…this photo is worth a million words on the human cost of the decisions made by one who strives to preserve embryos while seemingly indifferent to the effects of his disastrous choices on those already here.

…holds lessons that we need to learn, although we refuse to even see the warning.

   The legacy of Chernobyl

What a fine phrase, “breathtaking inanity“…

It applies to so much more than those pushing the so-called “theory” of intelligent design, the potential nominees for applications of that phrase are as innumerable as the depth of their ingenuousness.

One might almost call it “high treason” against the “liberal tradition” of wide-ranging thought.

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, commentary, evolution, intelligent design

I’ve been trying to reconcile the recent revelation regarding the authorization given by the President of the United States for the National Security Agency (aka the NSA) to monitor communications by US citizens without warrants, even those authorized by the FISA courts, which are almost notorious in their refusal to deny permissions for wiretaps.

To me this flies in the face of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, regardless of any legal infrastructure of thought built up since the time of the approval of those documents. I regard the original documents and thinking as supreme unless Constitutional Amendments have been approved to over-ride them, and as near as I can tell, none have for the issue at hand.

Regardless of the fundamentals, the usual suspects are presenting their usually supsect arguments, with those on the right-wing attacking the messengers, calling it “high treason” in their typical shallow thinking, regardless of the actual crimes being reported upon, and those on the left-wing attacking the administration, jumping the gun and calling for impeachment before all the facts are in and evaluated.

I have wanted to write something meaningful that would influence this imbroglio, but then I read what was posted recently at Velociworld:

I don’t want to piss on anyone’s parade, but I’ve been having the sinking feeling, for some time now, that the vaunted Blogosphere is a sickly puppy, the runt of the litter with rickets, and scabies.

Hear me out: when the World was relatively small, there was much interaction. Give, take, everyone knew everyone. Maybe didn’t like everyone, but knew them. Now there are Pajama parties with huge fucking budgets, one is In or Out, it is a fucking abortion of a thing.

All of this, I think, is driven by two things: number one: some people think there is money to be made here. Okay. Maybe for a few lucky enough to have enough traffic to generate ad monies. Have at it, folks.

Number two: many bloggers tend to forget they are amateurs. A little traffic, we are Dickens. Bullshit. We are fucking amateurs. This is the minor leagues. Worse. Pony League. No salaries at all here.

That is why this is titled “Post #1759″ because that is the post number that came up when I started writing this.

Even though I feel this recent revelation of how the Bush administration apparently completely skipped the Civics class that I thought we all were required to take in the 9th grade is tremendously important, and how they have no compunction in asserting the power of the executive branch with no oversight despite the principles written into our Constitution over 200 years ago is extremely dangerous, my opinions don’t really matter because I am indeed a fucking amateur in the minor league.

Who will listen to what I have to say on this?

I am doomed to watch as the founding principles of the nation I love are trampled upon and discarded, and all I can do is cry out on a weblog that is read by perhaps 200 people a day, if I am lucky.

My influence? Hell, I would probably give more folks the common cold than change their minds about this issue…

So, here is Post #1759, for what it is worth.

Pennywit, at his (relatively) new effort at a different kind of weblog, Multifaria, has some questions for those who claim there is a “war on Christmas” and are trying to play victim.

—

Something of note, Multifaria has the potential to be more interesting and unique than OSM/Pajamas Media has shown to date, despite the millions of dollars the “new subversive media” venture has available.

Technorati Tags: commentary, amber and cruelty, opinion, weblogs

I posted below on a case of abuse of eminent domain in Florida, and I commented on how the governmental system in the United States is beginning to resemble that of China when it comes to property rights. From CNN.com, here is an illustration of the state of affairs in that country:

Government banners hung at the village entrance said, “Following the law is the responsibility and obligation of the people” and “Don’t listen to rumors, don’t let yourself be used.” Another tried to placate local anger, promising, “The people’s government will always support the people of Dongzhou.”

The police shootings Tuesday were the deadliest known clash yet amid growing anger in areas throughout China over government land seizures for construction of power plants, shopping malls and other projects.

Farmers often complain they are paid too little. Some accuse local authorities of stealing compensation money.

Note the middle paragraph, “government land seizures for construction of power plants, shopping malls, and other projects.”

Sound familiar?

Write your representatives, national, state, and local, and inform them that it is the role of government to protect property rights, not to seize property to gain profits for those already rich and powerful.

