Myths Busted

Mubarak resigned this morning.


The entire scenario playing out in Egypt is dispelling popular misconceptions so thoroughly that I hope we can lay some of these unfounded myths to rest forever:


#1 - There is a Culture War on.
Despite the best attempts of some the defining conflicts of our current age are not a continuation of the crusades. The fight is not between the Christian West and the Muslim Orient. Christians and Muslims have been protesting alongside each other in Egypt, and even protecting each other from sectarian violence. The enemy is political oppression, poverty, and injustice. It is an enemy which lives in the United States as well as the Middle East.

#2 - Arabs are backwards and hate-filled.
Egypt is the most populous Arab nation and is 90% Muslim. They have just managed to end 30 years of dictatorship without a war, in what was really a very sophisticated series of targeted protests. This is not a people who can't understand democracy. This is a people with a deep conviction in the authority of the people to hold their government accountable.

#3 - America is a force for spreading Democracy
If democracy is realized in Egypt it will be in spite vast amounts of money, diplomacy, weapons, and political influence expended by the U.S. to uphold a dictatorship there. We have been Mubarak's best friend and are even now working to keep Suleiman, a brutal enforcer, in power. Places in the Middle East where we have attempted to install democracy by force are stuck in a morass of perpetual Civil War. The best thing we can do for the spread of democracy at this point is get the hell out of the way.

#4 - Dictatorships are stable
Mubarak reigned for 30 years it is true. This gives the appearance of stability, but the cost to the region has been so immense and the failure of the regime seems so self-evident now that we must begin to realize that it is not in anyone's long term interest to continue to support oppressive governments. The arc of history bends toward justice. The powers and principalities are in their death throes. Everywhere justice and liberty will break out and take hold. It is past time we stopped putting short term gains ahead of long term peace.

#5 - Nonviolence doesn't work
A little more than two weeks of concerted nonviolent protests have brought down three decades of dictatorship. Who honestly believes an armed revolution or foreign military intervention would have been more effective? Conventional wisdom is that violent megalomaniacs like Mubarak cannot be reasoned with - that violence was our only option with Hitler, and Saddam, and now with Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il. The lesson we should take from Egypt is that peace is infinitely more powerful than war. One man on a cross broke the backbone of an empire. Even large scale geopolitical confrontations with entrenched militarily powerful and violent regimes can be won by unified nonviolent resistance.

Banner Fealty

A sermon for Christ the King Sunday

Luke23:33-43

Oh say can you see, by the waning evening light

What so timidly we followed, from Galilee to Jerusalem.

Whose broad stripes and livid scars, wake the fear in our heart,

That our Lord was a lie, and his death kills our hoping.

From the top of Calvary hill, a place called Golgotha, meaning “the Skull” a flag waves. Planted by centurions, and raised up a staff it declares to the world in Hebrew, Greek and Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum. Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews.

It is a cruel joke. A taunt to the followers of the man crucified under that banner, who had considered him much more than King of the Jews. They had believed him to be the King of the World. They followed him here expecting a great victory, and now they are reduced to weeping, and hiding for shame, for fear. Their victory has become a bloody execution. The King is dead. The war is lost.

And now they have to ask themselves whether they are still loyal to that banner: Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews. Were they ever loyal?

Banner Fealty is an ancient practice. Leaders assembling their army plant a banner, a flag, a symbol on a high place and summon their subjects to swear their allegiance. Those willing to risk their life in battle pledge their “fealty” an oath of service and loyalty to the banner. In ancient warfare fought on a field face to face, the Banner is how you organize and direct the movements of your troops. The banner goes first into battle, leading the loyal warriors against the banner of the enemy. Every soldier hopes that he will follow his banner to victory. That at the end of the day his own banner will be standing tall, while the enemy’s flag is buried with the dead.

This is what a flag is – that symbol you pledge and promise to follow into danger. The thing you hope will lead you to victory.

This ancient practice has not varied to this day. We no longer have kings, but we still have banners. We still swear our fealty to the symbols of our national pride. We pledge allegiance to the flag. And the meaning of this allegiance is precisely the same – it is a promise that if we were to go into battle we would fight for our flag against the flag of our enemy. It is the hope that our flag will be flying high when the flag of our enemy has been brought low. It is a bloody reminder of our commitment to tribal divisions – that we are willing to kill other people to protect those in our clan.

Loyalty is a powerful and dangerous thing. It cannot be divided and remain true. You cannot serve two kings. You cannot follow two different banners into battle. You will either walk with one or the other and either uphold one or the other. Even if you believe these two kings are allied, you must still choose which one you will march with. Which one you trust to lead you to victory.

Flying from the top of that hill in Jerusalem, a lonely flag, which read: Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews. And those who had sworn their allegiance to that banner wondered whether they had won or lost. Caesar believed he had claimed the field, and won the day. The cross is a stand in for Caesar’s banner, a warning to those who march with other kings “this will be your fate.”

