A Little Religion in the Wrong Hands

I stumbled across this silly video today and it reminded me of the religious debates I’ve been in over the past few weeks regarding Muslim radicals. Here we have a pure ass exercising his right to free speech and suggesting, backed up by his Christian Bible, that women victims of domestic violence should not divorce their husbands. The dialog, if you want to call it that, then devolves into a discussion of cleavage, as prohibited by the Bible.

Clearly, this dude’s twisting of scripture is not comparable to that of a Muslim who thinks he should fly a plane into a building but it clearly supports my assertion that every religion is ripe for misuse by its nuttier followers. That nuttiness can range from harmless to homicidal.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Tired of Watching Black and White TV

To watch television on this 28th day of August you would never know that black and white TV went out of vogue some 30 years ago.

I started my morning watching the BeckFest, as I like to call it … Glenn Beck’s attempt to bring folks back to God and revitalize the nation. So long as you’re not offended by attending a church service on Saturday morning, the event was pretty tame. Yes, one had to wonder about Beck’s audacity to hold a gathering on the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech. One had to scratch one’s head at the participation of Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece Alveda, who injected politics into what was surprisingly a very apolitical event. One could even admire … and yes I do say admire … Sarah Palin for not taking any political shots and delivering a heart felt address that touched on mercy shown by the Afghan people toward wounded soldiers. Still, it was disconcerting that in a city that is probably at least 70% African-American, you could only pick out at most a half-dozen dark faces in the crowd. Where were all these black people?

Ah, for that you needed to watch the Al Sharpton rally also being held in Washington, D.C. today. I watched five minutes and then turned it off. Why? Because as I turned it on radio host Tom Joyner was speaking and before he relinquished the microphone he said “I love you black people!”. What the hell was that about? Was everyone in that crowd worthy of Tom’s love simply because they were black? The sea of faces contained nary one fair-skinned one. If Glenn Beck had said, “I love you white people” all hell would have broken loose. Now, Beck paid only passing lip service to Muslims and Jews. And the theme of Beck’s gathering was definitely “atheists need not apply”. But Glenn avoided any racial third rails. In fact Ted Nugent, who recently told an audience how happy he was to see so many white people, did not participate today as originally planned.

So I was left today scratching my head. The tone of Beck’s rally was primarily a religious one and Lawdy knows black folk do love their religion. So why didn’t they feel welcome at Beck’s event? And why were there so few whites at Sharpton’s event? Well it certainly didn’t help to have folks like Tom Joyner giving out the love so exclusively.

Gang, in the early days of color TV, the announcer would say “this program is being brought to you in living color.” There’s no way the announcer would have said that about either of the rallies I watched today. Perhaps the racial divide in this country is like a case of national herpes. You can medicate it to minimize the flare-ups but you can’t cure it.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Consistency My Friends, Consistency

You cannot read the paper or turn on the TV this past couple of weeks without hearing about the controversy brewing in lower Manhattan regarding plans to erect a Muslim community center/place of worship two blocks from the site of the fallen Twin Towers. I share the view of many of my fellow liberals that adherence to our American ideals of freedom of religion demands that the “Ground Zero Mosque”, as it has been called, be allowed to go forward.

However there is some consternation among my liberal friends concerning another exercise of First Amendment rights about to take place on August 28, in Washington, D.C. You see that date is sacred to a good number of people because on that day in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. gave his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

This year on August 28, gold coin huckster and Fox News carnival barker Glenn Beck will hold a gathering in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Beck will deliver a speech, supposedly updating King’s message for modern application. Also on hand will be former Alaska Governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin. Some liberals find this incredibly distasteful and while I haven’t heard anyone call for the event’s prohibition, there is considerable discontent regarding it.

However, Princeton University Professor Melissa Harris Lacewell made a key point on MSNBC’s “Hardball” tonight. We cannot, on the one hand protect Muslim’s right to worship consistent with local law and zoning ordinances and in the next breath prevent Glenn Beck from airing his views in a public forum provided he has obtained the appropriate permits. To give the green light to Muslims but to block Beck because we find his message, and choice of venue and date offensive, makes us hypocrites, plain and simple. “Hardball” host, Chris Matthews seemed visibly irritated by Ms. Lacewell’s excellent analysis.

