Many times during the Cheney/Bush regime, the Republicans, while in the majority, could not always get the needed 60 votes. Often they threatened the “nuclear option” meaning they’d have a vote to do away with the Senate procedure requiring the cloture vote. Now that the Republicans are no longer in the majority, and the Democrats are attempting to pass legislation by circumventing the requirement, Rethuglicans are all up in arms claiming its some sort of attempt to short-circuit democracy (which I thought had “majority rule” as one of its precepts).

Senators are no longer required to stay on the floor of the Senate speaking to hold the floor in a true filibuster (ala “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”). Given that, should the rule be modified to require a lower threshold for cloture, or eliminated all together? Tell us what you think in our poll.

Related posts

• 2006 Mid-Term Elections (1)
• Many Thanks Senator Kennedy (0)
• Restoration of Constitutional Rights (0)

• “would be unprecedented in scope,” - BS meter high-turns out the Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush the tax cuts which added $1.7 trillion to our federal deficit. I realize in Congress they don’t have much of a concept of money, but $1.7 trillion to me is pretty unprecedented in scope.
• “the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances” - BS meter through the roof-the system of checks and balances is based on three equal branches of government, each have a check on the other two. What procedures Congress decides to use in how it how it acts on legislation has nothing to do with “checks and balances.”
• “corrode the legislative system” – BS meter headed to low earth orbit-lest we all forget (which the Republicans are counting on) there is NOTHING, nada, zilch, zero, in the Constitution about the Senate requiring a sixty vote majority to pass normal legislation. The Constitution does require certain super-majorities in very special situations, but not for passing every-day legislation. This magical sixty vote thing is purely a creation of the Senate, and for those who argue about majority rule, this “super-majority” requirement would seem to fly in the face of that.
• “degrade our system of government” -BS meter now on an inter-planetary trajectory-A sitting member of the most corrupt Senate (and government in general) has the temerity to talk about “degrading our system of government?” This is the system has not created a system of state sponsored torture, taken us into a war of aggression against a country that had done nothing to us, has shredded the Constitution with the so called PATRIOT Act. Senator, “have you no shame?”

I just can’t fathom how these people can sit there and lie with a totally straight face. I am convinced they could not and would not tell the truth if that actually favored them.

Related posts

• A Time For Anger, A Call To Action (0)
• Alito’s America A Scary Place (0)
• An Incredible Article By Bill Moyers About Today’s Holy War In America (0)
• And You Thought The FL Legislature Couldn’t Get Crazier (0)
• Angels and Demons – A Movie Review (0)

Larry Stickney

They recently turned in their petitions. It has been reported that some of the paid signatures gatherers were dishonest about what the petition did (going so far as to say that it was in support of domestic partnerships). In light of that, the organization sponsoring the drive has sought and received a temporary restraining order to keep the names of the petition signers secret.

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) – A federal judge is halting the public release of petitions supporting a gay-partnership referendum.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle agreed to the temporary restraining order Wednesday, in a case that questions whether Washington’s open-government laws could discourage free speech.

But the R-71 campaign says that could lead to harassment. The state didn’t oppose the restraining order, but it will defend the public records law in court.

I’d like to advance some thoughts on the topic.

I’m not an attorney nor a Constitutional Scholar, but I did have sixth grade civics. As I see it, there are three kinds of “speech.” Admittedly, each has some gray area and overlap.

First is private speech or expression. That’s the kind I hold with myself in my head, or privately with another person in a private place. I am not inviting anyone else to listen, nor making the comment such that someone else might reasonably hear or see my expression or comment.

Private speech does not enjoy constitutional protections, because it doesn’t require protection. We often forget that the founders never intended that we go to the Constitution to try to “find” specific protections. They talked a lot about unalienable rights. This means that all conceivable rights accrue to the individual. The purpose of our Constitution was to lay out the boundaries to which the government can, for the public good, infringe on those rights.

Some will certainly bring up the “Bill of Rights,” as an attempt to list rights, but it was a compromise document added to ensure support. People did want certain specific rights enumerated, but the writers of the Constitution never felt a need to try to enumerate rights. They just assumed that all unalienable rights accrued to private individuals up to the point when conflicts arose.

