Good Fences and Good Neighbors…
It now appears the United States military is recognizing that the problems between Shiites and Sunnis stem from their close proximity to each other. In Azamiyah, a minority Sunni community surrounded on all sides by Shiite neighborhoods, the United States is constructing a three mile long barrier that will be as high as twelve feet in some areas. The community will be gated and Iraqi soldiers will police the traffic in and out of Azamiyah.
Apparently, the United States military is recognizing that the only way to keep groups united only by their mutual hatred from constantly being at each other's throats is to separate them altogether. It's a wonderful idea that may well bring on a sensible Iraq policy in which the existing country of Iraq is partitioned into three separate countries, with the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south while the Sunni take up their position in the eastern part of Iraq.
The problem with Iraq is that it is one country comprised of three distinct groups, each diametrically opposed to the other. Each of these groups wants autonomy to a degree and isn't receiving anything other than a forced democracy due to the experimental whims of the Western powers that currently occupy Iraq. Iraq's present democracy is a farce…for the people of Iraq do not choose their own destiny or the direction of their country. They get a slate of candidates and options vetted by the United States and its allies. If the Iraqi people were to vote on whether or not to begin the process of dividing the country, you can bet your last dollar that they would vote to split the country up along ethnic and religious lines.
However, the United States has no interest in seeing such an arrangement come to fruition. Why deal with three countries and their respective leaders over logistical and oil issues when you can deal with one country? True democracy in Iraq would complicate our mission in Iraq, which consists of getting nice fat contracts for American companies like Kellogg, Brown, and Root. In the meantime, American energy companies and interests have free and unfettered access to develop and manage Iraqi oilfields while upholding a cartel of oil producing countries known as OPEC…ensuring high prices for oil that are determined less by free market forces such as supply and demand and more by production controls and quotas set by the member countries of OPEC.
What would happen if Iraq were to break with OPEC and pursue its own interests? In the short term, Iraq could produce and sell as much oil as it desired. In the long term, a precedent would be set that decreed that every oil producing nation was in competition to produce the best product at the lowest possible price. Prices would likely go down. American petroleum companies would be faced with something other than record profits derived from the production quotas and corresponding high prices of desert monarchs.
American politicians and corporate leaders do a fine job of talking up free market economics while simultaneously engaging in an energy policy that defies notion of a free market altogether. Make no mistake about it; OPEC is in the price fixing business. However, so are the very energy companies that call America home. Good fences make good neighbors…and the barrier that most needs to be erected is one that would encourage member nations of OPEC to break from the quotas and produce oil according to demand rather than the overall desire of OPEC to fix the price of oil.
While Iraq desperately needs a new arrangement that would separate its warring religious and ethnic factions, the world needs an energy policy that would break OPEC apart once and for all. If and when OPEC ever is broken apart, the insidious power Islamic monarchies and governments possess to support terrorism will be greatly reduced. The world will be a safer place, and gasoline and other petroleum products will be vastly cheaper in a truly free market.
Iraq needs democracy. What it currently has is a limited democracy that is hopelessly incapable of providing the only real solution that would work: a divided Iraq that separates the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis once and for all while divvying up the energy resources in an equitable way between the groups. The reason for this is that Iraq's current democracy isn't concerned so much with providing a workable situation for Iraqis as it concerned with answering the desires and whims of the Western powers whose armies currently patrol the streets of Baghdad.
Iraq does not need three miles of concrete barriers...it needs real solutions that provide permanent stability and recognize the very real divisions between the various groups that reside within Iraq. Good fences may make good neighbors when the respective neighbors have a clear understanding of the property line, but when the property lines are in open dispute, fences do little if any good whatsoever. Indeed, they only provide another occasion for conflict. Iraqis do not need fences…they need property lines and new boundaries.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Thursday, November 23, 2006
An Admission of Stupidity and Arrogance
Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, decided to be honest and forthcoming about United States foreign policy and military strategy in Iraq. In an extraordinarily candid and unfiltered assessment of the United States' role in Iraq, Mr. Fernandez said that the U.S. had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq. It appeared that in the face of overwhelming evidence as to the hopelessness of the ground situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration had decided to throw in the rhetorical towel and admit the obvious: that the insurgents keep gaining traction, so much so that they can parade openly within sight of U.S. military bases without fear of reprisals.
In the meantime, recent estimates of the Iraqi casualty count were gaussian in stature: some 600,000 civilians were estimated dead as a result of the war. Sectarian death squads were accomplishing the unthinkable: making the regime of Saddam Hussein look like a government of relative peace and stability compared to the current government. Say what you will about Saddam, he controlled the ground situation for nearly three decades until we rolled in unfurling "Mission Accomplished" banners in a display of hauteur and hubris that left tongues wagging throughout the region. There were no roaming death squads who randomly executed civilians under Saddam, because Saddam had standards and wouldn't put up with such nonsense. He wasn't impeded by observer groups or deterred by the reports of Amnesty International when he confronted such menaces.
He simply killed or imprisoned the Neanderthals. His methodology may have been brutal and inhuman, but it was far more effective than the current strategy employed by allied forces in Iraq. The streets were safe. You could actually go out for cake and ice cream during Ramadan, and under the splendiferous security situation that we offer, the citizens of Iraq huddle in their homes hoping to keep their heads attached to their torsos.
