hygiene and convenience - they want to marry men who can provide them with indoor plumbing. The girls' serious battle cry is, "Show us the loo, before I say 'I do.'"

Courtship can be an intricate business in India, but the mothers of the northern state of Haryana have a simple message for men who call on their daughters: “No toilet, no bride.”

The slogan - often lengthened in Hindi to “If you don't have a proper lavatory in your house, don't even think about marrying my daughter” - has been plastered across villages in the region as part of a drive to boost the number of pukka facilities. In a country where more households have TV sets than lavatories, it is one of the most successful efforts to combat the chronic shortage of proper plumbing.

That is probably partly because of the country's skewed sex ratio, with 8 per cent more men than women, leading to a “bride shortage”. Woman generally have also become more vocal in their resentment at having to relieve themselves outside, giving brides more leverage in premarital bargaining.

The Supercollidor That Is Saving Us From A Terrible Fate By Shutting Down:

I will let D explain this one. (But read it anyway)

The long arm of justice and overcompensating for one's genealogy

I don't know if you are aware of or have paid any attention to the raging debate over the arrest of director Roman Polanski in Switzerland at the behest of the California courts on charges that stem from the rape of a child thirty years ago.  The facts of the case are little in dispute but the morality of arresting the culprit, now an old man, is being argued from all sides. Many sympathetic to the film maker are invoking moral philosophy, classical literature and the perpetrator's own life story in order to find exculpatory reasons on his behalf. For example, here,  here and here.

For others the case is simply one of crime, punishment and the law - the moral issues are undebatable (I agree). It is also worth noting that the best no-nonsense articles from this angle are written by women - here, here and here. 

I am hardly surprised by the Polanski debate and even less by who his supporters are. The narcissistic and seemingly liberal world of the arts in general and cinema in particular, is notorious for what it deems appropriate for the common man and non-artistes and what it feels should apply to its own glitterati set. But here is an article unrelated to Polanski which did take me completely by surprise and the underlying psychology and morality of which is far more interesting to ponder than whether a 76 year old lecher should go to jail or not. (links to the articles in the Telegraph, The Village Voice and The Smart Set via 3 Quarks Daily)

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.

Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.

Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him.

"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith.

"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."

I am curious now. Will Ahmadinejad /Sabourjian be allowed to migrate to Israel based on his ancestry, in case the Iranian elections are overturned and he finds life in Iran a bit uncomfortable?

 

Not seeing the oak for the acorn

Right wingers have always been very good at vilifying any organization whose politics don't match theirs, especially if those groups are advocates of the poor, minorities, women, immigrants or homosexuals. At one time or the other, groups like the NEA, ACLU, Planned Parenthood and even government welfare programs like Medicaid and Food Stamps have been objects of anger and derision. A favorite (and effective) tactic is to pick a grain of truth, an isolated incident, a statistically insignificant trend and occasionally, fabricated myths about these services and publicize them as true and widespread practices. Soon enough, with enough people repeating the highly exaggerated accounts of missteps and mismanagement, the organizations become tarred and feathered as un-American, wasteful, wanton and even immoral. The newest target of right wing ire is the community organization, ACORN, some of whose inept officials have been caught saying outrageous things on tape while being led on by conservative actors posing as pimps, prostitutes and other miscreants. (see this WSJ report dripping with gotcha sarcasm but not a word about entrapment) So, is ACORN really a group devoted to shady housing transactions, tax evasion, prostitution, voter fraud and even murder?  Are its employees quasi criminals masquerading as social workers out to defraud the system? Not quite so. Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post explains the background of Acorn.

The embattled community organizing group is much in the news these days, thanks to the idiocies of a handful of now-suspended staffers having been filmed and YouTubed by a right-wing sting squad. Most of the stories present ACORN as, at best, a shady organization up to no good in America's inner cities, not to mention the nation's primary source of voting fraud.

What's been obscured amid all the polemics, or the polemics passing as news reports, is what ACORN is and does. Founded in Little Rock in 1970 as an organization agitating for free school lunches, Vietnam veterans' rights and more hospital emergency rooms, ACORN has grown in the past four decades into the nation's largest community organizing group. Based in low-income neighborhoods, it has nearly 500,000 dues-paying members, recruited by door-to-door canvassers, with chapters in 110 cities in 40 states. Nationwide, it has more than 1,000 staffers.