Semi-private speech happens when I have a quiet conversation with another person in a public place…over lunch as an example. I’m not intending for the comments to be public, but both parties should realize that being in a public place can result in the comments being public.

This type of speech presents the most difficulty. I see this speech taking place in private places that may be open to the public (a restaurant for example). In these cases, I’m not totally free to say whatever I want, as held in the famous cases around not being allowed to yell “fire in a crowded theater.” The proprietor is allowed, in my opinion to control my speech or expression if it disrupts his business or disturbs other customers, but only to the extent that he would curtail such expressions for all patrons. The example here is, I don’t believe you have a right to stop gay people from kissing if you allow straight people to kiss, one can’t demand, even in a private establishment open to the public, that African-Americans must eat at a separate counter, but one must remember that on private property, there is much less protection for free speech.

Public Speech, to me, is that speech delivered in a truly public venue, “the town square (literal or virtual).” You are speaking there with the specific intent of public expression, and with a reasonable expectation your speech will be heard. In fact, being heard is generally the reason to conduct public speech. This is the type of speech specifically protected by the free speech clause in the Constitution.

There are two sides to “free speech.” You have a right to take to the public square and speak freely, but I have a right to go to the public square and witness/hear your expression. You are not entitled to go into the public square, but demand that all others be kept beyond ear-shot.

Judge Benjamin Settle

This is what I think is going on in the case of the R-71 supporters, and shame on this Judge for even issuing a temporary restraining order. I believe the minute the R-71 supporters invoked a “free speech” claim of any kind, they immediately ended any expectation of privacy for the signers. In effect, what they have asked, and the court has granted, is the ability to express themselves in the public sphere, but have every other citizen held out of ear-shot.

The Constitution guarantees us each a secret ballot, but we are not allowed to petition our government in secret. Despite Dick Cheney’s beliefs’ to the contrary, that is the very reason for open government statutes. The people’s business is supposed to be done before the people (all of them). Whether or not it might cause people harassment should be of absolutely no concern to the courts. The question is, if a person ventures into the public square to petition their government, are other citizens allowed to listen. This Judge has failed the test. I am entitled to know who is speaking, what they are saying, and who paid for the megaphone.

Related posts

• Fighting for The Right To Be Intolerant (1)
• Idiots of the Week for March 7 2008 (0)
• More Kink in The Republican Armor? (0)

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

Two days before this date in 1776, the Continental Congress had actually voted to break with Britain. It was on this day in 1776 that the assembled adopted the Declaration that set in motion the events that would forge this republic. What does it mean to be a Republic? The word ‘republic’ is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as “public affairs”. In its broadest definition, a republic is a state or country not led by a Monarch, and in which the people have influence on their government. Are we there yet, or did we have it and lose it?

I think we still have some ways to go, and sometimes I think we are losing ground. People of color have made progress, but make no mistake that racism remains alive and well. Gay people are only just starting to gain the legal rights to equal treatment. In that great document adopted on this day Jefferson talked about unalienable rights, and cited as examples “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If we all merely stepped aside and granted to each person those three things, we would be closer to a perfect union.

The primary and stated purpose for creating a Republic from the many states is in the preamble to Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The founders were intent on insuring several things for their and future generations. First is Justice and securing the Blessings of Liberty. The founders had previously cited King George’s unfair legal system that denied people fair trials, locked people away without charge or trial, took them to foreign soil without trial…sound familiar?

The others, “the common defense” and “promote the general Welfare” impose on Americans a need to care for one another. The idea that America is about nothing but individual freedom is not true. Each man is and should be free to pursue happiness, unless and until his goals come in conflict with the common good, or the rights of others. We seem to have so much lost sight of this part of our founding, and in that is where I find my fear for the survival of the republic.

We all complain that the government wastes money, and certainly in many cases they do, but so do big corporations. Any organization, once it’s large enough, supports a bureaucracy that is prone to waste and indifference. The hope of our founders is that the people would hold the government and their representatives accountable, and we can. With corporations, we have little recourse. So people go without healthcare and insurance because we allow our representatives to be bought and paid for by the insurance industry. We fail in educating our children because we don’t want to pay taxes, and we attend “tea parties” that are actually sponsored by wealthy corporations fomenting support for lower taxes on themselves, in the name of protecting “the little people.” 