In the midst of the extraordinary admissions by Mr. Fernandez and the daily death counts from the front, U.S. Senator Conrad Burns weighed in by stating that President Bush had a secret plan for victory that couldn't be unveiled just yet. In what has to rank as one of the more farcical occurrences of the midterm election campaigns, Burns stated that he knew of a secret presidential plan for victory in Iraq and then refused to reveal the plan to his opponent or the American voters. Mr. Burns' previous claim to fame was being designated as one of the thirteen most corrupt senators by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. According to disgraced former uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, "Every appropriation we wanted from Senator Conrad Burns' committee we got." Why the Citizens chose to stop at thirteen senators is beyond comprehension, but that's another essay entirely.
Unfortunately, any details we might want about this double secret edition plan for victory in Iraq are not available at this time. Mr. Burns and his cronies have these details, but as Senator Burns said to his opponent, they aren't going to tell us. The truth of the matter ought to be obvious: the President and his advisors are in disarray on Iraq. They have no real plan for anything concerning Iraq other than their strategy of uttering the phrases "stay the course" and "secure the ground situation" over and over again until the
public is numbed to the significance of what is truly going on.
Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. Shiites are killing Sunnis and vice versa, and the only ones who seem to be at a loss for recognizing the reality of the ground situation are the ones who oversee the ground situation: namely, the U.S. military and the Defense Department along with the entire Executive Branch of our government. While it may be inappropriate to criticize civilian leadership during a time of war, allow me: these people are not merely arrogant and stupid; they are asses for expecting us to swallow any more of their hooey.
There is no secret plan for victory, just as there is no public plan for victory. There is only the very real and obvious present plan of sticking our heads in the sand and occasionally peeking up to utter candid statements about our stupidity and arrogance. The Iraq war was winnable at one time. However, it has ceased to be winnable. We find ourselves in an intractable situation, fighting a war that cannot be won in any measurable sense of the concept while knowing that if we withdraw, we will leave Iraq on the edge of genocidal insanity.
All we can do is stand between the two major factions within Iraq as they swing away at each other and hope that we don't get clocked in the process of trying to stand between them. If we don't stand between them, they will likely usher in a medieval age of religious slaughter unparalleled in modern times. There are no easy answers in Iraq. However, in the United States we have only useless candor that comes months too late to matter from a bureaucrat who isn't high enough up the totem pole to be taken seriously in the first place.
All the while we have Senator Burns and others of his ilk traipsing around their states crowing about secret plans for victory that will be imperiled if their party isn't reelected in November. Truth be told, it doesn't matter who gets elected in November. The Democrats don't have any plan that will result in stability in Iraq, and neither do the Republicans. All either party can offer the electorate is a continuing vacuum of sensible strategy where Iraq is concerned…coupled with lungfuls of hot aired rhetoric about the shortcomings of their partisan foes.
There is no real reason to go to the polls come November, because votes don't mean anything with the current slate of candidates. Short of the heavens parting and God reaching down to collapse the dome of the Capitol Building with the members of both houses inside (and even then, he'd miss more than a few due to their lax attendance policies), we don't have any real options where meaningful political change is concerned. What Washington needs is an enema to flush away the encrusted corruption and hardened cynicism that pervades our political reality and creates environments like the one that we currently have in the Middle East.
Perhaps then Mr. Fernandez and others like him could begin acknowledging that the Middle East had a chance for democracy back in the 1960's, but due to the fact that the democratically elected representatives of countries like Lebanon and Iran weren't chummy enough with U.S. business interests, we helped overthrow those democratically elected regimes only to find three decades later that our efforts qualified as a gift that kept on giving.
In Beirut, we watched as terrorists bombed a Marine Corps barracks in 1983, killing hundreds of U.S. and French soldiers. Some thirty years before we had rigged an election in Lebanon, allowing the minority Christians of that country to ride roughshod over the majority Muslim population. As a result, the Muslim population rightly felt cheated of their right to elect representation. At the time, the U.S. was cavalier in its indifference to the outrage of the Muslims, even when that outrage blossomed into a destructive civil war that tore Lebanon apart. When the bombs ripped through the barracks and killed U.S. soldiers, we didn't draw the connection between our interference in democratic elections and the dividends that were paid as a result on that October day in 1983.
In Iran, we overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh, who had the unmitigated gall to oppose British efforts to deprive Iran of its oil assets. Mossadegh nationalized Iranian oil assets, effectively removing British control over Iranian oil infrastructure. The British promptly sued Iran in international court, but lost. Mossadegh had the popular support of the Iranian people, was legitimately elected, and was well within his rights to assert Iranian control over an Iranian asset. He was acting in the best interests of the country that had elected him to defend and assert its interest.
The interests of Iran were not of paramount concern to the British or Americans who mounted a coup and removed Mossadegh from power on August 19, 1953. They installed a Shah who gave them carte blanche to do as they pleased with Iranian oil, engaged in torture of Iranian citizens who opposed his undemocratic government, and generally came to represent a Western puppet to the Iranian people. When the Shah was overthrown by Islamic fanatics, we still could not fathom why the Iranian people would choose the Ayatollahs over our puppet. It should have been obvious: our puppet was our puppet, and their revolution, puerile and asinine though it may have been, was their revolution. They identified with that revolution in a way that they could never have identified with the government of the Shah. He was ours, and the ayatollahs, for better or worse, were theirs.