There is a simple bottom line folks. You either support the First Amendment or you don’t. One of the by products of living in a free democracy is hearing and seeing things that might disturb you. It’s the price you pay for getting the freedom to say things that might disturb others. It’s the American way.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The Type Who Think Obama is Muslim

This cartoon by David Horsey nails the type of low-IQ fools who either believe President Obama is Muslim or are “not sure”.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

It’s Now Time for Bush Vindication

I’ve spent some of tonight watching the live coverage of our last combat troops leaving Iraq. Of course, we are leaving about 50,000 soldiers there (“military consultants” … kinda reminds me of the “military adviser” jargon in the early days of Vietnam) but I can accept that. It’s an acknowledgment that terrorism is still a problem there and some anti-terrorist presence is called for.

I didn’t like this war. Many didn’t. Iraq is still far from ideal. However, we’ve got some indisputable facts to celebrate tonight. First, the “surge” turned things around. It did not achieve its stated goal of giving the Iraqi government breathing room to clean up their act. The government is still shaky at best. But the mere increase in troops smacked down the enemy and allowed Iraqi forces to get a bit better at protecting their own. Without the surge, we wouldn’t be able to leave today.

Second, working with the Iraqi government, Bush committed to get us out of there. He agreed to a timetable of sorts, one which Barack Obama has made good on. One might go so far as to say Bush fought the wrong war the right way.

So now we wait and see what happens next. If in the next five to ten years Iraq emerges as a democracy it will be a grand victory directly traceable to George W. Bush. We will probably all acknowledge that the false pretense that got us into the war mattered less than the outcome, a democracy in a region badly in need of democracy.

I would hate to think the past seven years were a complete waste. So let’s hope that Iraq can keep its act together. And regardless of what happens, let’s pause to welcome our troops back home and honor the memory of those who were not so lucky to see this day of withdrawal.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Water Everywhere and Not a Drop to Drink

The past few Sundays, I’ve taken to watching at least part of “CBS Sunday Morning” with Charles Osgood. I find its gentle pace and thoughtful stories calm me down before the Sunday political shows get my blood boiling again. This past Sunday was an exception. One of the stories that the “Sunday” producers thought was full of whimsy was anything but. It was a profile of Mark Fuller, who creates fountains. He has produced some pretty grand ones in his day, including one in Dubai which is particularly ostentatious. It shoots jets of water 500 feet in the air. I was supposed to be amazed by this. Instead a thought crossed my mind that nearly made me sick. Do children in Kenya who are life threateningly dehydrated know that we sit around and watch water shoot into the air purely for our amusement?

I won’t bother with a lecture here. I present two pictures and then I ask you if our global priorities are in the right place. You be the judge.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Take This Plane and Shove It (and Other Stuff)

Who among us has not been on the losing side of a battle with a customer or a boss? Yesterday, a new hero emerged for the put upon service industry. One Steve Slater suffered the indignity of one too many nasty customers and decided to do something about it.

Steve was a JetBlue flight attendant on a short trip landing in New York. As the plane approached the gate, a passenger decided her time was more valuable than that of anyone else on the plane and she rose from her seat. When asked to sit back down, she refused. At this point various accounts of the story diverge but either she pulled luggage from the overhead compartment that struck Mr. Slater on the head, or the head strike occurred earlier in the flight. Suffice it to say, this woman was making Steve’s day a living hell. She added insult to injury by cursing Steve out.

That’s when Steve Slater transformed from the-customer’s-always-right servant to a justifiably pissed off human being. Steve took to the plane’s PA system and cussed out the pain in the ass passenger and then depending on which version of the story you read, either thanked the rest of the passengers for a great 20 years OR simply said “there goes 20 years of my career”. With that he deployed the emergency chute on the plane, and with a couple of beers in hand, took his leave.