I read with dismay a “Declaration of Redependance” by a group called teapartynextstep.com. It’s a knockoff of the Declaration of Independence, with the frightening claim that the unalienable rights are “life, liberty and property.” Notice the change. It’s no longer about the pursuit of happiness, but the pursuit of “things” being called for by these people…a corporate claim. Robert J. McCracken wrote, “We on this continent should never forget that men first crossed the Atlantic not find soil for their ploughs, but to secure liberty for their souls,” and I believe that is part of how we have lost our way. We’ve become a nation more intent on having things than providing for the common good.

They go one to complain of:

Disrespect for the Lordship of our God and Creator, His Words in the Holy Bible and the Ten Commandments, His imprint upon our founding documents, the moral decline of our society, the compromise of traditional family and life issues, and the loss of our principles, values and Common Sense.

They forget the constant and important warnings of the founders against the combining of government and religion. We know that, in the history of man, the blending of the two has always brought an end to those governments.

Our current President brought big hopes from the people of America to his new home on Pennsylvania Avenue, and he has done some good, but his administration has also clung to too many of the destructive policies of his predecessor.

Americans are a strong and proud people. We have faced our mistakes before, and we have called ourselves and our leaders to account when it was necessary. Our previous administration lead us down a dangerous immoral and illegal path, and we must face those actions and call to account those who perpetrated crimes against humanity and against the Constitution of this country.  This our Country can survive, but using the pretense that it never happened will surely bring this Republic to no good end.

I continue to fear for the Republic, but pray that I can share the same strength held by other good people who know that no American can enjoy liberty and justice until all Americans know those same blessings, and pray that I will have their courage to know that individuals can make a difference…in fact, most often do make the difference.

Happy 4th of July

Click here to view the embedded video.

From Tampa

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts

• A Time For Anger, A Call To Action (0)
• A Very Cool Distraction (0)
• Alito’s America A Scary Place (0)
• Craig and Vitter Sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment (0)
• DOMA, Obama and the DOJ (1)

Newt Gingrich is claiming it was all OK because Nancy Pelosi was briefed on it. Well, there is no provision in the Constitution that says a law can be circumvented by briefing someone in Congress.

The subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law should be troubling to every American, but I think I am most disturbed by our behavior from my moral and Christian perspective.

When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaida terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry…. These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek. –Former Vice President Dick Cheney, February 4, 2009

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. –Jesus, Luke 6:27-31.

These two opposing statements by former Vice-President Dick Cheney and Jesus Christ bring into sharp focus the contradictions of being a country that simultaneously lays claim to Judeo Christian values while going to any lengths to protect and preserve the American empire – including torture. What does the practice of torture by our government say about those of us who are American Christians?

The great biblical evangelists Paul and Steven were tortured, but continued to profess what they believe. They never used violence or coercion to spread the faith; rather people came to Jesus in part because of the non-violent Christian witness of the early members.

And lest we forget, it was Jesus who was himself tortured and killed. Early Christians espoused love in the face of hate, generosity in the face of theft, blessings for curses, and turning the cheek in the face of violence. They did this not out of weakness, but out of strength.

George Bush and other professing Christians succumbed to the temptation of perceived expediency to employ torture in order to try to create the non-existent link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Dick Cheney says “these are evil people” as a way to justify torture. But Christians have dealt with evil people before and Jesus taught us explicitly that evil is never overcome by evil; it is over come by Good. Plus, Jesus’ words in Luke 6 – Do unto others as you would have them do unto you – have a chilling resonance when it comes to torture.

A recent Pew Center survey indicates that the more a person attends church, the more supportive they tend to be of torture as practiced by the U.S. Government.¹ This raises a very serious crisis of faith within my soul, and it makes me fear for the very soul of my country. I fear what is to become of us and our Republic.

Over two years ago I spent time begging the Methodist Episcopacy to condemn American torture. Only five Bishops cared enough to call on Bush to halt the practice of torture.²³⁴⁵ The more one attends church, the greater should be the outrage when one reads comments like Cheney’s. Loyalty to a political cause should not triumph belief in human rights.