They had every right to resent U.S. and Western interference, just as the Lebanese did. We created legions of terrorists with our undermining of democracy some five decades ago, and the dividends from that interference continue to be paid on the ground in Iraq today. Had we allowed democracy to germinate and flourish in the region back in the 1950's, it is doubtful that we would have the problematic relationship that we currently have with the region. Time will tell if our recently admitted arrogance and stupidity have wrecked a chance for democracy within the Middle East altogether.
In the meantime, recent estimates of the Iraqi casualty count were gaussian in stature: some 600,000 civilians were estimated dead as a result of the war. Sectarian death squads were accomplishing the unthinkable: making the regime of Saddam Hussein look like a government of relative peace and stability compared to the current government. Say what you will about Saddam, he controlled the ground situation for nearly three decades until we rolled in unfurling "Mission Accomplished" banners in a display of hauteur and hubris that left tongues wagging throughout the region. There were no roaming death squads who randomly executed civilians under Saddam, because Saddam had standards and wouldn't put up with such nonsense. He wasn't impeded by observer groups or deterred by the reports of Amnesty International when he confronted such menaces.
He simply killed or imprisoned the Neanderthals. His methodology may have been brutal and inhuman, but it was far more effective than the current strategy employed by allied forces in Iraq. The streets were safe. You could actually go out for cake and ice cream during Ramadan, and under the splendiferous security situation that we offer, the citizens of Iraq huddle in their homes hoping to keep their heads attached to their torsos.
In the midst of the extraordinary admissions by Mr. Fernandez and the daily death counts from the front, U.S. Senator Conrad Burns weighed in by stating that President Bush had a secret plan for victory that couldn't be unveiled just yet. In what has to rank as one of the more farcical occurrences of the midterm election campaigns, Burns stated that he knew of a secret presidential plan for victory in Iraq and then refused to reveal the plan to his opponent or the American voters. Mr. Burns' previous claim to fame was being designated as one of the thirteen most corrupt senators by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. According to disgraced former uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, "Every appropriation we wanted from Senator Conrad Burns' committee we got." Why the Citizens chose to stop at thirteen senators is beyond comprehension, but that's another essay entirely.
Unfortunately, any details we might want about this double secret edition plan for victory in Iraq are not available at this time. Mr. Burns and his cronies have these details, but as Senator Burns said to his opponent, they aren't going to tell us. The truth of the matter ought to be obvious: the President and his advisors are in disarray on Iraq. They have no real plan for anything concerning Iraq other than their strategy of uttering the phrases "stay the course" and "secure the ground situation" over and over again until the
public is numbed to the significance of what is truly going on.
Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. Shiites are killing Sunnis and vice versa, and the only ones who seem to be at a loss for recognizing the reality of the ground situation are the ones who oversee the ground situation: namely, the U.S. military and the Defense Department along with the entire Executive Branch of our government. While it may be inappropriate to criticize civilian leadership during a time of war, allow me: these people are not merely arrogant and stupid; they are asses for expecting us to swallow any more of their hooey.
There is no secret plan for victory, just as there is no public plan for victory. There is only the very real and obvious present plan of sticking our heads in the sand and occasionally peeking up to utter candid statements about our stupidity and arrogance. The Iraq war was winnable at one time. However, it has ceased to be winnable. We find ourselves in an intractable situation, fighting a war that cannot be won in any measurable sense of the concept while knowing that if we withdraw, we will leave Iraq on the edge of genocidal insanity.
All we can do is stand between the two major factions within Iraq as they swing away at each other and hope that we don't get clocked in the process of trying to stand between them. If we don't stand between them, they will likely usher in a medieval age of religious slaughter unparalleled in modern times. There are no easy answers in Iraq. However, in the United States we have only useless candor that comes months too late to matter from a bureaucrat who isn't high enough up the totem pole to be taken seriously in the first place.
All the while we have Senator Burns and others of his ilk traipsing around their states crowing about secret plans for victory that will be imperiled if their party isn't reelected in November. Truth be told, it doesn't matter who gets elected in November. The Democrats don't have any plan that will result in stability in Iraq, and neither do the Republicans. All either party can offer the electorate is a continuing vacuum of sensible strategy where Iraq is concerned…coupled with lungfuls of hot aired rhetoric about the shortcomings of their partisan foes.
There is no real reason to go to the polls come November, because votes don't mean anything with the current slate of candidates. Short of the heavens parting and God reaching down to collapse the dome of the Capitol Building with the members of both houses inside (and even then, he'd miss more than a few due to their lax attendance policies), we don't have any real options where meaningful political change is concerned. What Washington needs is an enema to flush away the encrusted corruption and hardened cynicism that pervades our political reality and creates environments like the one that we currently have in the Middle East.
Perhaps then Mr. Fernandez and others like him could begin acknowledging that the Middle East had a chance for democracy back in the 1960's, but due to the fact that the democratically elected representatives of countries like Lebanon and Iran weren't chummy enough with U.S. business interests, we helped overthrow those democratically elected regimes only to find three decades later that our efforts qualified as a gift that kept on giving.
In Beirut, we watched as terrorists bombed a Marine Corps barracks in 1983, killing hundreds of U.S. and French soldiers. Some thirty years before we had rigged an election in Lebanon, allowing the minority Christians of that country to ride roughshod over the majority Muslim population. As a result, the Muslim population rightly felt cheated of their right to elect representation. At the time, the U.S. was cavalier in its indifference to the outrage of the Muslims, even when that outrage blossomed into a destructive civil war that tore Lebanon apart. When the bombs ripped through the barracks and killed U.S. soldiers, we didn't draw the connection between our interference in democratic elections and the dividends that were paid as a result on that October day in 1983.