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, commentary, eminent domain

Via Boudicca’s Voice comes a reference to how the system of government in the United States is beginning to resemble that of China in terms of ignoring property rights in favor of what is “best for the community.” From Ogre’s Politics & Views:

What a damn nightmare. As many as 6,000 people may become homeless, directly because of direct government action. Why? So some politicians can line their pockets with cash — I kid you not.

The situation, if you’re not aware of it, is that the mayor and government of the “city” of Riviera Beach wants to use eminent domain to kick 6,000 people out of their homes (where most have been for OVER 40 years) so he can give the land to other private individuals — developers who will build an aquarium, condos, a mall, and a yacht club.

While watching, I took some notes. Hannity, when speaking to the mayor, said at least 10 times, “So, you’re going to kick people out of their homes to increase your tax base?” The mayor would not respond. The mayor FINALLY said, in response to that statement, “We will rescue them.” Why? “For the good of the community.”

Welcome to Amerika, 2005. People have no rights at all. If you do not have the right to own property, you simply cannot have any other rights. Free speech? Sorry, you can be arrested for standing in the wrong place, since you cannot own land, so that right is gone.

Freedom of religion? Sorry, if you are in a church the government doesn’t like, they can take it from you and demolish it, because you have no right to own property.

Right to bear arms? Nope. If you cannot own property, government can, quite literally, take anything away from you that you own.

How about the right to be secure in your own property and “their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?” Nope. If you cannot own property, then this right simply does not apply. The government can just claim that your house is their house, and they can do whatever they like in their own house.

Boudicca’s view carries great weight because she is someone on the scene:

Now, as a person who lives 15 minutes from Riviera Beach… let me give you my 2 cents.

It is not a blighted community. There are parts that are. It is where our ghetto is located. Our crack houses and whores, drug dealers and general all around low life DO live in Riviera Beach. Parts of it.

BUT, there is much about Riviera Beach that is NOT all that. There are those old fashioned Florida concrete block homes, nestled close to the intercoastal. Nothing big and gaudy. Homes that are kept pristine with grown in landscaping.

And those homes… those homes my friends… are the ones the government in Riveira Beach REALLY wants. Forget the subsidized housing, the run down vacant rat shacks that harbor folks that are so strung out their worst fear is the DTs, not the rodents. Forget that.

Those are the EXCUSE. Those are the EXCUSE the government needs to get their hands on the Golden Chalice. Coastal Land that they can build upon… Claim other people’s land as their own, shuffle them off somewhere with a pat on the head saying, ‘See, we’ll look out for you’, moving them into some inner city apartment that has no family memories, no past Christmas dinners or children’s growth measurements on a door frame.

They use the ghetto as the excuse to develop land they have no right to develop.

This is exactly why I am suspicious of the promotion of business interests over the rights of the individual, which is what I perceive is the agenda of the non-religious component of the Republican Party. While I cannot truck with a lot of what the Democratic Party advocates, I find the wholesale invasion of privacy and undermining of fundamental rights undertaken by the Republican Party for reasons related to promoting business interests, along with imposing a morality through government combine to make a double-barreled threat that is far too often overlooked.

In other words, I am not pro-Democratic, I am anti-Republican, until they demonstrate they are NOT a threat to our liberties.

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, commentary, politics, eminent domain

…of how the right-wing has fellow-travelers just as idiotic as the left-wing loonies.

Godwin’s Law expressed in an image instead of text (screenshot posted in case the blogger actually finds some shred of rationality and sense and removes this idiocy from the site):

So, now that BOTH sides have illustrated beyond all doubt that they contain idiotic lunatics along with people of good faith, instead of focusing on pointing out the morons on the “other side” why don’t we explain why our beliefs are worthy?

I have changed my mind on occasion when the rationale behind a political position is explained clearly. Just like everyone else, I am not correct 100% of the time, and I am willing to recognize that indisputable fact.

Unfortunately, people prefer to throw rocks instead of doing the hard work of justifying their beliefs to those who don’t “think right”…

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, right wing blogs, right wing weblogs, right-wing blogs, right-wing weblogs

To the memory of the women and men of the resistance, French and foreign, victims of the German Nazis and of the Vichy Government, tortured by the Gestapo in these buildings.
—

A simple, small plaque on the side of a building in Grenoble, France.

No, I am not invoking Godwin’s Law in the discussion of torture. I am pointing out the historical context of torture, which regimes have used it, which regimes have rejected it.