Sadly the new century seems to have changed our belief that we should be that “shining city on a hill” Regean talked about. We now consider the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions to be quaint and outdated. Defending the abuses by party leaders like Bush, Cheney and their henchmen have become more important that defending the basic human rights we claim to live by. And the media’s lack of calling people out for their hypocrisy has made the situation even worse.

Beginning in August 2002, was Justice Department memos authorizing waterboarding, sleep deprivation and beatings falling short of “organ failure and death,” specifically against captured al-Qaida functionary Abu Zubaydah.   The FBI, believing the orders illegal, actually withdrew from the investigation — a development conveniently overlooked by establishment Beltway pundits now bleating like sheep that despite their shamefulness, the “memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places … by the proper officials.

Experienced FBI interrogators who’d extracted crucial evidence from Zubaydah — including the identity of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhummad — were unable to confirm Cheney’s obsessions. Was it truth or useful fiction Cheney’s thugs were after? Authoritarian regimes have always used torture to secure false confessions.

The time-line is significant. All this took place precisely as the Bush White House began its 2002 pre-election propaganda campaign urging war with Iraq: “mushroom clouds,” yellowcake uranium, and so on.

As a result, we now, here in America, are having a discussion about the justifications for torture. Cheney is on the stump constantly claiming it was OK because we got actionable intelligence that saved lies, but we know that to be a lie:

“In the first congressional hearing on torture since the release of Bush administration memos that provided the legal justification for torture, Soufan told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the CIA’s abusive techniques were “ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaida.” According to Soufan, his own nonviolent interrogation of an al-Qaida suspect was quickly yielding valuable, actionable intelligence — until the CIA intervened.”⁶

We hear about the “ticking time bomb” scenario played out so often on the fictional TV show “24.”

“Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. . . . The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. . . .”⁷

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, at recent congressional hearings on the matter, tried to explain the Administrations attempts to make torture legal by saying, “they saw the law as a nicety we could not afford.”⁸

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification:⁹

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called “universal jurisdiction.” Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

Jesse Ventura, former Governor or Minnesota and Former Navy SEAL said this on a recent appearance on Larry King Live:

I’m bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we’ve created our own Hanoi Hilton. We can live with that? I have a problem.

I will criticize President Obama on this level; it’s a good thing I’m not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it. I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We’ve heard the claims:

• We got actionable intelligence — We know that to be not true.
• We saved lives — We’ve seen no evidence that plots have been foiled by information obtained through torture.
• We used torture only when necessary — We waterboarded one person over 100 times…really?
• It was OK because the Justice Department issued memos — The Justice Department has no Constitutional standing to make law or to authorized the circumvention of law.
• It was OK because we briefed members of Congress — As previously noted, no where does the Constitution provide that briefing members of Congress that you are about to break laws pardons you from the act.

John Adams (I suppose a screaming leftest) said: “the very definition of a republic is an empire of laws, and not of men. . . . that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of law, is the best of republics.”

It is time that Americans demand what Adams called on for, “the best of republics.” It is time we demand that those who tortured other human beings be called to account for what they have done.

The US was one of the countries that demonstrated how vital and essential it was, after the defeat of Germany in 1945, to not let war crimes get swept under the rug. Thomas Paine said:

“But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain… let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

But let us look no further back than Teddy Roosevelt: “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.”

1. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, April 29, 2009: More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified.
2. John Masters, “Resolutions By The United Methodist Council of Bishops,” Deep Something, May 13, 2005
3. John Masters, “Another Letter to the U.M. Bishops on Torture,” Deep Something, June 13, 2005
4. John Masters, “Here I Go Again,” Deep Something, June 16, 2005
5. John Masters, “Once Again A Call to Methodist Bishops to Denounce Torture,” Deep Something, Sept. 28, 2005.
6. Mark Benjamin, “Soufan: CIA torture actually hindered our intelligence gathering,” Salon.com.
7. Charles Krauthammer, “Torture? No, Except…,” The Washington Post, May 1, 2009.
8. Eric Zimmerman, “Graham: Bush admin saw law as unaffordable ‘nicety’,” The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, May 13, 2009
9. Glenn Greenwald, “Ronald Reagan: vengeful, score-settling, Hard Left idealogue,” Salon.com, May 1, 2009