When I first heard this story yesterday my reaction ranged between mild amusement and mild disapproval of Steve Slater’s behavior. However, after hearing more of the story today, I’ve become quite the fan of Flight Attendant Steve. I was reminded of the now accepted practice in movie theaters of the audience getting up and leaving as soon as the credits start rolling. When I was growing up, that simply wasn’t done. You sat and watched the whole damn film. But now everyone has “somewhere to go” and “no time to waste”. The film industry’s response is to occasionally put a blooper reel during the closing credits, or have one final zinger after the credits have stopped. I’m always pleased when this happens because I know that all the important people with places to go have missed a great punchline.

This behavior on planes is the same thing. Everyone is just so important with such important things to do. Even in the case when you are worried about missing a connecting flight the simple fact is you can’t get off the plane until it comes to a stop and the doors open. Getting out of your seat before the plane even gets to the gate makes no sense other than that it gives you a misplaced sense of “readiness”. When flight attendants remind you to follow the rules, you should follow them. Unfortunately, the rude passenger in this incident was only guilty of rudeness according to the police. I’d like to see her arrested for interfering with an airline crew member.

Steve Slater not only flushed his career down the toilet but he may very well face prison time. While unfortunate for him, it provides catharsis for the rest of us who have witnessed self-centered customers treat service industry workers like scum. For just a few moments as Steve slid down that plane chute, it was servant: one, snotty customer: zero.

An Alaska Postscript

While filming her reality series, Sarah Palin ran into a disgruntled Alaskan. In the midst of the to and fro between them, Sarah offered the usual platitudes about her defense of America and puzzlingly seemed to mock the fact that her interlocutor was a teacher. So, as usual, I give Sarah a C- for content. But in this case, contrary to some of the expert political pundits on TV, I give Sarah an A+ for political courage. In the age of Sharron Angle when you can call a press conference and then not take any questions from the press, the fact that Sarah not only didn’t avoid this unhappy Alaskan but actually engaged with her on camera shows some serious, as she would put it, cajones. For those who take her “folksy charm” at face value, this was a winning moment for Mrs. Palin.

Yesterday marked the sad end to a life of service that had seen some rough times recently. Former Alaskan  Senator Ted Stevens, authority on the “series of tubes” known as the Internet, died in an Alaskan plane crash. Some 30 years ago, Stevens had survived a plane crash in which he lost his wife. It makes one wonder if the man was just cursed. More recently, Stevens ran into ethical problems in the Senate and then lost his seat in an election. Steven’s ethics violations were dismissed by Eric Holder who cited prosecutorial misconduct. Loyal readers of this blog know that I always felt Stevens got a bum deal especially in light of his advanced age and years of service. May the longest-serving Republican Senator rest in peace.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Crisis at the Corner of 1st and 14th

Lately we have seen conservatives remind us at every opportunity of the Constitution’s role in limiting federal government. When it comes to the Constitution’s role in defining us as a decent and fair people, not so much. Two issues brewing in our country right now bring into focus our Constitution and what it says about us as citizens of the world. In one case, the proper conclusion seems to me as obvious as the nose on one’s face. In the other, I am surprised to find some ambiguity.

First, let’s look at the case of the mosque/community center being renovated in downtown New York City. I say renovated, as opposed to the usual media jargon of “built” because the Muslim organization in question already owns a building on the controversial site. The uproar is that this mosque is being “built” in too close a proximity to the ruins of the World Trade Center which was destroyed by Muslim terrorists in September of 2001. Let’s start by pointing out the facts that make the argument absurd:

• As already stated, Muslims have been at this site for over 20 years already.
• You cannot see Ground Zero from the site.
• You cannot see the site from Ground Zero. Hence the site does not “overlook” Ground Zero.
• Ground Zero, supposedly “sacred”, has been left neglected for almost ten years. Where is the uproar over that?

Let’s go back to the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Case closed, nothing to see here, time to move on. But no, some still want to debate. Well, let’s look at a debate that makes the matter even clearer. On MSNBC’s Hardball Dan Senor, a foreign affairs “expert” and Scott Stringer, Manhattan Borough President, debated the mosque issue. The host, Chris Matthews remained more or less neutral and let the two gentlemen hash it out.

For me, the most striking part of the debate was this statement by Dan Senor, who opposes the mosque:

I think there‘s an opportunity for national political figures and city and state political figures—Mayor Bloomberg, Attorney Cuomo, Mr. Stringer—to step forward and approach the imam and say, look, we understand your objectives. We understand what you are trying to do. You‘re objectives are good. Your motives are good.