What are the projects on which all these staffers and members work? Raising the minimum wage, for one. ACORN conceived and led the successful initiative campaign to raise the wage in Florida in 2004 and in four more states in 2006. In the past four years, it successfully pressured seven legislatures in other states to raise their minimum wage as well.

Another major campaign has been to limit the interest and fees that banks charge homeowners. In the 1990s, ACORN spearheaded a number of legal actions, often joined by states' attorneys general, that compelled such lenders as Citigroup to change many of their practices. The group has led successful drives to outlaw the most egregious predatory lending in nine states. It also counsels thousands of inner-city homeowners and home buyers. (More here)

Now, I have no problem with incompetent and corrupt officials belonging to organizations that are beneficiaries of public money, being fired. If a crime is committed they should also be prosecuted whether they serve liberal or conservative causes. ACORN is currently being investigated and the federal grants it receives are under review. Well and good. However, another organization that has been implicated in murder, prostitution, financial irregularities and even torture, is operating with impunity. But it happens to be a Christian, conservative operation. The private security firm of Blackwater (aka XE) which the Bush administration engaged for supplying mercenaries for the Iraq war has never faced any criticism of its unsavory business practices from right wing commentators or elected officials. What is even more ironic is that the Obama administration continues to utilize Blackwater's services while squirming to distance itself from ACORN!

In April 2002, the CIA paid Blackwater more than $5 million to deploy a small team of men inside Afghanistan during the early stages of US operations in the country. A month later, Erik Prince, the company's owner and a former Navy SEAL, flew to Afghanistan as part of the original twenty-man Blackwater contingent. Blackwater worked for the CIA at its station in Kabul as well as in Shkin, along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where they operated out of a mud fortress known as the Alamo. It was the beginning of a long relationship between Blackwater, Prince and the CIA.

Now the New York Times is reportingthat in 2004 the CIA hired Blackwater "as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda." According to the Times, "it is unclear whether the CIA had planned to use the contractors to capture or kill Qaeda operatives, or just to help with training and surveillance."

The Timesreports that "the CIA did not have a formal contract with Blackwater for this program but instead had individual agreements with top company officials, including the founder, Erik D. Prince, a politically connected former member of the Navy Seals and the heir to a family fortune." A retired intelligence officer "intimately familiar with the assassination program" told the Washington Post, "Outsourcing gave the agency more protection in case something went wrong." The Postreported that Blackwater "was given operational responsibility for targeting terrorist commanders and was awarded millions of dollars for training and weaponry, but the program was canceled before any missions were conducted."

Jeremy Scahill's report in the Nation here and a video of Scahill in conversation with Bill Maher here.

Labor without love

I am a day late for this Labor Day post at 3 Quarks Daily by Manisha Verma. Having returned from my trip yesterday, I only saw the essay this morning. Manisha writes about child labor and in that context she has interviewed Bangladeshi photographer G.M.B. Akash who has taken some stunningly moving photographs of children engaged in hard, sometimes hazardous jobs. Manisha's article in 3 QD here.  A portfolio of Akash's photographs here and the gallery Born to Work, pertaining to child labor here.

 photo: G.M.B. Akash

Healthcare and Hitler

A couple of months ago, an otherwise cheerful neighborhood block party on our quiet street caused some agitation among the attendees when one of the neighbors began to describe President Obama as un-American, a socialist and a terrorist. He was angry with Obama's economic stimulus and distrustful of his health care plan. Even though there were only three people at that gathering who had voted for Obama (my husband and I accounted for two), even some of my Republican neighbors were a bit startled by the harsh rhetoric. 

There is danger in exaggeration, in describing things as much worse than they really are.  Not only does one thoroughly enrage the opposition, even those who agree with you in principle may not be willing to act with you. Although my neighbor, who claims to be a libertarian, did not call Obama a Nazi, the right wing opposition to health care reform routinely and loudly smears the president with Hitlerian analogies. Words like the Final Solution, Nazi and Mein Kampf are being carelessly tossed about by reactionary loud mouths like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. A swastika graffiti defaced the sign bearing the name of a Democratic congressman who supports Obama. Major and minor GOP operatives are gloating about spontaneous grass roots uprisings against the dreaded Obamacare. Protesters are showing up at town hall meetings with guns (even assault rifles) and pictures of Obama donning a clipped mustache. Yesterday a woman brandishing a placard depicting Obama as Hitler, asked Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) why he supported a "Nazi" like policy. She quickly learned that it was a mistake to direct such a stupid question at a smart, gay, Jewish man with a sharp tongue.  