During the Cold War, anyone who was not a fervently true believing communist had no doubt that the Soviet Union used torture routinely.

The Soviet Union posed a threat not only of the annihilation of dozens to hundreds of cities in the United States, but arguably could have destroyed civilization as we know it.

Yet, we felt no need to publicly “reserve the right to torture” our enemies.

I strongly suspect that despite the capitalist window-dressing that the People’s Republic of China has put on their regime, torture is also a part of their repertoire, and my suspicions are not without some foundation.

Is this the company we want to be aligned with?

During the 1991 Gulf War, Americans were outraged at the broadcast images of downed pilots who had obviously been severely beaten.

Did we say we needed to treat Iraqi prisoners in the same fashion in retaliation?

What is torture? The definition I use is any act perpetrated upon a person in our power that if performed upon one of our troops would create the outrage that is so often displayed when our troops are treated with anything less than respect.

I have read in more than one place that we, the United States, should not state that we will never use torture because it gives our enemies some kind of advantage, knowing that we will treat them well they have no incentive to give information when interrogated. To wit, we need to make them fear us so they will cooperate. Our enemies supposedly have no regard for life, so we should have no regard for them.

The number of different ways this is wrong is staggering, yet reasonable people are presenting this argument that not only should we not say that we will not torture, but that we should torture.

Torture is wrong.

Torture is immoral.

Regardless of the “status” of those in our custody, whether “enemy combatant” or legitimate prisoner of war. The label we apply does not change the fundamental immorality of abusing those in our power. Labels are merely used to dehumanize those we hate to provide some comfort for our consciences. Our enemies dehumanize us, which allows them and their fellow-travelers to perpetrate the inhuman and inhumane acts that comprise their signature.

Do we have to become them to defeat them, when the threat they pose to us and our civilization is far, far less than that from the former Soviet Union?

Every time we torture someone (and yes, “waterboarding” and other acts we have deliberately performed on persons in our control do fit my definition of torture), we lower ourselves another notch towards the level of our enemies.

To put it simply, we are in danger of displaying exactly the immorality and disregard for life that we say are the characteristics of those we label “the terrorists.”

They kill those they think of as their enemies without regard to any other considerations because they have chosen to dehumanize those they oppose. They behead those they regard as their enemies as they would an animal, because they choose not to see them as human.

Now, some are saying we should torture those we regard as our enemies to put fear into them.

I won’t spell out the conclusion for you, but I urge you to move outside your comfort-box of “we are the good-guys” because our nature is shown by our actions, just as we claim that the actions of our enemies shows their nature.

Do the math.

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, anti-torture amendment, opinion, terrorism, torture

When I was in graduate school, I spent some time as a teaching assistant. One of the classes I taught was the laboratory session for a basic Physics class that was a requirement for people majoring in Education. I had several interesting experiences while teaching those classes.

I always felt that whoever had put together the series of lab experiments did an outstanding job of overcoming the “first lab session” problem. The lab sessions started the same week as the lectures, occasionally as soon as the same day as the first class session. The goal was to use the lab to reinforce the concepts that had been covered earlier in the lecture, so the first lab was always a difficult problem.

In the first lab the only equipment we used were meter-sticks (yes, we used metric) and rubber balls. The students would drop the ball from different heights and measure how far they bounced back up. They were then to plot the results, with the drop height on the x-axis of a graph and the bounce height on the y-axis. To get technical, the drop height was the independent variable, and the bounce height was the dependent variable. To complete the lab the students had to predict how high the ball would bounce from a given height, and they were to call me to observe their verification of their hypothesis.

In other words, they made a series of observations, analyzed the data, and made a prediction about the future based upon the data and the trend they saw in the data. The fundamental lesson was the scientific method along with a powerful example of the predictive power arising from the scientific method.

Technology arises out of this predictive power of science. My job is in the semiconductor industry, performing research on new structures and materials to make transistors, the switches that are the heart of computers, smaller and faster. We rely on science to predict how materials and structures will behave, and the behavior must be reproducible, otherwise, nothing would work.

Science says nothing of things that cannot be measured because in those cases predictions are impossible.

Put simply and straightforward, science does not refute God in any of the many forms humanity has chosen to conceive the inconceivable.

This is why the attitude of fundamentalist Christians towards the theory of evolution baffles me.

Science merely seeks to explain how things occur.