In Iran, we overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh, who had the unmitigated gall to oppose British efforts to deprive Iran of its oil assets. Mossadegh nationalized Iranian oil assets, effectively removing British control over Iranian oil infrastructure. The British promptly sued Iran in international court, but lost. Mossadegh had the popular support of the Iranian people, was legitimately elected, and was well within his rights to assert Iranian control over an Iranian asset. He was acting in the best interests of the country that had elected him to defend and assert its interest.
The interests of Iran were not of paramount concern to the British or Americans who mounted a coup and removed Mossadegh from power on August 19, 1953. They installed a Shah who gave them carte blanche to do as they pleased with Iranian oil, engaged in torture of Iranian citizens who opposed his undemocratic government, and generally came to represent a Western puppet to the Iranian people. When the Shah was overthrown by Islamic fanatics, we still could not fathom why the Iranian people would choose the Ayatollahs over our puppet. It should have been obvious: our puppet was our puppet, and their revolution, puerile and asinine though it may have been, was their revolution. They identified with that revolution in a way that they could never have identified with the government of the Shah. He was ours, and the ayatollahs, for better or worse, were theirs.
They had every right to resent U.S. and Western interference, just as the Lebanese did. We created legions of terrorists with our undermining of democracy some five decades ago, and the dividends from that interference continue to be paid on the ground in Iraq today. Had we allowed democracy to germinate and flourish in the region back in the 1950's, it is doubtful that we would have the problematic relationship that we currently have with the region. Time will tell if our recently admitted arrogance and stupidity have wrecked a chance for democracy within the Middle East altogether.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Jordan's own 9-11
In the Middle East, dates are written with the month after the day, and this particular tidbit of information only makes the recent terrorist attacks in Jordan all the more tragically symbolic. On the ninth day of the eleventh month (November 9th, 2005), suicide bombers entered three hotels in Amman, Jordan, and detonated bombs that killed 56 people. They managed to kill good fundamentalist Muslims who hated the United States with a passion, and by doing so, they engaged in a rare public relations faux pas. The people of Jordan flooded the streets outside the hotels chanting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi!" in a demonstration that was astonishing due to the fact that it was organized by anti-Western Islamic hardline trade groups that have expressed sympathy and support for Al-Qaida and other Islamic terror groups in the past.
The Jordanian people found their own personal limit for terrorist activity on November 9th, because terrorism found its way to their doorsteps and neighborhoods with its insidious ways. No longer could they look at the television screen and cheer for the stretchers bearing wounded American civilians, because the images on the screen showed them the consequence of tolerating or endorsing terrorist activity for their own countrymen. Allah, it seems, is not without a sense of delicious irony.
Al-Qaida didn't attack an occupying force in this attack, it didn't assault a foe that was Western in origin, it instead attacked Arab Muslims in an ambush made all the more vicious by the messages Al-Qaida posted on the Internet afterwards. These messages justified the killing of Muslims because they lived in “a backyard garden for the enemies of the religion, Jews and crusaders ... a filthy place for the traitors ... and a center for prostitution.” Jordanians obviously did not agree with Al-Qaida's assessment of their homeland or the cold-blooded murders of their countrymen.
The "center of prostitution" was actually a wedding. Two individuals were about to be united in holy vows before their maker when they and their guests had their sacred ceremonies cut short by a suicide bomber. Not one Jew was listed amongst the casualties, which likely rendered the attack a total waste in the mind of even the most hardened terrorist. The vast majority of the victims were probably good solid Jew-hating Muslims who felt great glee when they viewed the images broadcast on Al-Jazeera of the effects of the Al-Qaida masterminded Iraqi insurrection. They did not deserve the fate that befell them. They certainly did not deserve to be slandered with invidious terms after their deaths.
This day will likely live on as the most maladroit moment in Al-Qaida's history. They slaughtered their political and spiritual base in these attacks, and they denigrated their victim's memories by labeling them as foes of Islam, Jews, and consorts of harlotry. Al-Zarqawi could possibly face pressure to resign by his colleagues, just as Trent Lott felt pressure from his colleagues to resign after his ringing endorsement of Strom Thurmond. Al-Qaida cannot afford to alienate the base on which it depends.
The public relations arm of Al-Qaida needs to spring forward to engage in damage control. They should find a willing cleric who will postulate some consolation prize for those who lost their relatives in the attacks. Extra virgins in paradise, perhaps? Who knows what conciliatory message will be crafted to assuage the current wrath of the Jordanian people towards Al-Qaida.
In the meantime, the countries of the Middle East should realize now more than ever what the leading cause of death for snake handlers happens to be (take a wild guess). Those countries who allow terror to flourish within their borders or who harbor and give safe passage to terrorist figures only set themselves up for grief at a later date. Al-Zarqawi spent three years in a Jordanian prison, but he was pardoned by the King. On November 9th, he showed the world his deep capacity for gratitude by killing 33 Jordanians and 23 other people of varying nationalities. His original sentence was fifteen years, and had he been held for the duration of his original prison term, these attacks would likely not have occurred.
Terrorism breeds instability and chaos wherever it is tolerated, and until recently Muslims have been willing to tolerate that instability and chaos so long as it was directed at Americans and Jews. Nowadays we see a new trend: terrorism is being used as a weapon against Muslims who apparently aren't Muslim enough to satiate the stringent requirements of men such as Al-Zarqawi. Perhaps Muslims will now realize that it does not pay to look with romanticism upon the antics of such men and their groups, because they might one day find themselves on the receiving end of an attack. We can only hope that this will be the case.