But Caesar could not predict, because Caesar could not comprehend, the nature of Christ’s victory. Jesus is a king like no other whose battle plan the enemy cannot defeat, because even in defeat, especially in defeat, the banner of Christ is raised most high. The army of Christ marches unarmed. It bears all cruelty and returns good for evil and so disarms the foe. For you cannot destroy that which is under God’s promise of resurrection and you cannot overcome love with hatred. If I am willing to die for your soul, then you cannot take my life from me. The path of the cross makes the walker invincible.

Invincible. If you have the courage to walk it. Because you cannot follow the banner of Christ and the banner of Caesar both. You cannot pledge allegiance to a flag of blood and warfare and nationalism, and be loyal to the prince of peace. You either put down your sword and accept the cross, or you live by the sword, and die by it also.

Therefore, we have a sanctuary divided, and we will as long as we have both the flag of the United States in the corner, and the cross hanging over the communion table. We are hesitating to commit. It is understandable. We are human. Our affections pull us in different directions. We have always been prone to idolatry. Our idols are subtle and cunning and they tell us that we can serve both masters. That we can worship at the base of both flags. That we can trust our lord and savior, but also put our trust in our military, and our political leaders. There has most likely never been a time in your life when you were asked directly to make this choice. I will understand if you reject what I am saying to you now, therefore.

Jesus, the Nazarene, King of the Jews. That is what the banner said which they hung over his head on the cross. By the light of the resurrection the Church came to understand that the banner actually read: Jesus, the Nazarene, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace. His banner will never fall, but will be raised higher every time one of his disciples has the courage to follow him to the cross, rather than march behind Caesar. And for the rest of us Jesus offers these words: Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

Talking Like Adults

With the exception of Jon Stewart, the smartest and most interesting commentators in the media are bloggers. Network television is a cesspit of sensationalist drivel. Newspapers are calcified institutions. Most reporters are now nothing but the mouthpiece of their government or corporate "sources". Radio is a bunch of neanderthals grunting at each other. There is precious little reason to read, listen to, or watch any of the mainstream media out there.

Some bloggers though? Some of them are keeping the fire burning.

Allow me to give you an example of some bright minds having a public conversation on matters of substance in a way that edifies everyone.

Hopefully you know by now that President Obama has publicly announced his intention to target certain individuals he designates as enemies of the United States for elimination. On the list of targets are at least four US citizens. One in particular, Anwar al-Awlaki, is the focus of this particular debate, because he is the only one whose identity we know.

This debate began, because al-Awlaki's father sued to get a court order to ban the government from assassinating his son without due process. In response, the Department of Justice on behalf of the White House filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the case without hearing the merit of the claims on the basis of "state secrets". In other words, to quote Glenn Greenwald, "not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality."

Glenn Greenwald, who blogs at Salon, is a persistent progressive civil libertarian. He was joined by Alex Massie at the Spectator in arguing that this represented a massive power grab by the president and a serious threat to constitutionally guaranteed liberties. And here is where it became a true conversation - Andrew Sullivan of The Dish at the Atlantic cited both men and argued briefly against them, saying essentially that this doesn't amount to an assassination, but rather a normal act of war in the context of the global war on terror. Sullivan, having been a vocal critic of the Bush administration torture policies was immediately called out all over the internet for being a hypocrite.

Proving the libertarian strain awkwardly straddles the liberal/conservative divide in this country Sullivan got hit from both sides. Daniel Larison of Eunomia at The American Conservative hit back that Obama defenders who shy from the word "assassination" are no better than the Bush defenders who wanted us all to choke down that Enhanced Interrogation bullshit. Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine used his legal expertise to delve into the issues behind this argument and show why Ex Parte Quirin, the case being used as the major precedent for presidential authority to kill American citizens still requires due process, and probably doesn't even apply in this instance. Greenwald came back the most emphatically with questions for Sullivan to answer, such as would Sullivan be comfortable with a future President Palin having the established authority to assassinate US Citizens without judicial oversight or due process?

They were important, hard-hitting questions. The kind you don't see on CNN or Fox News. Andrew Sullivan took the time to reply, but unfortunately only stoked the fire more since his principal defense seemed to be to reiterate the assertion in the title of his post "We are at war!" as if this justified presidential power-grabs for Obama that he deplored under Bush. Novelist and blogger Barry Eisler took that opportunity to chime in with one of the best essays in the entire conversation tearing Sullivan's arguments to shreds without hyperbole. Greenwald also responded using a parallel example from a current situation in Kenya to drive home how far the United States has gone down the road of authoritarianism when small impoverished countries contending with serious terrorist threats have a higher respect for the rule of law than we do.

The debate may continue, but I think the major points have already been elucidated. Sullivan, unfortunately has not responded to the diversity or strength of the arguments of his opponents, but has chosen instead to rehash his "we're at war" line, which is unpersuasive to say the least. My sympathies lie with Greenwald in this. I can't believe we are even debating whether assassination is a legal option for the President of the USA, but I really appreciate the way this whole conversation has unfolded. No one stooped to ad hominem or hyperbole. Everyone, including Sullivan who I think has got the worst of it, attempted to present reasoned argument for their point of view with relevant factual support. Amazing to see journalists talking like adults.