Science does not try to explain why.

Science does not refute God.

Yet, many who claim to follow God try to destroy science, despite the myriad benefits of technology arising from science that they enjoy every day.

Perhaps one day I will understand, but today I do not.

Neither science nor those who practice it are perfect. No theory explains everything, and the universe is too complex to predict every event to perfect precision.

This is not a failure of science, this shows the limitations inherent in how things work.

A model complex enough to exactly simulate the universe and make predictions with perfect accuracy would be as large as the universe itself.

Those advocating “intelligent design” insist upon this perfection, otherwise, science in their eyes is inadequate according to the “refutations” they try to present, even though they do not impose this same requirement upon themselves.

Science and faith can coexist. True science does not repudiate faith, and true faith does not repudiate science.

Far too many try to replace science with faith when they do not overlap.

Are their beliefs so frail that they must destroy anything they perceive is not in perfect alignment?

Technorati Tags: evolution, intelligent design, science, science & technology, science and technology

My post “Devaluing our honor by cheapening torture” which I cross-posted at The Moderate Voice has been accused of being “destructive rhetoric” by the first two commenters there.

Sadly, it appears that the tendency of viewing the world exclusively through the lens of one’s own preferences is dominant in human behavior regardless of political leaning or personal circumstance.

Is torture an “American value”?

I say it is not.

Explain to me how it might be legitimate and in accordance with our traditional values, and I will discuss it with you.

Accuse me of engaging in “extreme rhetoric” on one of the very few topics I hold dear with extreme passion, and I will dismiss your comments as coming from someone who is not willing to remove their distorting lenses to see the world in a different way.

Take off your lenses that allow you to only see things that fit in your comfort-box. The world is cold and cruel, much less comfortable, and if all you can see are things that you agree with or oppose, no grey zones and nothing that makes you think and reconsider your beliefs, you have given up what makes us different from the animals, the power of thought.

If the best you can do is accuse me of engaging in rhetoric when I demand that we stand for principles of honor and morality that are a key part of our history as a nation, I must question what your standards of those principles are.

We as a nation can do better, because we have done better.

We felt no need to use torture when fighting Nazis or the Japanese in World War II.

We fought the entire Cold War without legally endorsing torture, despite the fact that the Soviet Union armed with thousands of nuclear bombs and ICBMs to deliver them were an undeniable existential threat to the United States and the world as a whole.

The enemies we fight now have nowhere close to that level of destructive power of the Soviets or even the fascists we fought 60 years ago.

Many have said that we are now engaged in a conflict against the same evil as in World War II and the Cold War, just in a different form.

Why do we now need to use the tactics of the enemy when we did not before although we more directly threatened with wide-scale destruction that threatened our very existence.

Perhaps the evil has not changed, but it appears more than possible we have strayed from our path that we claimed is honorable and moral.

Think about it.

Technorati Tags: anti-torture amendment, blogs, commentary, conservatives, opinion, right wing, right wing politics, right-wing, right-wing politics, torture, War on Terror, weblogs

What is written at Marginal Revolution encapsulates my view as to why the position of the administration on making “exceptions on torture for extraordinary circumstances” is dead wrong:

But it does not follow from the “ticking time bomb” argument that torture should be legal. The problem with making torture legal is that the government will abuse its powers. I do not trust the government, any government, to use this power responsibly. Leviathan must be heavily restrained, especially when it comes to torture.

Here is where economics can make a contribution. By making torture illegal we are raising the price of torture but we are not raising the price to infinity. If the President or the head of the CIA thinks that torture is required to stop the ticking time bomb then they ought to approve it knowing full well that they face possible prosecution. Only if the price of torture is very high can we expect that it will be used only in the most absolutely urgent of circumstances.

The very fact that there is a discussion of “torture lite” being taken seriously shows how far the definitions of “honor” and “morality” have descended among those who spend their time talking more than anyone else about the concepts of honor and morality.

What is most disgusting about the advocacy of “torture lite” is that it often comes from those who express outrage when our troops are treated with anything less than respect bordering on idolatry. Would they call it “torture lite” when perpetrated on our troops by our enemies?

What, it’s only “torture lite” when we are practicing it on those who are the “bad guys”?

Who decides who are the “bad guys”?

Those in power, with no independent judicial review and no habeas corpus?

Right, that works… to keep those in power in power.

Did we learn nothing in the 20th century?