The Jordanian people found their own personal limit for terrorist activity on November 9th, because terrorism found its way to their doorsteps and neighborhoods with its insidious ways. No longer could they look at the television screen and cheer for the stretchers bearing wounded American civilians, because the images on the screen showed them the consequence of tolerating or endorsing terrorist activity for their own countrymen. Allah, it seems, is not without a sense of delicious irony.
Al-Qaida didn't attack an occupying force in this attack, it didn't assault a foe that was Western in origin, it instead attacked Arab Muslims in an ambush made all the more vicious by the messages Al-Qaida posted on the Internet afterwards. These messages justified the killing of Muslims because they lived in “a backyard garden for the enemies of the religion, Jews and crusaders ... a filthy place for the traitors ... and a center for prostitution.” Jordanians obviously did not agree with Al-Qaida's assessment of their homeland or the cold-blooded murders of their countrymen.
The "center of prostitution" was actually a wedding. Two individuals were about to be united in holy vows before their maker when they and their guests had their sacred ceremonies cut short by a suicide bomber. Not one Jew was listed amongst the casualties, which likely rendered the attack a total waste in the mind of even the most hardened terrorist. The vast majority of the victims were probably good solid Jew-hating Muslims who felt great glee when they viewed the images broadcast on Al-Jazeera of the effects of the Al-Qaida masterminded Iraqi insurrection. They did not deserve the fate that befell them. They certainly did not deserve to be slandered with invidious terms after their deaths.
This day will likely live on as the most maladroit moment in Al-Qaida's history. They slaughtered their political and spiritual base in these attacks, and they denigrated their victim's memories by labeling them as foes of Islam, Jews, and consorts of harlotry. Al-Zarqawi could possibly face pressure to resign by his colleagues, just as Trent Lott felt pressure from his colleagues to resign after his ringing endorsement of Strom Thurmond. Al-Qaida cannot afford to alienate the base on which it depends.
The public relations arm of Al-Qaida needs to spring forward to engage in damage control. They should find a willing cleric who will postulate some consolation prize for those who lost their relatives in the attacks. Extra virgins in paradise, perhaps? Who knows what conciliatory message will be crafted to assuage the current wrath of the Jordanian people towards Al-Qaida.
In the meantime, the countries of the Middle East should realize now more than ever what the leading cause of death for snake handlers happens to be (take a wild guess). Those countries who allow terror to flourish within their borders or who harbor and give safe passage to terrorist figures only set themselves up for grief at a later date. Al-Zarqawi spent three years in a Jordanian prison, but he was pardoned by the King. On November 9th, he showed the world his deep capacity for gratitude by killing 33 Jordanians and 23 other people of varying nationalities. His original sentence was fifteen years, and had he been held for the duration of his original prison term, these attacks would likely not have occurred.
Terrorism breeds instability and chaos wherever it is tolerated, and until recently Muslims have been willing to tolerate that instability and chaos so long as it was directed at Americans and Jews. Nowadays we see a new trend: terrorism is being used as a weapon against Muslims who apparently aren't Muslim enough to satiate the stringent requirements of men such as Al-Zarqawi. Perhaps Muslims will now realize that it does not pay to look with romanticism upon the antics of such men and their groups, because they might one day find themselves on the receiving end of an attack. We can only hope that this will be the case.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The IRS, Churches, and Politics: Dy-no-mite!
The IRS has notified a California church that its tax-exempt status could be revoked after a guest speaker gave a sermon that opposed the war in Iraq along with the tax cuts proposed by President Bush. All Saints Episcopal Church has a history of supporting Democratic and liberal causes with sermons and its website, which included the church's opposition to three propositions on the ballot in California's recent special election, saying that the three initiatives would “alter the very fabric of our lives as a democracy by limiting the right to representation and the right to express a political point of view.”
The church did cross the line from mere postulations on spiritual matters to go into the realm of political expression, and the IRS does possess the right and responsibility to go after tax-exempt organizations that do such things given that they are forbidden to make political statements by law. All Saints was wrong to engage in political expression, and no amount of braying and howling by its members and leaders will change this basic fact. Church rector J. Edwin Bacon labeled the IRS actions as “a direct assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” However, there are those of us who see the actions of All Saints and other churches who make such statements under the auspices of freedom of religion as a direct assault on the separation of church and state in this country.
What is troubling about this instance isn't the fact that All Saints is being confronted with legal consequences for its actions, but instead the fact that not one church has been prosecuted in the same manner for any statements of support it might have made for the tax cuts, Republican leaders, and the various wars our country is engaged in. We know that these churches are in existence. In Waynesville, North Carolina, nine members of the East Waynesville Baptist Church were voted out of their memberships after pastor Chan Chandler told members from the pulpit that those who planned to vote for John Kerry should repent or leave the church. Despite the fact that some forty potential witnesses left the church in protest over the methods and reasons used to eliminate the nine members who were voted out, the IRS has yet to take action against East Waynesville Baptist Church.
Legal enforcement of the laws prohibiting political expression and involvement by tax-exempt organizations such as churches should be uniform. The facts as they exist currently suggest that uniform enforcement and application of the law is not the strong suit of our Internal Revenue Service. It isn't that East Waynesville wasn't as vocal about its political leanings as All Saints was, because the East Waynesville incident was publicized throughout the state of North Carolina and was even covered by the Washington Post. In forty-five seconds, I was able to Google search and find the story of East Waynesville on the Internet. Surely the Internal Revenue Service could have done so, if in fact the enforcement of federal regulations against political interference by tax-exempt churches was so important to its agents and leadership.