Related posts

• Administration Changes (0)
• Administration Seeks to Narrow War Crimes Act (0)
• And , Always, Always…Wrong (0)
• Army Captain Alleges Systematic Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners (0)
• Breach (0)

It must have been bad, and Whitehouse says that we are going to be contrite and embarrassed. Many people on the right and in the Republican party would rather that we ignore the war crimes of those years. Even Obama has talked about only “looking forward,” but as Senator Leahy says, if we don’t confront these things, the past can be a prologue for the future. I hope that is unacceptable to you all.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts

• RAT-zinger’s Vatican in league with George…? (0)
• $1 Billion Stolen From Iraq’s Defense Ministry (0)
• 2006 Mid-Term Elections (1)
• 363 Tons of Cold Hard Cash Shipped to Iraq – No Kidding (0)
• Administration Seeks to Narrow War Crimes Act (0)

This is some progress, but Obama voted for the law when he was a Senator, and during his confirmation hearings last month, Attorney General Eric Holder indicated he would defend the law.

Under the law, a judge is required to dismiss a wiretapping suit against a telecommunications firm if the attorney general explains the firm’s role to the judge in a confidential statement. The government would say either that the firm had no role or that it participated based on assurances that the president had approved the eavesdropping to protect the nation from terrorism.

Judge Walker rightfully notes that the law appears to set no criteria for the attorney general to use when deciding if he will “grant” immunity for a particular company. I’m guessing it doesn’t because then Presidents Bush/Chenney were fighting to protect their friends. Walker is relying on a 1944 Supreme Court ruling which sets constitutional limits on laws granting power to the President.

Oh, I forgot, under Bush, the Constitution was just a “quaint old document.”

Related posts

• RAT-zinger’s Vatican in league with George…? (0)
• $1 Billion Stolen From Iraq’s Defense Ministry (0)
• 2006 Mid-Term Elections (1)
• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• 363 Tons of Cold Hard Cash Shipped to Iraq – No Kidding (0)

According to the story, Utah voting machine decision makers were told by a representative of Diebold that the company had approximately 20 offices in Utah, but refused to give the locations when pressed.

However, when calls were made to all of these offices, only one picked up the phone. And when the addresses of offices listed under Diebold in the White Pages were visited, the addresses turned out to belong to either a Wal-Mart, a Sam’s Club, or no building at all. In the end, 16 of the 18 Diebold offices in Utah listed in the White Pages were false listings. One is in Salt Lake, and the other is in Bountiful.

A blogger checked on some of the New York listed offices, and it seems the Diebold office in Buffalo is a Wal-Mart. Raw Story goes on to report that:

Out of 13 listings in Florida, 5 turned out to be Wal-Marts. Similar office listings have been uncovered in Alabama, Mississippi, and New Hampshire. Since the office listings exist in each state and not just in Utah, it is probably unlikely that the corporate branch in every state is acting independently of each other.

Not only does this raise the specter that the state offices are not acting independently, but you have to wonder if Wal-Mart might have a little something to do with this. Why would Diebold so consistently pick Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club addresses?

Anyway, all this from the company that wants to be the trusted source for maintaining the democratic system in America. I t hink not, and I think you should call your local Supervisor of Elections, and if they are using Diebold machines, demand a change.

Related posts

• The Brokeback Mountain Battle in the War on Christians (0)

My question is how can the Obama Administration not investigate, and, if appropriate, prosecute given the world is watching, because if they do not, other may do so? How could there be “change we can believe in” if the new administration harbors war criminals – which is the way that Philippe Sands and the rest of the world, familiar with the facts which have surfaced even without an investigation, view those who facilitated or engaged in torture?

One would think that people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, Gonzales, Yoo, Haynes and others, who claim to have done nothing wrong, would call for investigations to clear themselves if they really believed that to be the case. Only they, however, seem to believe in their innocence – the entire gutless and cowardly group of them, who have shamed themselves and the nation by committing crimes against humanity in the name of the United States.