The funny thing is that the fear mongers who warn us that a national health care system is equal to the National Socialist Party of 1930s' Germany, willfully ignore the reality of health insurance in America - that we are currently at the mercy of jackbooted private insurance companies goosestepping over the sick and dying all the way to the bank.  Death panels already exist and rationing of health care is routine in the free market system that they so adore. Please read columnist Froma Harrop's account of her family's ordeal with the insurance company during a period of life and death decision making.

Have the GOP partisans, whose elected leaders have not condemned any of the tactics described above, gone too far in vilifying Obama and the Democratic Party's efforts at overhauling the health care system? Have they fallen victim to Godwin's Law too early in the debate? Most Americans are satisfied with their doctors but many are scared of their insurance companies. Obama will do well to tout the Health Care Reform bill as the Insurance Reform bill. I am hoping that the loud and abusive theatrics of the angry and armed right wingers will back fire (no pun intended) since most Americans would like to see their health insurance system improved. I would however be more reassured if I didn't find President Obama's insistence on feel-good bi-partisan solutions a bit disappointing. In his efforts to calm too many nerves and smooth too many ruffled feathers, he has wasted precious time trying to find compromises where no common ground exists. Has Obama squandered his political capital by ceding too much ground and time to adversaries who merely wish to see him fail?   

After his brilliant beginning, the president suddenly looks weak and unreliable. That will be the common interpretation around Washington of the president's abrupt retreat on substantive heathcare reform. Give Barack Obama a hard shove, they will say, rough him up a bit and he folds. A few weeks back, the president was touting a "public option" health plan as an essential element in reform. Now he says, take it or leave it. Whatever Congress does, he's okay with that.

The White House quickly added confusion to the outrage by insisting the president didn't really say anything new. He's just being flexible. He still wants what most Democrats want--a government plan that gives people a real escape from the profit-driven clutches of the insurance companies. But serious power players will not be fooled by the nimble spinners. Obama choked. He raised the white flag, even before the fight got underway in Congress.

He hands the insurance industry a huge victory. He rewards the right-wing frothers who have been calling him Adolph Hitler or Dr. Death. He caves to the conservative bias of the major media who insist only bipartisan consensus is acceptable for big reform (a standard they never invoked during the Bush years). Obama is deluded if he thinks this will win him any peace or respect or Republican votes. Weakness does not lead to consensus in Washington. It leads to more weakness. The Party of No intends to bring him down and will pile on. Obama has inadvertently demonstrated their strategy of vicious invective seems to be working.

I don't know if things are as bad as the Nation article suggests. I think the president still has time to pivot around, steel his nerves and gather support from those who are committed to correcting the current flawed system of health care in America. Perhaps he will learn to ignore the name callers. Just today he went on the air and met with Democratic members of Congress to dispel some of the blatant misinformation spread by his critics whose only aim is to muddy the waters and stall any progress on this front. Obama called health care reform a moral obligation.  

When the orchestrated hysteria of the town hall fiascoes first began, I used to wince every time I heard Obama speak of bi-partisanship and then get whacked with derision, lies and abuse.  Now I am beginning to get impatient and even a little angry with his unwillingness so far to exercise his confrontational skills (if he has any, that is) in a timely fashion. He doesn't have to do quite what Barney Frank did. But a toned down variation of it will be refreshing. It is time to upgrade the campaign slogan of "Yes, we can" to the presidential drumbeat of "Yes, we will."

Private vs Public Lives

Once again an e-mail exchange with my co-bloggers has resulted in a post. I sent the link to this article in the UK Telegraph to all the A.B. authors (link via 3QD). The question was whether we should care about the less than exemplary private lives of public figures, in this particular case, famous authors. Should the knowledge of the nasty details of their personal behavior influence how we view their literary output? Or can we separate their talents from their moral failings?

If William Golding tried, aged 18, to rape a girl of 15, as John Carey claims in his new biography, how should that change our view of his novels?

It's not as if Golding pretended to a rosy view of human nature. The account by the author of Lord of the Flies of his bungled teenage sex attack, we learn, formed part of an explanation for his wife of his own monstrousness. Elsewhere he went as far as to say that if he had been around in Germany at the right time, he'd have become a Nazi.

As it happened, his intended rape victim ran away, and he was busy at Oxford when Hitler was recruiting. But Golding habitually surfeited on the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If he'd been a caveman he'd have joined in the extermination of the gentle Neanderthals, as his novel The Inheritors suggests.