The All Saints incident highlights a troubling trend that has existed for some time: the partisan use and enforcement of the power of supposedly independent government agencies to selectively eliminate illegal dissent on the part of churches whose misfortune happens to be that their view is not in vogue with the powers that be. Illegal speech should be prosecuted because it is illegal, and not because it conflicts with the prevailing political winds.
The following articles were used as source material in this blog:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9962725/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700972.html
The church did cross the line from mere postulations on spiritual matters to go into the realm of political expression, and the IRS does possess the right and responsibility to go after tax-exempt organizations that do such things given that they are forbidden to make political statements by law. All Saints was wrong to engage in political expression, and no amount of braying and howling by its members and leaders will change this basic fact. Church rector J. Edwin Bacon labeled the IRS actions as “a direct assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” However, there are those of us who see the actions of All Saints and other churches who make such statements under the auspices of freedom of religion as a direct assault on the separation of church and state in this country.
What is troubling about this instance isn't the fact that All Saints is being confronted with legal consequences for its actions, but instead the fact that not one church has been prosecuted in the same manner for any statements of support it might have made for the tax cuts, Republican leaders, and the various wars our country is engaged in. We know that these churches are in existence. In Waynesville, North Carolina, nine members of the East Waynesville Baptist Church were voted out of their memberships after pastor Chan Chandler told members from the pulpit that those who planned to vote for John Kerry should repent or leave the church. Despite the fact that some forty potential witnesses left the church in protest over the methods and reasons used to eliminate the nine members who were voted out, the IRS has yet to take action against East Waynesville Baptist Church.
Legal enforcement of the laws prohibiting political expression and involvement by tax-exempt organizations such as churches should be uniform. The facts as they exist currently suggest that uniform enforcement and application of the law is not the strong suit of our Internal Revenue Service. It isn't that East Waynesville wasn't as vocal about its political leanings as All Saints was, because the East Waynesville incident was publicized throughout the state of North Carolina and was even covered by the Washington Post. In forty-five seconds, I was able to Google search and find the story of East Waynesville on the Internet. Surely the Internal Revenue Service could have done so, if in fact the enforcement of federal regulations against political interference by tax-exempt churches was so important to its agents and leadership.
The All Saints incident highlights a troubling trend that has existed for some time: the partisan use and enforcement of the power of supposedly independent government agencies to selectively eliminate illegal dissent on the part of churches whose misfortune happens to be that their view is not in vogue with the powers that be. Illegal speech should be prosecuted because it is illegal, and not because it conflicts with the prevailing political winds.
The following articles were used as source material in this blog:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9962725/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700972.html
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
France Is Burning!
The French government has recently discovered that melting pot societies often lead to meltdowns of a sort. Three hundred of its towns are in turmoil as French youths riot over the accidental deaths of two teenagers who hid themselves in a power substation to avoid the police. The two criminal masterminds were electrocuted as a consequence of their unfortunate choice of a hiding place, and ever since, France has been gripped by a youth rebellion primarily composed of North African and Muslim teenagers.
The French government has revealed its ineptitude and total lack of comprehension in the process of its response to the rioting. Consider the statements of Jacque Chirac, French president and domestic leader extraordinaire: "[France] has not done everything possible for these youths, supported them so they feel understood, heard and respected." Well, it is doubtful that they feel respected even now, but they are certainly aware of the power that they have achieved through fear. Close to 2, 600 automobiles have been firebombed, buses have been torched, hospitals and kindergartens have been set ablaze, all by the youthful misunderstood cherubs who apparently emote their angst in tongues of fire.
They have thrown rocks and gasoline bombs at the police, who might have justifiably discharged a firearm or two to protect themselves, but there is no evidence that the French police have been empowered to take such action to combat the extreme lawlessness that they and their countrymen are imperiled by. The issue here is one of cause and effect, action and consequence: if you hide in a power substation, you might be electrocuted. If you hurl incendiary devices at the police, thereby threatening their well-being and lives, you might be shot, injured, or killed for doing so. That would be the reasonable conclusion to draw, but France is a society that has suspended reason for the time being.
Why has France suspended reason and surrendered to the consequence of its illogical policy of appeasement in the face of teenage anarchy? It has done so because it is a liberal society, founded on humane ideals that forbid reaction against even the most vicious and destructive forms of human behavior, lest one be compromised morally by the reaction. The French government can rightly say it has the moral high ground by repeatedly turning the other cheek to the rioters and brigands who set the streets ablaze each night, but with the high ground comes millions of dollars in property damage and the dangerous precedent that lawlessness is a means to an end.
Sociopaths have a curious tendency to disregard moral overtures because they ultimately respect one thing only: power. If you exercise greater power than they can exercise, you can subdue them and manage their behavior. If you exercise greater negotiation skills and superb diplomatic dialogue, you do not stem their behavior or its destructive results. You will never reach someone who has indicated a wanton disregard for moral or secular law with appeals based on moral or secular law, because they do not care. Their lack of caring is a prime indicator that they might be criminal in intent and purpose.