Nine Eleven

This is a blog written by Americans, and it is the 11th of September, and so I felt like there had to be a post.

One recollection of September 11, 2001:

My heart broke that morning, once the shock of waking up to "we're under attack" wore off.  It broke for the buildings destroyed, the innocent lives snuffed out in fire and collapse, the untold damage, the fear and panic in the country.

But what stuck with me, what took the pieces of my heart and pounded them to dust, was the absolute certainty that we, as a nation, would swiftly move to take revenge, that we would take the violence and the fear visited upon us, and we would visit them upon other people a hundredfold.  It was dread; it was certainty.

At the time I didn't know we would declare not one but two preemptive wars, one of which was planned in the 90s and was simply waiting for an excuse. I didn't know that we would also sacrifice any moral high ground we once had, that we would sacrifice our own civil liberties, our own self-respect and integrity as a nation on the altar of the almighty trinity of nationalism: Fear, Violence and the Illusion of Safety.  I didn't know we would torture people, or hold people in prison with no intention of ever giving them a trial of any kind.  I didn't know we would extradite people for the express purpose of being tortured, or that we would hire mercenaries and turn a blind eye to war crimes they commit. I didn't know any of these things.

But I knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that the fear and violence which had been visited upon us, we would visit upon others a hundredfold.  (Not because of any extraordinary viciousness, but because we had the power, paired with the disease of empire; because no one could stop us, least of all ourselves.)

And we have done, are doing, exactly that.

***

So I grieve the many losses of that day - including the 2,996 people we counted because they died on our soil, the 2,000+ who died in Afghanistan whom we counted, the 4,700+ who died in Iraq whom we counted, the tens of thousands of American and allied injuries that we are not supposed to count or talk about, and the hundreds of thousands we have not been counted, whom we are not allowed to attempt to count.

Got-No-Sensitive

Remember the Real One

Not cynical fear-mongering, not knowingly spreading ignorance, not vapid scribblings on a chalk-board, not comparing everyone to a Nazi, not hypocrisy married to self-righteousness, not infantile partisan one-upmanship, not snarling jingoist xenophobia. Masterful rhetoric from a heart moved by love even for those who would destroy him, telling us who we are called to be.

Glenn Beck could grow wings and a shining halo and walk across the surface of the Reflecting Pool and never even come close.

10 "Points of Light"

From Politics Daily, citing part of the 130+ page decision which overturned California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional:

1. "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

2. "California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California."

3. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners."

4. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

5. "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

6. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

7. "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."

8. "Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage."

9. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

10. "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted."


While the theological question of LGBT marriage and ordination remains a deeply contentious one, and I am able to understand many of the various views that people hold even where I disagree with them, the civil case for LGBT marriage seems overwhelming.  The only real arguments against it seem to be theological arguments with the serial numbers filed off - or they're just vague threats with a background of storm clouds.  While these might have some power among portions of society, I don't see how they can hold up in the harsh light of a courtroom.

America: Still Quite Firmly Racist

Tim Wise trots out a horrifying litany of evidence of racism in America.  It is staggering, humiliating and appalling to see it all spelled out like that.

Here is his article, entitled "

Black Power's Gonna Get You Sucka: Right-Wing Paranoia and the Rhetoric of Modern Racism.

Read it, and weep.

"Freedom Isn't Free"

In reflecting on this Memorial Day, I find myself contrasting two very distinct kinds of freedom.

Freedom A (American Freedom)

The first kind of freedom is the kind of freedom that we can rightly celebrate on Memorial Day. It is the kind of freedom that people must both kill and die for. Around 7 thousand American dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, around 30 thousand US wounded, and by the very lowest estimates out there, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed.

This kind of freedom which we celebrate has a price - and it is primarily a price that our enemies pay. That is, we ultimately exact the price from others, even as some courageous few pay the price themselves.

Freedom B (Christian Freedom)

This is the kind of freedom that we talk about in church, and it is an entirely different kind of freedom in every way. This is the freedom we find when we are able to die to sin and to be raised with Christ. It is the freedom of giving up our lives in order to find true life. This freedom demands every shred of courage that going into battle demands, but what it does not demand, what it never demands, is that we would harm another person.

Just as most of us never go into battle for the first kind of freedom, to kill and to risk death, most of us never truly have the courage to fully find the second kind of freedom, which comes on the other side of a kind of death.

In both cases, I find I can respect great courage in the face of death and sacrifice without trouble. I do not have that kind of courage, and I can honor those who do.

It is much harder to honor the courage it requires to kill, however. And when I am called upon to honor those who "paid the price" for American Freedom, my sorrow also goes toward the many who paid that price but are never found in veterans' cemeteries or memorials - the civilians who always die in greater numbers than soldiers in modern war, and those we called enemy, who our young men and women killed for the sake of American Freedom.