Real rape, though, is different from imagined genocide, for it makes us hate the perpetrator. If the guilty man has set himself up as a moral arbiter it undermines his credibility. That happened to Arthur Koestler. By the 1950s he had become the "universal voice of the twentieth century", wrote one biographer. In the same decade, another biographer discovered, he'd also become a serial rapist. Jill Craigie, the late wife of Michael Foot, confirmed that she was among his victims.

So Koestler was a nasty bit of work, and he ended his life in a double suicide with his wife. But nasty bits of work can make interesting reading and Koestler's despicable violence towards women does not retrospectively make any duller a novel like Darkness at Noon, which focuses on betrayal of a different kind.

I heard back at some length from Dean and Joe.  Here is what they had to say.:

They're made of meat (D)

I think it might properly raise moral consciousness if someone opened a dalmatian farm, where free-range dogs were raised in pleasant environs, on natural, antibody-free meat, killed painlessly and humanely and sold as steak.

Why this particular rant? Well, here's a nice article encouraging people to forgive transgressors:

A central message is that harboring a grudge appears to be detrimental to both psychological and physical well-being. "People who have been able to forgive show clear health benefits," says Kathleen Lawler-Row, who chairs the psychology department at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., and has published her findings in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine and the Journal of Psychophysiological Research. "Whether we're looking at heart rate and blood pressure or whether we're looking at the number of medicines someone is on, their quality of sleep or the number of physical symptoms they report. Almost every way I've thought to measure it, people who have been able to think forgivingly show health benefits."

The article goes on in this vein for a while. Now, I've often thought there's some considerable credulous wish-thinking about the forgiveness industry, and maybe I'll write about that some day. Still, obviously forgiveness is a good thing to do at least some of the time, and as the author notes, it can confer health benefits upon the forgiver, test his character, aid offender rehabilitation and the like.

But who is to be the target of our great, ennobling, healthful forgiveness? Who might we be in a rage over? George Bush? Osama bin Laden? Narendra Modi? The Burmese junta? Pol Pot? Bernie Madoff? No, it's Michael Vick, assailer of dog. Because that is the great moral dilemma, straining our moral fiber, corroding our innards as we smolder. Seriously. I understand people have pets, and indeed I care about animal welfare. The arguments of someone like Peter Singer gain some purchase upon me (they made me go vegetarian), but this Vick hysteria strikes me as madness.

I really do wish there were such a farm, perhaps in New Jersey. It's existence might cause some moral reflection. I assume and hope people would continue to think it bad to electrocute dogs for fighting badly. I also don't doubt that at least some people in a reflective equilibrium would continue to attach a special moral significance to canis lupus familiaris, perhaps because we've coevolved with them or something. But I do hope they'd find it at least slightly weird to get so frenzied over dog fighting, while countenancing cock-fighting or bull-fighting, and while consuming more meat and dairy than people ever have in the past. There probably isn't enough significance attached to the welfare of animals at large, but it also seems obvious to me that too much is attached to that of cute, photogenic or cuddly ones, and it being that being easy on the eye has no particular ecological or ethical significance, that over-weighting seems untenable.

A New Blasphemy Law

Can someone tell me how Ireland plans to enforce this law without turning into a country like Saudi Arabia? The weird thing is that the law was passed last month and not in the past century.

When a modern Western country whose economy is based on science and technology adopts an absurdly medieval law, one would think that this would be a news story of at least moderate size.

Oddly though, almost no attention has been paid in the United Stares to the passing last month of a bill establishing a crime of blasphemy in Ireland.

Approved by the Irish parliament, it states: "A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding 25,000 euro."

Furthermore, "a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."

Atticus Finch = Big Jim Folsom?

Malcolm Gladwell, the tireless social commentator and examiner of sacred cows and conventional wisdoms has another provocative piece out. This time he analyzes the cultural and moral disposition of Atticus Finch, a leading character in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, the celebrated American novel set in the deep south of the 1930s Depression era. In the New Yorker article Gladwell takes a look not just at Finch the man, but also the lawyer. I did not know until I read the Gladwell piece that the fictional Finch's court room tactics on behalf of his beleaguered client has occasionally been a topic of discussion among real life lawyers. I suppose one does analyze and fret over fictional characters when those characters become iconic symbols with respect to societal arrangements and our comfort levels with accepted norms.