The teenagers who have taken to the streets in France to senselessly destroy schools, buses, hospitals, and businesses do not care to be understood. They do not care to make a point. They care for one thing: destroying without consequence. The French government's policy of appeasement and containment has empowered young thugs to boldly go forth and pillage. If the French government were to actually send out police and military forces who used force in the form of tear gas and rubber bullets (and possibly even genuine bullets), the unrest that has paralyzed the French countryside in fear each night would come to an abrupt end.
There would be those who erected graffiti memorials to the dead and eulogized them as martyrs and casualties of an unjust and uncaring society, but the French government would provide its citizens with the things that governments are supposed to provide their citizens: order and civil peace. Jacques Chirac can plead endlessly with the miscreants who burn and pillage nightly in his country; he can reason eloquently with them if he wishes to do so, but he will find that their characters render them incapable of hearing such speech. The character of the average rioter can be moved to cessation of destructive action by one thing only: a display of force that is greater than any he can muster, a force that could imperil the one thing he truly values, which is his life.
It remains to be seen if the French government has the willingness to muster up such a force in response to the chaos that has held its country captive in the past week. Perhaps negotiation is the answer and Chirac needs to request an audience with the rioter's potentate, whomever he may be, in order to set the terms for a peace. In the meantime, how many schools and hospitals will be burned, and how many French citizens who respect the law so much that they actually abide by it will be put at risk by their government's indecision?
The French government has revealed its ineptitude and total lack of comprehension in the process of its response to the rioting. Consider the statements of Jacque Chirac, French president and domestic leader extraordinaire: "[France] has not done everything possible for these youths, supported them so they feel understood, heard and respected." Well, it is doubtful that they feel respected even now, but they are certainly aware of the power that they have achieved through fear. Close to 2, 600 automobiles have been firebombed, buses have been torched, hospitals and kindergartens have been set ablaze, all by the youthful misunderstood cherubs who apparently emote their angst in tongues of fire.
They have thrown rocks and gasoline bombs at the police, who might have justifiably discharged a firearm or two to protect themselves, but there is no evidence that the French police have been empowered to take such action to combat the extreme lawlessness that they and their countrymen are imperiled by. The issue here is one of cause and effect, action and consequence: if you hide in a power substation, you might be electrocuted. If you hurl incendiary devices at the police, thereby threatening their well-being and lives, you might be shot, injured, or killed for doing so. That would be the reasonable conclusion to draw, but France is a society that has suspended reason for the time being.
Why has France suspended reason and surrendered to the consequence of its illogical policy of appeasement in the face of teenage anarchy? It has done so because it is a liberal society, founded on humane ideals that forbid reaction against even the most vicious and destructive forms of human behavior, lest one be compromised morally by the reaction. The French government can rightly say it has the moral high ground by repeatedly turning the other cheek to the rioters and brigands who set the streets ablaze each night, but with the high ground comes millions of dollars in property damage and the dangerous precedent that lawlessness is a means to an end.
Sociopaths have a curious tendency to disregard moral overtures because they ultimately respect one thing only: power. If you exercise greater power than they can exercise, you can subdue them and manage their behavior. If you exercise greater negotiation skills and superb diplomatic dialogue, you do not stem their behavior or its destructive results. You will never reach someone who has indicated a wanton disregard for moral or secular law with appeals based on moral or secular law, because they do not care. Their lack of caring is a prime indicator that they might be criminal in intent and purpose.
The teenagers who have taken to the streets in France to senselessly destroy schools, buses, hospitals, and businesses do not care to be understood. They do not care to make a point. They care for one thing: destroying without consequence. The French government's policy of appeasement and containment has empowered young thugs to boldly go forth and pillage. If the French government were to actually send out police and military forces who used force in the form of tear gas and rubber bullets (and possibly even genuine bullets), the unrest that has paralyzed the French countryside in fear each night would come to an abrupt end.
There would be those who erected graffiti memorials to the dead and eulogized them as martyrs and casualties of an unjust and uncaring society, but the French government would provide its citizens with the things that governments are supposed to provide their citizens: order and civil peace. Jacques Chirac can plead endlessly with the miscreants who burn and pillage nightly in his country; he can reason eloquently with them if he wishes to do so, but he will find that their characters render them incapable of hearing such speech. The character of the average rioter can be moved to cessation of destructive action by one thing only: a display of force that is greater than any he can muster, a force that could imperil the one thing he truly values, which is his life.
It remains to be seen if the French government has the willingness to muster up such a force in response to the chaos that has held its country captive in the past week. Perhaps negotiation is the answer and Chirac needs to request an audience with the rioter's potentate, whomever he may be, in order to set the terms for a peace. In the meantime, how many schools and hospitals will be burned, and how many French citizens who respect the law so much that they actually abide by it will be put at risk by their government's indecision?
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Samuel "The Bull" Alito
Much has been made of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's prior record on civil rights in the past few days. Alito possesses the requisites for consideration as a conservative in that he opposes a broad reading of anti-discrimination laws, but he also brings forth skeletons from the Princeton past. While a law student at Princeton, Alito was quite the liberal in terms of sexual mores.
As a student at Princeton, young Alito came out against government regulation in the boudoir, stating that "no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden.” This was some thirty years before the Supreme Court decriminalized gay sexual conduct, thereby inserting a constitutional right to such behavior into our jurisprudence. Alito could thus be looked upon as an intrepid trailblazer in legal philosophy by liberal groups, but it is doubtful that this will happen.