In both cases, if we are to find Christian Freedom at all, we must find it in ourselves to love those who paid the price, soldiers included, but also civilians on both sides and our enemies.

In other words, as long as we cannot love our enemies, we will never be free in the way Christ gives freedom, but only the false freedom that the loaded gun can bring.

And the price of loving our enemies - which may cost our very lives - is one no one else can pay for us.

By Contrast With Idolatrous Holidays

The crusader who originally got congress to declare Mother's Day back in 1870, Julia Ward Howe, wrote this: "A Mother's Day Proclamation"

Arise then...women of this day! Arise, all women who have hearts! Whether your baptism be of water or of tears! Say firmly...
"Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -

Another Day of Sectarianism and Idolatry

Today is National Day of Prayer. This holiday is a mistake. There are ways it could be celebrated that I would potentially support. There are Biblical approaches to this holiday which would at least prevent it from being outright idolatry, but the way that the holiday actually is observed is not something I can support at all.

First the reasons why you should not observe this holiday:

1. It is an infringement on secularism. We are a secular republic and the state should not be in the business of lifting up any particular religion over another. Though the holiday is vague enough it could apply to a variety of faiths, in practice it is dominated by Christians. Last year every other prayer at the event held in City Park in my town included something about this being a "Christian Nation." Increasingly, secularism is also understood to mean not lifting up religiousness over a-religiousness. Even if the holiday were perfectly pluralist it would still be infringing on atheists who are part of our nation.

2. As it is usually practiced it is idolatrous. It is possible to pray "for the nation" in a way that is not idolatrous, but to lavish praise, swear an oath of allegiance, kiss or salute or otherwise honor symbols of patriotism and national pride like the flag, or refer to the United States or any nation as somehow uniquely important to God, belonging to God or held in special esteem by God is idolatry. God is not American. In fact, God is steadfastly against national identity, ethnic divisions, divisions of class, and gender. God is busily working to unite all people and the powers and principalities are God's implacable opponents in this world. It is doubtful that any kind of prayer, but a prayer of repentance is appropriate for a nation state.

3. The kinds of prayers which would be appropriate on a "National Day of Prayer" from a Christian perspective, are necessary all the time. Prayers of repentance. Prayers for justice. Prayers for peace. Prayers for the end of nations and the inauguration of the kingdom. We should be praying like that all the time, and we should definitely not be praying on a schedule dictated by congress and signed into law by the president. If anything we should be calling for Christians nationwide to hold prayer vigils around the anniversary of wars and actions that our country needs forgiveness for. We should call for non-participation of Christians in holidays like this one which serve to buoy national pride and entrench parochialism. National Day of Prayer, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, President's Day... these are days for us to boycott, not observe.

Now an approach to the holiday which would win my tepid support (not overcoming all my objections, but a start):

1. National Day of Prayer as a day of atonement. If we assembled prepared for mourning and repentance, dressed in sackcloth as it were, and did so in open areas devoid of any symbol of national pride or identity; if at such an assembly we said aloud and forcefully our many sins - the wars we have waged and are waging, the injustices of our economic system, the division of classes and racial and gender inequalities in our society, the fearful grasping after security, and failure to trust God's providence, the perpetuation of our identity over against imaginary "enemies" and the hatred of those enemies we have created - THEN we would be on the right path.

2. Following our rehearsal of our sins, we would hear from the prophets of the Old Testament warning the nation of Israel that God held them in no special regard, but would judge them for failing to be a light in the world. We would remind ourselves that God in Jesus calls the entire world to communion and we have no business coming to that table as Americans, or Brits, or Chinese, or Russians.

3. Finally, we would pray that God would forgive the sins of the whole world, end divisions and inaugurate an era of Shalom. We would repent of any national allegiance and vow never to take up arms against a neighbor so that we might have a place in that new world. Then we would go home weeping, knowing that it was too little too late.

Anarchy FTW!

In the past few years Fort Morgan, the town I live in and where I am pastor of United Presbyterian Church, has seen a dramatic influx of Somali refugees. In a town of about 10,000 people we are now host to around 800 East African refugees. This has all happened within the past 2 years. You can imagine such a dramatic shift is causing some ripples in the community.

The Somali refugees coming to Fort Morgan are "secondary migration", meaning they were initially settled elsewhere in the United States, but moved to Fort Morgan for jobs. The largest Somali population center in the US is Minneapolis. So most of the refugees have come from there and have family and friends back in Minneapolis they visit on vacation. The attraction to Fort Morgan is our meat packing plant where most of them are now employed. After we had a small core of 100 or so refugees it attained critical mass and now we are seeing a continuing influx which is reshaping the demographics of our town.

I would be derelict in my duties as a minister in this situation if I wasn't trying to learn more about Somalia, the situation of these refugees and how to help my congregation adapt to this development. I am partnering with a variety of community organizations to host educational events about Somalia, and even more importantly face-to-face meetings where we can start to make friends and bridge the cultural/linguistic gap. As part of my research about Somalia I came across this article which I found fascinating.