The main question posed by Gladwell however, is: When confronted with unpleasant or unethical laws and practices, whether public figures (authors, politicians, lawyers and others) have an obligation to use their platforms to reform such wrongs with vigorous opposition if necessary, or must they work within the system and let their own personal decency be the guideline for bringing about incremental "live-and-let-live" variety of accommodations?

Since Finch's lawyering skills are discussed at length by Gladwell, I asked my lawyer co-bloggers to comment on the essay. I heard back from a couple of them.

Joe, a recent law school graduate asked:

"I can't stop myself from pointing out that Gladwell is annoying and overrated.  But apart from that, I just don't understand why so many people seem to care about the arguable personal failings of a fictional trial lawyer."

Another co-blogger Anna, a disabilities rights attorney who has been in the legal profession for some time had more to say:

"Unlike Joe, I often like Gladwell's pieces, but this one doesn't work for me. My basic problem is that Gladwell avoids obvious textual readings to force a novel thesis. The worst case of this is his reading of Boo Radley at the end. It's explicit in the book that Boo Radley is not just "reclusive"; he has traits we would probably now describe as a developmental disability. And he's no more "respectable" than Tom Robinson.  It's not the "burden of angel-food cake" that worry Atticus and the Sherriff, but concern over how Boo would hold up under the scrutiny that would accompany the cake. The book clearly connects the characters of Tom and Boo as harmless outsiders at the mercy of an often unkind world: the eponymous mockingbirds of the title, whom Atticus says that it is a sin to kill, because

"Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."

The politics based on that view are certainly open to criticism, but not through the trite race/class/gender bias-swap that Gladwell posits. Gladwell's right that To Kill a Mockingbirdis, in many ways, a conservative book, but Lee's blind spot is not so much complacency as it is paternalism. As with Uncle Tom's Cabin, in many ways TKM's obvious ancestor, the book's weakness is that in its appeal to readers' sentiments, it limits its underdogs' characters to noble savages.

Whether the Aristotelian value of human decency and empathy within a society troubled by structural injustice is necessarily bad, or just incomplete, is a separate question that I am too tired to tackle here. Ditto the related question--  given the strengths and weaknesses of our current President-- of compromise versus confrontation. I tend to believe that the world needs both. "Power concedes nothing without a demand" (Frederick Douglass), but zig-zag battles for hearts and minds create fertile territory for the demand, and are important to implementation of a demand that's been satisfied with an order. Brown v. Board of Education carries tremendous declaratory import, but had Folsom or someone else succeeded in equally funding traditionally black schools, regardless of the reasons for doing so, the process of actually carrying out Brown's dictates would have been far easier.

Because it does not fit his thesis, Gladwell also wholly misses the book's point about Due Process-- that justice requires a lawyer to provide the best representation possible even to someone hated and already condemned in the court of public opinion...and that requirement holds true even if the other actors in the process (here, the jury) do not hold up their end of the bargain. I continue to believe in that moral-- the value of due process- though having represented more than my share of underdogs and accused, I also think it's hard not to become embittered by the adversarial system."

More thoughts, anyone? Legalistic or just common sensical?  Also, have any of the law blogs discussed the Gladwell article?

Blackwater in hot water

The first casualty in war is truth, closely followed by the rule of law. In the run up to and during the Iraq war the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld administration bombarded us with lies and their war efforts were riddled with unlawful actions that skirted or directly violated US as well as international laws. Among the extra-legal methods of warfare that the Bush administration engaged in was the deployment of "private security" personnel to protect US interests in Iraq. These para-military forces did not have to abide by US military rules, were armed, dangerous, fanatical and above all greedy. Manned by trigger happy bullies, they acted as the US government's Praetorian Guard, mercenaries with a license to kill and plunder. 

Most prominent among the private security contractors in Iraq was the outfit Blackwater. Its chief Erik Prince, a former US Navy SEAl, is not only a war profiteer but also a religious zealot who saw his mission as that of a Christian soldier on a crusade against Islam. Although the Bush administration chose to look the other way, the excesses of Blackwater were noted by journalists, Iraqi citizens who saw their fellow Iraqis being killed and bullied by its operatives and sometimes even by the firm's own employees. As the truth about its unlawful actions in Iraq began to dribble out into the media, Blackwater decided to change its name to Xe  to avoid recognition and perhaps also to evade prosecution. Now it is reported that despite secretive maneuvers to keep his criminal wrong doings under wraps, Prince is under investigation for the murder of witnesses against Blackwater who may have co-operated with federal authorities. Other charges against him include allegations of war crimes. So much for exporting democracy with the help of murderous thugs.