We would regret this, maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our lives.

By making torture acceptable in any way in our laws, we are dishonoring ourselves and those who fight for us more than any unbathed dipstick who burns a flag while shouting, “Bush is worse than Hitler!” could ever do.

This brings to mind a series of books by Susan R. Matthews set in a science-fiction universe where there is interstellar travel and a government that has institutionalized torture as a means of interrogation and execution. The torture is strictly regulated by “the Bench” in judicial system that is a Constitutional originalists’ dream. Torture had prescribed “levels” and if a confession for a certain type of crime (for example, a misdemeanor) was not obtained after the level of torture set for that crime, the suspect was released. The result was a nightmare society where torture was used to get “confessions” that frequently had little to do with the truth and more to do with the desires of the torturer.

I was taught that cruelty is always wrong, and that a moral, honorable man did not add to the cruelty already overwhelmingly present in the world.

Cheapening the price of torture devalues our honor, which is beyond price and all too easily stained.

—

Link to the post at Marginal Revolution from Jane Galt at Asymmetrical Information.

Line about regret was stolen from Casablanca for those who don’t appreciate the film enough to recognize it.

I was going to include this as an update to my post earlier today “More thinking embedded in amber that results in cruelty” but this merits a separate discussion.

There appear to be people who feel that it is perfectly acceptable to oppose the use of a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer because according to that group it just might (the connection is weak at best, and realistically not present at all) “encourage” sexual activity among teenagers.

Vaccine for cervical cancer sparks debate
Conservative groups fear drug may lead to promiscuity among teens

By Rob Stein
The Washington Post

Updated: 7:15 a.m. ET Oct. 31, 2005

A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity.

Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.

Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty.

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.

To begin with, I do not know of any way to increase the desire for sex among teenagers, that dial is already pegged at 11 to begin with.

Secondly, which is worse: sex or cancer?

Yes, I know the “conservatives” as they are labeled in the article are merely fighting to keep the vaccine from being made mandatory, but think about it a moment. The connection between this vaccine and sex is weak at best. Can you see a teenager pursuing it any further when they ask, “What is this vaccine for, anyway?” and the response is, “To prevent cervical cancer.”

The statement most likely to be next is, “Oh, that’s a good thing, isn’t it?” and there it would end.

Yet some folks are so hung up on sex (or rather the thought that anyone might actually be having sex) that they are willing to pay a price in preventable cases of cervical cancer to “prevent” sexual activity that, be realistic, is going to happen regardless.

Amber and cruelty. Instead of thinking of the true, cruel costs of their position, they rigidly refuse to think and instead remain embedded in the amber of their reflexive reaction.

I am still working on the post that explains exactly what I mean when I categorize something as exemplifying the philosophy held on both the left-wing and right-wing of “amber and cruelty” but am having a difficult time with it.

In the interim, here is another example that shows the cruel side of thinking embedded in amber:

Religious beliefs trump hurricane relief

Danielle Pepe
Last updated on: 10/29/2005 5:06:13 PM

CLEWISTON – Hurricane victims who wanted water had some difficulty finding it at a relief station in Clewiston Friday. The volunteer group running a supply center doesn’t like the company that donated the water, so they decided not to give it to those in line for help.

Twenty-two pallets of the canned water, distributed free by beer company Anheuser-Busch, bears the company’s label – and members of the Southern Baptist Convention refused to hand it out to those in need.

Resident lined up for miles to receive food and water at the distribution point. But the water was left on the sidelines by the Alabama-based group.

“The pastor didn’t want to hand out the Budweiser cans to people and that’s his prerogative and I back him 100-percent,” said SBC volunteer John Cook.

The SBC felt it was inappropriate to give the donation out, and they weren’t happy when NBC2 wanted to know why.

“Why do you want to make that the issue? That’s not the issue. The issue is that we’re here trying to help people,” Cook said.

No one disagrees with that, but the Red Cross says Anheuser-Busch is also trying to help.

The water has been available all along, but the SBC volunteers set it aside and few people knew it was available.

While the SBC is standing its ground, the Red Cross says water is water and they’re now handing out the supplies.

Read the rest at the source, where there is a link to a video as well.

One of the main reasons I support the Salvation Army is that they do not question what you believe when they help you, nor do they question what you believe when you give to them. They try to follow the fundamental teachings of Jesus, especially that embodied in the parable of the good Samaritan.