In the article the authors argue that nearly 20 years of anarchy in Somalia has actually benefited the country. Obviously a statement like that comes with a lot of caveats. Somalia is still a deeply impoverished place. The refugees in my town all have stories of intense suffering experienced in camps in Ethiopia and Kenya, the loss of family members to violence, and severe deprivation which caused their exodus. With that said, the authors note that all statistical indicators have improved more without a central government in Somalia than they did in the years previous of corrupt dictatorships. The article describes an elaborate, yet informal, system of customary law and commerce which reemerged in the absence of formal government with surprising success. As a result people live longer, eat better, are more secure, and have more luxuries like telephones and televisions than they did before.

I love what it says at the end about many governments being "vampire states" that prey on their people. Obviously, we'd like to believe that our governments are better, but I think from a Christian perspective all government is fundamentally vampiric. The principalities and powers are set against Jesus Christ and his reign of Shalom, and in some cases anarchy really is the best road forward.

Look Closely

An image that was rejected for the cover of Fortune magazine. Click on it to enlarge and get a really good look at the detail. It's exactly right.

Stupid Laws

It's appropriate on 4/20 to say that I am in favor of legalizing marijuana. It is less harmful than alcohol or a variety of over the counter medicines, to say nothing of prescription drugs with a much higher potential for misuse. The push to make it illegal came from the paper industry, not out of any noble desire for social purity. It's another failed experiment in prohibition.

In the same spirit there are a host of laws which are ostensibly about protecting society which I would repeal. These laws don't keep us safe. They don't improve our lives. At best these laws keep law enforcement busy and prisons full, but at the cost of criminalizing and disenfranchising large swaths of our society. A few examples:

#1 - Legalize sex-workers. The oldest profession is rampant and never going away. Criminalizing various forms of sex-work merely serves to enrich pimps and empower organized crime. The biggest benefit of legalization is that it then offers the possibility of regulation. Disease, violence, drug-addiction, trafficking, abuse of minors... we can tackle all of these problems when the women and men in this field can get legal protection.

#2 - Abolish Three-Strikes. Treating all felonies as if they were equal is a violation of one of the most important principals of justice - proportionality. Locking anyone away for life because of felony drug-possession is a travesty. These kind of laws do not deter crime, but rather lead to hopelessness and recidivism. Basing penal codes on sports metaphors is appalling.

#3 - Shut down the Sex-Offender Registry. People will probably think I'm crazy for defending pedophiles, but stigmatizing, isolating, and therefore punishing a person for life is wrong. Especially when you consider that public nudity can get you on this list right alongside the multiple rapist. The registry does nothing to keep people safe, but it does a great job of terrifying people and ruining the lives of those who are registered.

If I Were President - The Budget

Disclaimer: I know I'm never going to be President of the United States, nor would I truly want to be. I also know much of what I'm going to say in this hypothetical musing is impractical and improbable to say the least. Get over it.

The President does not write the budget- congress does. But the President makes budget requests, gets to veto the budget if he/she doesn't like it, and is charged with keeping much of the budget that congress eventually delivers. In practice, most recent Presidents have had a strong hand in shaping the budget that comes out of congress. Knowing in advance that I would have to compromise and would not get it all my way, here would be my budget priorities:

I would want to decrease or even eliminate the national deficit primarily by dramatically cutting military spending. The military-industrial complex was kicked into high gear during WWII and it never got shut down. In all previous wars the spending increased for a short time and then was heavily cut back afterward. Not after WWII though and never since. Military spending has increased every year since then. It is out of control. Here is the conservative in me coming out - we should not have a standing army. Individual states should have militias and if congress decides it is necessary to go to war we should create the army through conscription.

Military spending is out of control, but it certainly isn't the only place we could make cuts. I would aim for a freeze on the salary of anyone and everyone in government who makes $100,000 or more. I would ask every office and branch for creative solutions in reducing wasteful spending. Can we do more video conferences and lower travel expenses? etc...

More than cutting costs within individual agencies I would want to take a close look at agency redundancy. Homeland Security? Gone. Solving a bloated bureaucracy that doesn't communicate well by creating the largest bureaucracy ever to oversee the others was a dumb idea. FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, EPA, FDA, FCC and so on... merge them and pare them down. Perhaps create two agencies, one concerned with law enforcement & security, the other a regulatory body for overseeing various industries. In the first year of my presidency I would demand reports from every employee of every department justifying their job. I'd have a logistics and organization planning team going over all of these reports and determining the most efficient way to restructure, eliminating as much redundancy as possible.

To offset the many jobs that would be lost and the impact on our arms industry, I would invest in other areas of the economy. For example, I would aim to lower class sizes in schools by providing funding for more teacher's salaries (teachers, not administrators!). I would create jobs in construction and contracting by spending money on infrastructure, especially efficient mass transit. I would create jobs in the health care sector with a well-funded public option. I would provide federal money to pay for education for doctors and nurses to eliminate the shortage we currently have. I would create jobs in the sciences by increasing the amount we give for research. I would create jobs in the arts the same way.