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting "illegal" or "unlawful" weapons into the country on Prince's private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater's motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.

Update: More details of the charges (including child prostitution) against Blackwater here.

Senator Jeff Sessions' Southern Discomfort

I happened to catch parts of Tuesday's Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The most fascinating exchange of the day took place when Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) questioned the judge. Sessions, a southern right winger, whose own nomination to federal judgeship was blocked in 1986 partially because of his attitude towards racial issues,interrogated Sotomayor about her opinions on race and prejudice. The line of questioning was doggedly vicious, not uncommon for either political party when a candidate from the other side is up for confirmation. But in the case of Senator Sessions, he not only displayed remarkable mean spiritedness but he also inadvertently gave us a glimpse into the one track mind of a bigot who is not quite comfortable dealing with an accomplished woman of color. Of particular interest to Sessions was Sotomayor's statement regarding a "wise Latina woman." Here is an excerpt from the transcript of Tuesday's hearings:

SESSIONS: Welcome. It's good to have you back, Judge, and your family and friends and supporters. And I hope we'll have a good day today, look forward to dialogue with you. I got to say that I liked your statement on the fidelity of the law yesterday and some of your comments this morning.

And I also have to say had you been saying that with clarity over the last decade or 15 years, we'd have a lot fewer problems today because you have evidenced, I think it's quite clear, a philosophy of the law that suggests that the judge's background and experiences can and should -- even should and naturally will impact their decision what I think goes against the American ideal and oath that a judge takes to be fair to every party. And every day when they put on that robe, that is a symbol that they're to put aside their personal biases and prejudices.

So I'd like to ask you a few things about it. I would just note that it's not just one sentence, as my chairman suggested, that causes us difficulty. It's a body of thought over a period of years that causes us difficulties.
And I would suggest that the quotation he gave was not exactly right of the wise Latina comment that you made. You've said, I think six different times, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion." So that's a matter that I think we'll talk about as we go forward."....

SESSIONS: I know one judge that says that if he has a feeling about a case, he tells his law clerks to, "Watch me. I do not want my biases, sympathies or prejudices to influence this decision, which I've taken an oath to make sure is impartial." I just am very concerned that what you're saying today is quite inconsistent with your statement that you willingly accept that your sympathies, opinions and prejudices may influence your decision-making.

So it went on and on about heritage (read "race and gender"), experience and resulting biases that supposedly taint judicial decisions. Later, second guessing Sotomayor's ruling about the New Haven firefighters case, Sessions said to Sotomayor: 

SESSIONS: Judge, there was a -- apparently, unease within your panel. I -- I was really disappointed. And I think a lot of people have been that the opinion was so short. It was pro curiam. It did not discuss the serious legal issues that the case raised. And I believe that's legitimate criticism of what you did.

But it appears, according to Stuart Taylor, a respected legal writer for the National Journal -- that Stuart Taylor concluded that -- that it appears that Judge Cabranes was concerned about the outcome of the case, was not aware of it because it was a pro curiam unpublished opinion. But it began to raise the question of whether a rehearing should be granted.

You say you're bound by the superior authority. But the fact is when the re -- the question of rehearing that 2nd Circuit authority that you say covered the case, some say it didn't cover so clearly -- but that was up for debate. And the circuit voted, and you voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit.

And, in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of -- of -- of Puerto Rican ancestry -- had you voted with him, you -- you -- you could have changed that case.

Wait a minute! What was that about Judge Cabranes and his Puerto Rican ancestry?  After raking Sotomayor over the coals for her so-called biases, did Sessions suggest that she, a Puerto Rican by birth, would have done well to vote with a fellow Puerto Rican?  Perhaps Sessions was also chiding her for failing to keep her womanly foolishness in check by not following a man's example?

When at last can we hope to see the last of such lizard-brains like Senator Sessions, the likes of whom continue to contaminate all public discourse with their outmoded ideas and prejudices?

A Return Journey

Readers may remember this book review about the Crypto Jews of Spain and Portugal. Their stories were a complicated maze of religious faith, persecution and conversion under duress. Above all, their history was also about tenaciously and secretly holding on to a personal identity despite considerable external threats. Christian persecution of Jews is now mostly a matter of the past and the Crypto Jews, several generations removed from their ancestors, have mostly assimilated into the larger Christian population. Puzzled by some odd family traditions, some Hispanic Catholics in the southwestern states of the US (mostly immigrants from Mexico) are eagerly investigating possible Judaic roots, including genetic testing, to establish Sephardic Jewish descent. Their clues come from certain seemingly non-Christian practices amidst their Christian lives which they believe hark back to a Jewish past. One such story of a Catholic woman from Houston who believes she has found her way back to the faith of her Sephardic ancestors.