We must all hope that the Obama Administration does the right thing, rather than forcing another country to clean up the mess and seek to erase the dangerous precedent these people have created for our country.

The testimony by Phillip Sands, Law Professor, to which he refers is here:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The evidence is remarkably clear, and I fail to see how anyone can turn a blind eye to this most egregious blot on America’s place in the world.

I hear the arguments that we must look forward and not back, but those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. We must, as a country, learn our lesson. We must take the appropriate rebuke from ourselves, and ensure that a clear message is sent to those in America who have come to believe that torture is OK if supporting it gets them votes. We most show the rest of the world that America gives no quarter to torturers, be they foreign or domestic.

It will not be a pleasant time in our history, but neither have the past eight years been pleasant. Our moral authority in the world has collapsed and is non-existent. Often we stood alone as the honest broker for what is right, but today we stand only as hypocrites.

I believe that the new Attorney General must appoint a Special Prosecutor, and an investigation must be conducted into the conduct of the Bush Administration in regards to torture, rendition and false imprisonment. These are all things explicitly detailed in America’s original Declaration of Independence as being unacceptable behavior by then King George. Our King George did no better, and just as America’s Founding Fathers called him to task for his transgressions, modern Patriots can do no less.

Related posts

• RAT-zinger’s Vatican in league with George…? (0)
• $1 Billion Stolen From Iraq’s Defense Ministry (0)
• 2006 Mid-Term Elections (1)
• 363 Tons of Cold Hard Cash Shipped to Iraq – No Kidding (0)
• Administration Seeks to Narrow War Crimes Act (0)

I was as upset as anyone who despises hate mongering and bigotry, especially when perpetrated for personal gain, at the selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation. Well, karma’s a bitch for the new President. In an otherwise flawless, stately, and eloquent ceremony,  Rick Warren was the low point. His speech was halting and confused. He was long-winded, and frankly sounded like some corn-pone hick (and being one myself, I know ‘em when I hear ‘em). His inflection and style lacked gravitas and humility and at times he seemed false, and was clearly mugging for the camera instead of concentrating on the prayer.

The next lowest point for me, frankly, was the poem. I admit to not being much of a reader of poetry, but that thing had me completely dumbfounded. I guess Mya Angelou’s poem, “On The Pulse of Morning,” at Clinton’s inauguration spoiled me. She had me in tears.

Rev. Lowery’s benediction was better poetry, and his rhetoric certainly more lofty than Warren’s.

And then, since he had to foist one last screw-up on the American people, Bush’s Chief Justice didn’t seem to bother to memorize the Constitutionally mandated oath of office. The only oath proscribed in the Constitution is the one for President, and John Roberts, Chief arbiter of the Constitution, apparently couldn’t be bothered to memorize it or at least write himself a crib note.

Obama’s speech was excellent, and touched on all the right themes. He seemed to offer a very strong repudiation to the fear and hate mongering of the past eight years. I hope his administration goes all out to reverse the scorched earth left by Bush/Cheney, Inc. He’s got a lot of work ahead of him, and he rightly called on Americans to be prepared to help. If we do, there really isn’t anything we can’t accomplish. It was a speech that called us to task for taking our eyes off the prize, and giving in to the Republican dogma of “us vs. them,” free-market greed above all else, and the fallacy of trickle down economics.

“We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.”

And despite all that, I think the part I enjoyed most was watching Yo Yo Ma playing the John Williams piece with the quartet. It wasn’t so much the music, as the expression on Ma’s face. While the other performers had the usual and expected expression of concentration, Ma just had a smile of pure joy and excitement at what he was doing.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I’m a sucker for the ceremonies of state, and today’s was “high church.” Barack and Michele Obama, and his children, were just the height of grace and beauty, and it does give me some hope that maybe a new day has begun.

Related posts

• RAT-zinger’s Vatican in league with George…? (0)
• $1 Billion Stolen From Iraq’s Defense Ministry (0)
• 2006 Mid-Term Elections (1)
• 363 Tons of Cold Hard Cash Shipped to Iraq – No Kidding (0)
• Alito’s America A Scary Place (0)