As I have written before, that lesson often seems lost among those who are usually the loudest in proclaiming their fidelity to the faith.

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, commentary, hurricane relief, hurricane Wilma, Florida hurricane relief

I am still working on a post that definitively defines the “Amber and Cruelty” theme that I am trying to develop that encompasses all of the aspects, from both the right-wing AND left-wing extremists.

Unfortunately for my efforts, perhaps because I read more right-wing leaning material than that originating from the left-wing, I continually encounter things that I cannot refrain from commenting upon immediately, instead of incorporating them into the long, balanced dissertation that I doubt many, if any, will read in its ultimate entirety.

In this case, the unintentional irony embedded within one weblog and one statement by a school board member both illustrate my meanings in the phrase “Amber and Cruelty” as used here.

The first, from a post on Don Surber’s eponymous weblog, which mainly is composed of a column he wrote for the Daily Mail in recognition of the contribution to humanity by Rosa Parks:

On May 18, 1896, the court handed down Plessy v. Ferguson, which said states could have colored sections under the nonsensical doctrine of “separate but equal.” It was constitutional alchemy.

Only Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented. He was from Kentucky, and he had owned slaves. But he knew that separate meant second-class, not equal.

“But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens,” Justice Harlan wrote in his dissent.

“There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.”

It would be another 58 years before the humblest would indeed become the peer of the most powerful, and in that very court.

I have gone back into the archives at Surber’s blog to see if I can extract any specific reasons he supported the nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court beyond his statement of “I trust President Bush,” but I have not found anything concrete yet since he doesn’t seem to have categories on his blog (Mr. Surber, if you disagree with my assumptions that follow, please let me know and I will correct the post). Assuming that Surber’s “trust” in the President is that he would nominate someone “in the mold of Thomas and Scalia,” it is safe to say that he is supporting an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution.

The problem here is that if we do indeed take the “frozen in amber” interpretation advocated by the “originalists” such as Scalia (and, nominally at least, those who support overturning Roe v. Wade and a number of other ostensibly liberal Supreme Court decisions that offend their so-called conservative sensibilities), then the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was correct. The Consitution as originally written and originally intended by the founders did indeed recognize race when they wrote into it the “three-fifths clause” regarding “other persons,” thereby officially recognizing that slaves were worth less than regular people.

Who were the slaves?

It was universally recognized at the time of writing (which is what the originalists insist upon) that slaves were “negros.”

Therefore, despite what Justice Harlan wrote, there was indeed in the Constitution, within the minds of the Founders, a color-aware caste system put in place, that knew and tolerated classes among citizens.

Although the thirteenth amendment outlawed slavery, it did not explicitly change the “original intentions” of the founders regarding “other persons” according to the frozen in amber interpretation of the “originalists.”

Yet…

Surber writes as if the dissent of Justice Harlan is the correct interpretation.

According to a strict reading of the “originalist” creed, it is not correct.

So, we are left to wonder.

Further interpretation is left as an exercise for the reader.

The second unintentional irony comes from a statement made by a member of school board in Pennsylvania who denied advocating that creationism be taught with evolution in high school biology classes.

He claimed he “misspoke” in an interview. To state it explicitly, William Buckingham is changing his story:

Buckingham, who led the board’s curriculum committee when it approved the policy a year ago, confirmed Thursday that he said during a June 2004 board meeting that the biology textbook is “laced with Darwinism.” The clip that was shown later in the day came from an interview that he gave to a news crew from WPMT-TV in York later in the month.

“It’s OK to teach Darwin,” he said in the interview, “but you have to balance it with something else, such as creationism.”

‘Deer in the headlights’

Asked to explain by a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Buckingham said he felt “ambushed” by the camera crew as he walked across a parking lot to his car and that he had been consciously trying to avoid mentioning creationism.

“I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism. I had it on my mind. I was like a deer in the headlights. I misspoke,” he told U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, who is presiding over the non-jury trial.

Why would you have to consciously try to not talk about creationism unless it is uppermost on your mind as the fundamental reason behind your actions?

Then we are presented with this gem:

When Stephen Harvey, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, noted the similarity of the newspaper reports to what he told the TV crew, Buckingham replied, “That doesn’t mean it’s accurate.”

So, what he said and what was repeated verbatim was not “accurate.”

I cannot say anything that would add to the weight of evidence needed for an intelligent mind, regardless of any belief in “intelligent design” if that mind were indeed truly open.