At an East Galveston beach, Mari Barkhausen is waist-deep in the cool, brown water. After repeating Hebrew blessings, she is immersed once, twice. When she emerges from the water a third time, she is a Jew.

She hugs her rabbi, looking to the shoreline at her husband and two sons who are waiting for their mikveh, the ritual immersion for Jewish converts.

“Mazel tov, everyone,” declares Rabbi Stuart Federow. “This day begins the rest of your education. Jewish learning never stops.”

Barkhausen’s journey began decades ago as she watched her maternal grandmother’s peculiar ways. Her Mexican-American abuela would light candles on Fridays and draw the curtains before sundown, cover mirrors at home when a relative died and examine eggs for blood spots.

No one questioned her ways, and no explanation was ever offered to little Mari or her siblings.

Years later, Barkhausen would realize those customs were not one woman’s idiosyncrasies. They were Jewish customs.

Lighting of candles marked the beginning of the Sabbath. Many cover mirrors when someone dies to avoid concentrating on their grief-stricken appearances. And the Old Testament teaches that life is in the blood.

Grandma did all these things, Barkhausen remembered. But Grandma wasn’t Jewish. She was Catholic.

About Time!

In a recent landmark ruling Delhi's highest court has decriminalized homosexual sex among consenting adults in India's capital. 

NEW DELHI —In a landmark ruling Thursday that could usher in an era of greater freedom for gay men and lesbians in India, New Delhi’s highest court decriminalized homosexuality.

“The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognizing a role in society for everyone,” judges of the Delhi High Court wrote in a 105-page decision, India’s first to directly address rights for gay men and lesbians. “Those perceived by the majority as ‘deviants’ or ‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracized,” the decision said.

Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.” The law, known as Section 377 of India’s penal code, has long been viewed as an archaic holdover from colonialism by its detractors.

“Clearly, we are all thrilled,” said Anjali Gopalan, the executive director and founder of the Naz Foundation, an AIDS awareness group that sued to have Section 377 changed.

“It is a first major step,” Ms. Gopalan said during a news conference in Delhi, but “there are many more battles.”

Clearly not everyone is "thrilled" by the groundbreaking decision. See here and here.

Thursday’s decision applies only in the territory of India’s capital city, but it is likely to force India’s government either to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or change the law nationwide, lawyers and advocates said.

Outside the hall where the Naz Foundation news conference was held, dozens of young men and women gathered to celebrate, along with a group of hijras, men who dress and act like women who classify themselves as belonging to neither gender. “It is a victory of human rights, not just of gay rights,” said one 22-year-old man who only identified himself as Manish.

Gay men and women have rarely been prosecuted under Section 377 in India in modern times, but it has been used to harass, blackmail and jail people.

Britain legalized homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967, but many of its former colonies, including Singapore, Zimbabwe and Malaysia, still retain strict laws against same-sex relations.

India’s society is generally unwelcoming of homosexuality except in the most cosmopolitan circles. It is not uncommon for gay men and women to marry heterosexuals and have families, while carrying on secret relationships with members of the same sex.

In their decision, Chief Justice A. P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar declared Section 377, as it pertains to consensual sex among people above the age of 18, in violation of important parts of India’s Constitution. “Consensual sex amongst adults is legal, which includes even gay sex and sex among the same sexes,” they said.

For more on the history of homosexuality and the prevailing gay culture in India see Namit Arora's essay.

Texas Department of Unintended Ironies

The Texas legislature has given preliminary approval for issuing state licence plates that read "Choose Life." The revenue raised from the sale of the specialty plates will be used to fund adoptions and pro-life counseling at state pregnancy centers.

The Senate tentatively passed a bill to establish "Choose Life" license plates, with revenue going to promote adoption. There was no debate on SB 1098 by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas. The vote was 22-9 with one Republican, Sen. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, joining eight of the body's 12 Democrats in opposing the bill.

The bill faces a final Senate vote before going to the House. Gov. Rick Perry favors the bill. Texas would join 19 states that have similar plates, which have raised more than $9 million to support pregnant women who are considering adoption.