We just think you are going to undermine them. You are—you are provoking something that could wind up being more divisive. And this is going to be a step backwards for New York.

via Tuesday, August 3rd – msnbc tv – Hardball with Chris Matthews – msnbc.com.

This reminded me of the scene in Lorraine Hansberry’s “A Raisin in the Sun” where a black family planning to move into a white neighborhood is approached by a member of the neighborhood association and is offered a payment not to move in. Mr. Lindner from the association says:

It’s a matter of the people of Clybourne Park believing… ..rightly or wrongly, as I say… …that for the happiness of all concerned…that our Negro families are happier……when they live in their own communities. — A Raisin in the Sun

When he doesn’t get the reaction from the black Younger family that he expected, he says,

I don’t understand why you people are reacting this way! What do you think you’ll gain……by moving to a neighborhood where you aren’t wanted…and where some elements…People get worked up when their way of life…and all they’ve worked for is threatened.

This is basically what Dan Senor wants to say to the imam. “It’s in your best interest to appease the folks who are uncomfortable with you.” In “A Raisin in the Sun”, Walter Lee Younger throws Mr. Lindner out on his ass. They move into the white neighborhood. That is exactly the same approach that the imam has taken and good for him! Of course, the amazing thing is that these Muslims have already been a part of this community for almost 30 years. Did 9/11 suddenly make them evil?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated the case quite eloquently:

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ (Bloomberg’s voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) ‘What beliefs do you hold?”

The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

via Michael Bloomberg delivers stirring defense of mosque – War Room – Salon.com.

Bloomberg makes this case so clearly that I am amazed that there is still room for debate.

The Fourteenth Amendment has also come under attack as Senators Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell call for its reevaluation in light of our broken immigration system. It is Section 1 that currently raises concern: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As a result of this amendment virtually everyone (except children of diplomats) born in the United States becomes a citizen automatically.

The liberal media is having a collective aneurysm over how we could even think of tinkering with this amendment. To the surprise of my liberal friends, I don’t understand the outrage. The 14th Amendment’s original intent was to protect the citizenship of former slaves whose legitimacy had been challenged based on their African heritage. News flash: anyone who was ever a slave in this country is long since dead. The citizenship of blacks, with the exception of Barack Obama, is no longer an issue. The citizenship part of the amendment has served its purpose. Obviously the piece about due process applying to citizens needs to remain untouched but why on Earth should anyone born here automatically be a citizen? I believe it is completely appropriate that the birthright of American citizenship should apply to anyone who has at least one parent who is a citizen. I also believe that children of legal immigrants should become citizens automatically when their parents do. To put it simply, children born in the United States should inherit the highest level of citizenship status attained by either one of their parents.

It is a legitimate question to ask what problem would actually be solved by changing our citizenship standards. I honestly don’t know but I don’t see what is sacrosanct about the status quo. Furthermore, we do need to send a message to those who are here illegally that they will not enjoy the benefits of those who are abiding by the law. Those benefits include any that might be enjoyed by their children. Under the surface of this debate is the whole question of national sovereignty and the right of any country to dictate who may or may not reside there.  On my more 1960′s free-love days, I favor a borderless world where we all live together in harmony. Human nature makes that an impossibility.

As a post script, and probably deserving of a full article on its own, a Federal judge struck down California’s Proposition 8 which denied gay couples the right to marry. History shows that this is a tolerant country. Those that try to restrict the freedom of others always end up on the wrong side of history. With any luck this federal ruling will lead to a Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right of all loving people to marry whom they please throughout the land.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The Implications of “Knowledge is Power”

One of my favorite sayings (probably not original but I’ve never heard anyone else say it) is that history = his story. In other words, there is no objective history. Another way to put it is the old saying that history is written by the victors. When we discuss what someone “knows”, what do we really mean? How does motivation effect knowledge and the transmission of it? Our guest blogger, Hucking Fypocrites, a frequent commenter on this blog, has written an interesting analysis of this concept of knowledge and its relationship to power. While this was probably not the author’s intention, I cannot help but think of Fox News when I read some of his analysis.