In fact, one core responsibility of my logistics and organization planning team would be creating a temporary agency for job placement for all of the people formerly employed in the military, the arms industry, and various bloated government agencies, in new jobs created in the fields I described above. It would confound progressives and conservatives alike that when my tenure was finished more people would be employed in the private sector and government would be smaller than it has been in 50 years.

If I Were President - The Great Pardoning

Disclaimer: I know I'm never going to be President of the United States, nor would I truly want to be. I also know much of what I'm going to say in this hypothetical musing is impractical and improbable to say the least. Get over it.

The POTUS has a lot of power in our system - much more than in most democracies or constitutional republics. Many of the President's powers require congressional rubber stamping, but plenty of them don't. One heavily under-utilized example is the presidential pardon. The President may without rhyme or reason pardon or commute the sentence of anyone convicted of any crime anywhere in the country. Heck, they don't have to be convicted even. You can pre-emptively pardon.

Here is what I would do. Starting on day one of my presidency I would have lists drawn up of every convicted criminal in the country. I would have them categorized into types of offenses and their severity. I would then begin mass pardoning from the least dangerous on upward, with the ultimate goal being emptying our prisons of all but the most dangerous and violent types of criminals.

This would commence in waves for several reasons.

Practically speaking it would be too much work to accomplish in one big push.

A whole bunch of ramifications would result from the sudden influx of unemployed, homeless, former convicts. I would want to give communities time to adapt. Alongside the pardons I would call on aid organizations, churches, and others to get together and strategize how to integrate these people back into society.

I would use the waves as pressure on Congress to demand several things. I would demand legislation aimed at creating jobs and assisting freed prisoners in establishing new lives. I would ask to reorient law enforcement offices around the country in the direction of rehabilitation & prevention rather than punishment. I would demand an end to the war on drugs and changes to federal and state standards for imprisonment - promising to continue pardoning until satisfactory changes were implemented. Each delay would see a new wave of pardons.

I would assemble teams to analyze batches of cases where it would be appropriate to commute sentences rather than pardon if a better result could be achieved. Can murderers and sex offenders be treated psychologically (even permanently in a mental health facility if necessary) rather than imprisoned? Would some benefit from community service? I would commute every single death sentence to a lesser penalty immediately.

Against the threat of impeachment (since this would outrage many people) I would reserve the "nuclear pardon" option to pardon every single prisoner at once on my last day in office if impeached. So long as it remained possible I would continue the slower, more judicious method of pardoning in waves.

By the end of my term I would hope to have very nearly emptied our prisons entirely. Only a small fraction of those currently imprisoned would remain because a better solution could not be found. As such I would hope to crush the prison economy irrevocably. I would relentlessly pressure states and congress to change their laws to utilize alternate forms of punishment beside imprisonment and to create new jobs in social services aimed at overseeing the new procedures of crime and rehabilitation. A few federal prisons would remain as relics for desperate cases where society utterly failed to come up with a better solution.

If I Were President - Radical Ethos

Disclaimer: I know I'm never going to be President of the United States, nor would I truly want to be. I also know much of what I'm going to say in this hypothetical musing is impractical and improbable to say the least. Get over it.

Since I'm so good at criticizing politicians it is fair if once in a while I make an attempt to say what I would do in their place. This is too big a subject to cover in one post, but I'm not starting a series here either. So no promises about regular posting on this topic. As I feel moved I will throw out posts to elaborate on different political topics and the approach I would take, hypothetically, if I were President. Feel free to call me crazy in the comment threads.

In this first post I want to talk about the "ethos" of my presidency.

As president I would not spend one second of one day thinking about re-election or anyone else's election. I would forbid my staff and anyone in my vicinity from conducting, following, analyzing or discussing polls. I would expect to be committing political suicide and would therefore waste no time wondering if I could do things to make others happier.

In keeping with this ethos I would not spend very much effort attempting to feign bi-partisanship, or partisanship for that matter. I would make my intentions very clear and then invite any who want to help to join paying no attention to their political affiliations, and dare any who oppose me to do their best. I would expect to fail on a number of my initiatives and therefore wouldn't promise much except absolute integrity.

There would be no half-measures. I would not wait for the opportune moment, or avoid politically sensitive matters, or accept bad compromises. In fact, I would intentionally over shoot hoping reality to come closer to my actual goals than if I were to approach them hesitantly. I would attempt to outrun, out-think, and out-flank my detractors by simply overwhelming them with so much to get in a tizzy about that they wouldn't know where to begin. I would ambush the country with ideas so radical that for 50 years we would elect hippies believing them to be conservative.

I would be relentless in attacking bad policies on moral grounds. I would not cede the conversation about morality to those obsessed with gay marriage, but would ceaselessly confront congress about poverty, warfare, and greed. I would readily accept criticism made on similar grounds of my own behavior. I would apologize publicly and frequently.