Do your own math.

This is at the least an example of the “frozen in amber” portion of why I decry the attitude of “Amber and Cruelty” …

Many tributes to Rosa Parks have been given upon the occasion of her death, most far better than any I could possibly write or from a viewpoint I cannot match.

However, those tributes have focused upon what her simple act of defiance began, and what her quiet and honorable demeanor both in that act and afterwards accomplished in starting a positive change in culture that is still underway.

Perhaps it is a reflection of my personality, but I believe it is important to highlight exactly what she was defying, for it has not died, it has merely changed form and target.

You see, when and where I grew up, all the “right-thinking people” believed that the “niggers were inferior” and not deserving of equal treatment, despite the decades that had passed since the defiance of Rosa Parks, despite the decades since the intervention by President Eisenhower to enforce federal court rulings in Little Rock, Arkansas, despite the passage of years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Anyone who proclaims themselves and their fellow-travelers as “right-thinking” and any and all others as inherently wrong are immediately suspect in my eyes.

For me, “right-thinking” equates with an inwardly focused group that only feels powerful by excluding and oppressing others, for that is what I saw first-hand when I was a child, and in some respects that attitude still exists in the region where I grew up.

Even now, half a century since the defiance of Rosa Parks against an injustice that seems obvious today but was widely accepted as a fundamental truth at the time (and in some circles is still advocated), there are those who proclaim that their method of thinking is the absolute truth, completely unwilling to even consider even the possibility that they might be wrong, just as those five decades ago who thought of themselves as “right-thinking” were wrong.

This thinking is not limited to racists, neo-Nazis, or other seemingly insane cults.

As a matter of fact, this thinking is reflected in the vast majority of weblogs I read.

In other words: If you do not doubt yourself, can you truly consider yourself intelligent and thoughtful?

I have written repeatedly upon what it means to be a moderate. I repeat it here:

A moderate is one who acknowledges that their beliefs are not absolute, that there is room for doubt, that at least some of what they believe just may be wrong, and they are willing to consider that possibility.

The inverse of moderation is what I mean when I categorize a post as exemplifying “Amber and Cruelty,” the thinking is frozen, as if it is embedded in amber, and the outcome is the cruelty that is the inevitable result of rigid, inflexible, judgmental thinking.

For example:

Rape victim: ‘Morning after’ pill denied

By Carla McClain
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Although it is safe, effective and legal, emergency contraception – the “morning after” pill – can be hard to find in Tucson.

After a sexual assault one recent weekend, a young Tucson woman spent three frantic days trying to obtain the drug to prevent a pregnancy, knowing that each passing day lowered the chance the drug would work.

While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

If you cannot see the example of Amber and Cruelty embedded in this story, nothing I can write will persuade you to see.

Take a step outside your own beliefs.

Look in the mirror, are you judging others without any consideration that you may be just as wrong as that white man 50 years ago when he demanded that Rosa Parks give up her seat on the bus because he was white and she was not?

Take a step outside of your own prejudices and the labeling that is so easy to assign to the “moonbats” or the “wing-nuts”…

THINK…

There is more to the world than the labels or the simple, comforting belief systems we set up for ourselves.

It may be uncomfortable, but then again, when is doing the right thing easy?

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, Civil Rights, culture, human nature, left wing, left wing politics, left wing weblogs, left-wing, left-wing politics, left-wing weblogs, right wing, right wing politics, right wing weblogs, right-wing, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs, Rosa Parks, weblogs

I’ve been wrestling with this issue and how to illustrate it in a reasonable fashion for a few weeks now.

Since I do have a day-job that takes more than the “normal” amount of intellectual effort, I have had some difficulty in expressing my concerns when I try to post during the work week.

Despite the definite leaning of the source compiling the quotes, what you find here at Think Progress exemplifies the fundamental problem that the administration of President George W. Bush currently has (emphasis and formatting retained from the original post):

A significant moment during today’s White House Press Briefings:

QUESTION: Scott, a couple of years ago you told us that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove had nothing to do with the CIA leak. It appears that you may have gotten bad information before you made that statement.

Now today we learn through extrapolation that, when the vice president said in September of 2003 that he didn’t know who sent Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate the claims that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake, that he was not speaking the truth.

My question is: Can we be confident that when we hear statements from the White House in public that they are truthful?

MCCLELLAN: I think you can be, because you know that our relationship is built on trust. And I have earned that trust with you all.