UPDATE: Perry's office just issued the following statement:

"I am pleased the Senate has passed legislation authorizing the creation of a Choose Life specialty license plate. Texans have long been able to support their causes in this way, so I'm glad they can do so now to assist pregnant women who are considering adoption as an alternative to abortion for their unborn children."

"This license plate will give Texans a subtle but meaningful way to express their personal views, while supporting pregnant women making the decision to choose adoption. I applaud Sen. Carona and Rep. Phillips for sponsoring this bill."

There would be nothing objectionable about the proposed plates had it not been for another inconvenient fact about the state of Texas' commitment to life. See here and here for the most recent data.

"Be Prepared"

The unsettling events of the past decade - eight years of Bush-Cheney's reign of terror, 9/ 11, an economy in the doldrums, two wars dragging on for years and now a black president in the White House, have some Americans feeling particularly paranoid. Hate groups are quietly increasing their ranks and recruitment efforts, anti-immigration fervor is high, guns and ammo sales have spiked and the Explorer program of the Boy Scouts of America is training teenagers to fight terrorism and illegal immigration.

Although Sir Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts movement in America was a passionate pro-military patriot and scouting does have an element of quasi-military regimentation (duty, obedience, honor, patriotism etc), for the most part youngsters in the program are taught values like discipline, teamwork, responsibility and self-reliance. We don't expect scouts to be well armed and combat trained. But apparently, some adults feel that a scout's training should not be limited just to learning  rope knots, lighting campfires, pitching tents and earning merit badges through community service.

IMPERIAL, Calif. — Ten minutes into arrant mayhem in this town near the Mexican border, and the gunman, a disgruntled Iraq war veteran, has already taken out two people, one slumped in his desk, the other covered in blood on the floor.

The responding officers — eight teenage boys and girls, the youngest 14 — face tripwire, a thin cloud of poisonous gas and loud shots — BAM! BAM! — fired from behind a flimsy wall. They move quickly, pellet guns drawn and masks affixed.

“United States Border Patrol! Put your hands up!” screams one in a voice cracking with adolescent determination as the suspect is subdued.

It is all quite a step up from the square knot.

The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters.

“This is about being a true-blooded American guy and girl,” said A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff’s deputy here in Imperial County, whose life clock, he says, is set around the Explorers events he helps run. “It fits right in with the honor and bravery of the Boy Scouts.”

The training, which leaders say is not intended to be applied outside the simulated Explorer setting, can involve chasing down illegal border crossers as well as more dangerous situations that include facing down terrorists and taking out “active shooters,” like those who bring gunfire and death to college campuses. In a simulation here of a raid on a marijuana field, several Explorers were instructed on how to quiet an obstreperous lookout.

“Put him on his face and put a knee in his back,” a Border Patrol agent explained. “I guarantee that he’ll shut up.”

No matter what the Explorer leaders say about the training being confined to simulated settings, we know that children like to show off their skills to impress others, especially the ones they also enjoy practising. Filled with patriotic zeal and paranoia, some may begin to nurture adventurous fantasies.

Cathy Noriego, also 16, said she was attracted by the guns. The group uses compressed-air guns — known as airsoft guns, which fire tiny plastic pellets — in the training exercises, and sometimes they shoot real guns on a closed range.

“I like shooting them,” Cathy said. “I like the sound they make. It gets me excited.”

What is to prevent Cathy or another Explorer from deciding that the man mowing the lawn next door is an illegal immigrant or the gas station attendant looks like a terrorist and taking matters in his/ her own hands with the hope of becoming the neighborhood hero?  In any case, how is this a good idea, pumping unnecessary fear into young minds and teaching them to take lethal action? We point fingers at fundamentalist Islamic nations for fueling jihadist fires. We claim that the ill education offered by the madrassas is early training for terrorism later in life. What are we then doing through such stupid drills under the aegis of a respectable youth organization like the Boy Scouts? Creating future xenophobic, trigger-happy goons? How can we go about "civilizing" the rest of the world when our elected leaders attack other countries without provocation like the old Soviet Union and torture  prisoners like middle eastern theocracies and third world dicatorships? How safe can we become by ridding ourselves of decency and common sense? Should we now also go down the same road as the Congo, Burundi, Liberia, Sierra Leone and train child soldiers?  How safe will that make us?  And how civilized?

"Be Prepared" is the motto of the Boy Scouts. "For what?"  Baden-Powell was often asked. "Why, for any old thing," he's supposed to have answered. Any old thing, indeed. At this rate of fear mongering, that may no longer include helping little old ladies waiting to cross the street!