Essentially, I would strive to absolutely flabbergast everyone. In fact, that is the plan because I would use that shock and surprise to reorient expectations. I would make swift and liberal use of presidential powers such that my successors could work for decades to undo it all and not finish. I would consider it an experiment in politics divorced from cynical realism; an attempt to see whether it is possible to shake the rust off of our system of government and actually accomplish meaningful change.

You want examples? You'll have to wait for my next post.

I am the Country's Screaming Frustration

Let me get this straight. A year ago, Democrats won the White House and both houses of Congress in sweeping victories on a platform of change. Since then, nothing even remotely progressive has been accomplished except trying to spend us out of a massive recession. Nothing whatsoever - Gitmo still open, DODT still in full force, escalation in Afghanistan, increased spending on nukes and defense, etc. Then the President wins a Nobel Peace Prize, possibly the least deserved Prize in history, but still, a Peace Prize.

But then one Republican wins one election in Massachusettes, and not only is the Democratic majority completely undone, but a regressive surge begins as Dems fall over each other to hand everything over to Republicans once more.

I think it is possible to be a Democrat, and possible to have self-respect, but not possible, anymore, for both at once.

If you are actually a Progressive, come join us in the Green Party. We don't win many elections, but at least we vote with our conscience, and if we ever do win an election, it won't be of a spineless corpse-party that is ready for the scrap-heap of history.

Terrorism & Religion

Why are we so ready to see "terrorist" violence in a religious light if the religion in question is Islam? Islamic & Terrorist are colloquially linked like peanut butter & jelly. Sure there have been violent actions taken by Muslims which we have all decided to call terrorism. Some of those Muslims have given religious justifications for their actions, though generally there are far more prominent political justifications. But we fixate on the religious aspect. Osama Bin Laden, according to popular understanding, is trying to kill us because of his radical Islamic beliefs, not because as he has often said America has interfered politically in Saudi Arabia.

This distorted view we have of terrorism is really bizarre when it just outright contradicts the facts. It is not just that we emphasize the "Islamic" character of certain terrorists, but we start to define terrorism as a Muslim phenomenon which flies in the face of all the evidence. Jeffrey Weiss today, said that "100 percent of attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. (and, with the exception of the Basques in Spain, terrorists attacks on all Western nations) since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing have been committed by people claiming to act in the name of Islam."

Um. No they haven't. Firstly not all terrorist acts committed by Muslims have been done "in the name of Islam". Most terrorist actions, study after study has found, are predominantly politically motivated. Palestinians who blow up buses in Israel cite things like the illegal wall, settlements, and retaliation for violence by the Israeli military as their reasons long before they cite Islam. Secondly, there have been scores of "terrorist" acts committed in the time frame he gives by non-Muslims. Greenwald gives a good sampling:

"1998: Dozens die in Omagh bombing: At least 27 people are feared dead in the worst paramilitary bombing since the start of the Northern Ireland conflict three decades ago The blast in the market town of Omagh, County Tyrone, at around 1500 BST on Saturday, left more than 100 people injured or maimed" -- BBC.

"September 21, 2000: A rocket attack on MI6 headquarters in London is believed to be the work of dissident Irish republicans" -- BBC.

"In a series of court documents that were at turns chilling and bizarre, federal investigators said U.S. Army microbiologist Bruce E. Ivins misled government agents investigating the 2001 anthrax mailings, sent emails with language closely matching the handwritten letters sent to victims and had access to the strain of anthrax used in the crime. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says the evidence, including hundreds of pages of unsealed documents, proves that Dr. Ivins was the sole person responsible for the 2001 anthrax mailings . . . The most compelling evidence points at Dr. Ivins and his laboratory at the U.S. Army biodefense facility at Fort Detrick, Md." -- Wall St. Journal, August 7, 2008.

"Olympic bombing suspect Eric Robert Rudolph -- wanted in attacks that killed two people and injured more than 100 in the Southeast -- was arrested early Saturday in western North Carolina and faces a Monday morning court date. Rudolph has been charged in the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, Georgia; 1997 bombings at a gay nightclub and a clinic that performed abortions in the Atlanta area; and a bombing at a clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1998" -- CNN, May 31, 2003.

"U.S.-born Jewish terrorist suspected of series of attacks over past 12 years: The authorities have arrested a resident of the West Bank settlement of Shvut Rachel for suspected murder and a role in a string of murder plots, according to details of an investigation revealed Sunday after a gag order was lifted. Yaakov (Jack) Tytell, who was arrested last month, is suspected of involvement in the murder of two Palestinians and the rigging of a bomb that seriously injured a boy from a Messianic Jewish family in Ariel. . . . Some of his actions were allegedly motivated by hatred for gays and lesbians" - Haaretz, November 3, 2009.

"The Jerusalem District Prosecutor's Office on Thursday charged alleged Jewish terrorist Yaakov (Jack) Teitel with two murders, three attempted murders and other acts of violence. "It was a pleasure and an honor to serve my God," said Teitel at the Jerusalem courthouse. "I have no regret and no doubt that God is pleased" -- Haaretz, December 11, 2009.

"Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated at a peace rally Saturday night in Tel Aviv's Kings Square, a top aide confirmed. He was reportedly shot in the arm and back by a Jewish man in his mid-20s who is allegedly affiliated with right-wing extremist groups. . . . Amir confessed to the assassination and reportedly told investigators, 'I acted alone on God's orders and I have no regrets'." -- CNN, November 4, 1995.

"The chairman of the Jewish Defense League and a member of the extremist organization are accused of a bombing scheme aimed at the office of an Arab-American congressman and a prominent Los Angeles mosque. JDL chairman Irv Rubin, 56, and Earl Krugel, 59, were held without bail Wednesday after being charged with the failed bombing plot. Authorities said the two men held a series of meetings in October to plan the bombing of the King Fahd Mosque and the San Clemente office of freshman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif" -- Fox News, December 13, 2001.

"Professor Zeev Sternhell knows as much as anyone about the current threat from Jewish terrorism. His right leg is recovering from shrapnel caused when a bomb, believed to have been the work of right-wing Jewish extremists, exploded outside the front door of his Jerusalem apartment last week. While Arab-Jewish violence is common, the attack on the 73-year-old historian has shocked public opinion in Israel because all the evidence points to it being intra-Jewish. 'I consider it an act of Jewish terrorism,' he said in an interview from the modest apartment where the bomb exploded" -- Telegraph, October 3, 2008.

"A doctor who performed abortions was shot to death by a sniper in his western New York home Friday night in an attack denounced as 'terrorism' by the state's governor. 'It's beyond a tragedy. It's really an act of terrorism and, in my mind, a cold-blooded assassination,' Gov. George Pataki said of the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian.' -- CNN, October 22, 1998.

"A white supremacist suspected of targeting blacks, Jews and Asians in a deadly Independence Day weekend drive-by shooting rampage from Chicago to Bloomington, Indiana, died after a high-speed chase in Salem, Illinois on Sunday night, police said Monday" -- CNN, July 5, 1999.

"Mountaineer Militia leader Floyd Looker, convicted in an alleged plot to blow up an FBI fingerprint complex, was sentenced to 18 years in federal prison Friday" -- Ocala Star-Ledger, October 11, 1996.

This is just a selection. What kind of blinders are we wearing that "Islam" and "Terrorism" have become so closely identified? Why aren't people who bomb abortion clinics in Kansas called "Christian Terrorists"? Is it surprising that some terrorist violence directed against the US comes from Muslims when we are engaged in war in a variety of predominantly Muslim nations? Are we seeing straight at all?

Conservatives Finally Declare Victory of Subjectivism

I'm not sure if you're heard of Conservapedia yet - it is the conservative encyclopedia created in contrast to Wikipedia, which, like the reality it seeks to describe, has a well-documented liberal bias. What I find most interesting about Conservapedia is that it flies in the face of every argument for objectivism I've ever heard.

It turns out that the best ideas don't in fact win out if you are a conservative. Consensual reality, as described by a community of mutually-critiquing peers, just isn't conservative enough. What you have to have are some ground rules to make sure that everyone experiences the right reality, describes it in the right way, and comes to the right conclusions.

This is a reality where Joseph McCarthy is a hero; where atheism is the result of moral depravity and all but guarantees mental health issues - not to mention a necessary tie to mass murder. It is a reality where Osama bin Laden is a prominent example of definitive Islam; where truly hilarious debates take place, like "How should Conservapedia avoid a conservative bias?" It is also where, in one paragraph, Reagan is described as the paragon of shrinking government as well as the progenitor of massive government dept and defense spending.

I wish any of this surprised me, but of course this worldview isn't hard to find. It is convenient, though, to have it all spelled out in one easy place.

Actually, as a side, I encourage you to play a game on Conservapedia called "Spot Osama bin Laden". He comes up in an amazing number of articles, speaking as an authority for the Muslim point of view. So far, I've found him mentioned prominently on Islam, the Crusades, and in Saudi Arabia as one of only two "notable Saudi Arabians".

See, what the victory of conservative ideas requires, apparently, is conservative control of how those ideas are investigated and expressed. It isn't enough to just sit down and talk it out, or have a huge, open wiki that can be edited by anyone and is subject to peer review at all times. That kind of thing is like the Bible - way too liberal for this crowd.

Maybe this is a first baby step, though, toward a wider world for some conservatives. It is clear that Conservapedia is a radical abandonment of objectivism of any kind. It is a total capitulation to subjectivism and a calculated attempt to control the type of subjectivity that will be allowed. It is a narrowing of reality and at the same time an admission of an infinitely broad one.

Reality isn't good enough, apparently. What we need is some conserveality.

Anyway, I encourage you to read some Conservapedia. It is like visiting an alien planet, both interesting and disturbing at the same time. Just remember, at any time, you can return to Earth for a breath of fresh air.