As you pointed out, you pointed back to some past comments that I made, and I’ve talked to you about the assurances that I had received on that.

McClellan is emphasizing to the reporter that he was just relaying the assurances he received from Rove and Libby. In other words, they lied to me.

McClellan’s answer differs significantly from when he was asked the same question back on July 11, 2005… (the post continues)

Despite the claims of the mindless cheerleaders of the administration, there does come a point where (using the correct expression, not the mangled version of George W. Bush), “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me,” begins to take hold and people begin to question the credibility of those who have been proven so wrong more than once.

How can you tell a politician is lying when he speaks?

His lips are moving.

Perhaps, just perhaps, those Founding Fathers of ours who are revered so highly that we try to keep the interpretation of their beliefs frozen in amber for our Supreme Court Justices (according to one school of thought, that is…), perhaps their belief in the wisdom of the majority was not unfounded.

Eventually, no matter the spin, no matter the biases of the press or the blogs, the truth comes out and the consequences follow.

This is not related to the Miers nomination, nor to anything else other than the spin-machine of the administration that seems to have been focused on gaining or retaining power for the administration, not doing what is right for the nation as a whole, for the entire nation, even those who do not agree.

I am pulling together a number of threads of this nature, this is only one piece. I hope to have something to publish soon, when I am not distracted.

For me, this says it all ( from “Parting Shot” at Loaded Mouth by tas, who apparently is taking a break from blogworld) :

And that’s when I realized that my problem isn’t with Republicans – It’s with fucking assholes. Despicable pieces of trash who exist simply to argue with people. All they care about is appearing right so they beat their chest and pump up their ego a little bit more. It doesn’t matter who they take down in the process. For example, Boyd winning an argument with me is a more pressing concern to him then how his president responds to genocide. It doesn’t matter if I point out Bush’s lack of response and even the fact that I proved my point and I was correct. All that matters to Boyd is two things: I posted it, so that automatically invalidates the post; and that the lives of those hundreds of thousands in Darfur dying aren’t Americans, therefore making their deaths meaningless. He even comes right out and says he supports genocide in his comment: “I’m more concerned about what may affect the US (and by extension, me) than what may affect others. Syria allowing terrorists to come into their country for the express purpose of entering Iraq to kill Americans is more important to me than what may happen in another country that doesn’t affect us here.???

Regardless of the profanity, this encapsulates my views.

I will explain more soon. It is 11PM here in France, and I need some sleep. If you are interested in more than simple partisan screeds, you will read my future post explaining the meaning behind my catogory “Amber and Cruelty” that will be up in the next day or so.

From the Boston Herald:

Divine intervention axes school station
By Jaclyn Pelletier/ Beacon Villager
Wednesday, October 19, 2005 – Updated: 01:55 PM EST

Today’s lesson: Don’t cross Christian broadcasting.

Maynard High School’s radio frequency, 91.7 FM, is being seized by a network of Christian broadcasting stations that the Federal Communications Commission has ruled is a better use of the public airwaves.

“People are furious,” said faculty adviser Joe Magno.

Maynard High’s WAVM, which has been broadcasting from the school for 35 years, found itself in this David vs. Goliath battle when it applied to increase its transmitter signal from 10 to 250 watts.

According to Magno, that “opens the floodgates for any other station to challenge the station’s license and take its frequency.”

Read the rest at the source.

The article does not discuss some of the implications of this action, such as how an ostensibly “Christian” organization is behaving in a most unChristian manner.

I often wonder if those well-meaning, devout individuals who support “Christian” groups such as this truly understand what their money is buying.

Somehow, I suspect they do not, to the detriment of Christianity.

—

Thanks to Michael Reynolds at The Mighty Middle for the link to the Boston Herald article. Reynolds has his own thoughts on the matter.

…has the administration through the Pentagon ensured that Armed Forces Radio is nothing but a political propoganda arm of whoever is in power?

Some years ago Rush Limbaugh’s listerners clamored and protested when it looked like Rush wouldn’t be carried on AFR, arguing it involved issues of free speech and expression. So are those principles limited to conservatives who defend the administration — and exclude liberals or centrists who have serious questions to ask and may not use their shows to solidify GOP support?

Do your own research and decide for yourself.

I have made my decision based upon what I have discovered; however, this is one of those issues you need to discover your own evidence and decide what exactly you are willing to believe.