The motto of today's liberals is clear: What have you done for us lately? Samuel Alito, alas, has done little. He has set the bar high in discrimination cases, finding that the use of prosecutorial strikes against black jurors in 13 of 14 instances indicated the very reasonable possibility that such strikes were racially motivated. Fourteen out of fourteen would have cemented his certainty in that instance, but a paltry thirteen merely piqued his interest at the possibility.
He also supported the idea that women should be legally required to notify their spouses when seeking an abortion, but fortunately for the liberal cliques, he was a simple dissenter on the issue. The audacity of his legal reasoning is clear even today: why, men could be taken to be equal partners in conception with an equal say if Alito's views were allowed to prevail! It shows how far we have come as a society: equal partnership in conception used to be considered a prerequisite for the act, perhaps even a positive thing, but nowadays it is a mere albatross around the neck of oppressed wives who simply want to be able divorce their husbands from the decision to terminate a pregnancy they jointly entered into with said husbands without having to formally divorce them in a court of law. The gall, I say!
Lest you think it was easy for Justice Alito to arrive at such a gutsy dissenting viewpoint, consider what he is quoted as telling Senator Dick Durbin, the number two man in the Senate minority and the fifty-seventh ranking Senator overall: "He told me that “he spent more time worrying over it and working on that dissent than any he had written as a judge.”" One can see Judge Alito in that crucible of a moment where, sweating blood and cracking under the strain, he crossed his personal Rubicon, never to look back on those glorious days of youth spent discouraging government interference in private acts between adults lest he be turned into a pillar of salt.
Yes, Samuel Alito is a rare breed of jurist. He agonizes, pains even, over his decisions. The law is an occasion to emote, dear citizens, for such a man as Alito. I feel a groundswell, a massive surge of support arising for Samuel Alito from that bastion of legal emoting and hand wringing known as the Democratic Party. He is their kindred spirit, a man who realizes that the law has a human side that sits opposite the ink and pulp if you will flip the pages over often enough in an effort to discover it.
There is hope in Spintown, just as there is balm in Gilead and respite in Nepenthe. A bipartisan fervor of goodwill is swelling beneath the epidermis of Washington, waiting to burst forth like a blemish on the pristinely rancored complexion of a town known for pointless donnybrooks over judicial appointments. We will see the hyperbole flowing, uncorked, into the champagne flutes of conservatives and liberals alike as they celebrate the coronation of Alito! Maybe not.
As a student at Princeton, young Alito came out against government regulation in the boudoir, stating that "no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden.” This was some thirty years before the Supreme Court decriminalized gay sexual conduct, thereby inserting a constitutional right to such behavior into our jurisprudence. Alito could thus be looked upon as an intrepid trailblazer in legal philosophy by liberal groups, but it is doubtful that this will happen.
The motto of today's liberals is clear: What have you done for us lately? Samuel Alito, alas, has done little. He has set the bar high in discrimination cases, finding that the use of prosecutorial strikes against black jurors in 13 of 14 instances indicated the very reasonable possibility that such strikes were racially motivated. Fourteen out of fourteen would have cemented his certainty in that instance, but a paltry thirteen merely piqued his interest at the possibility.
He also supported the idea that women should be legally required to notify their spouses when seeking an abortion, but fortunately for the liberal cliques, he was a simple dissenter on the issue. The audacity of his legal reasoning is clear even today: why, men could be taken to be equal partners in conception with an equal say if Alito's views were allowed to prevail! It shows how far we have come as a society: equal partnership in conception used to be considered a prerequisite for the act, perhaps even a positive thing, but nowadays it is a mere albatross around the neck of oppressed wives who simply want to be able divorce their husbands from the decision to terminate a pregnancy they jointly entered into with said husbands without having to formally divorce them in a court of law. The gall, I say!
Lest you think it was easy for Justice Alito to arrive at such a gutsy dissenting viewpoint, consider what he is quoted as telling Senator Dick Durbin, the number two man in the Senate minority and the fifty-seventh ranking Senator overall: "He told me that “he spent more time worrying over it and working on that dissent than any he had written as a judge.”" One can see Judge Alito in that crucible of a moment where, sweating blood and cracking under the strain, he crossed his personal Rubicon, never to look back on those glorious days of youth spent discouraging government interference in private acts between adults lest he be turned into a pillar of salt.
Yes, Samuel Alito is a rare breed of jurist. He agonizes, pains even, over his decisions. The law is an occasion to emote, dear citizens, for such a man as Alito. I feel a groundswell, a massive surge of support arising for Samuel Alito from that bastion of legal emoting and hand wringing known as the Democratic Party. He is their kindred spirit, a man who realizes that the law has a human side that sits opposite the ink and pulp if you will flip the pages over often enough in an effort to discover it.
There is hope in Spintown, just as there is balm in Gilead and respite in Nepenthe. A bipartisan fervor of goodwill is swelling beneath the epidermis of Washington, waiting to burst forth like a blemish on the pristinely rancored complexion of a town known for pointless donnybrooks over judicial appointments. We will see the hyperbole flowing, uncorked, into the champagne flutes of conservatives and liberals alike as they celebrate the coronation of Alito! Maybe not.
Michael Vick, Esq.
The ubiquitous Michael Vick finds himself on the down side this season. He is in the throes of a career-ending season, and he is reeling both from preseason revelations of herpes and a passer rating of just 63. His yards per passing attempt yields the meager sum of just 5.7 yards, while his yards per rushing attempt comes in at a lofty 6.2 yards. This proves what many of us have known for years: Michael Vick is a special teams player and possible wide receiver. His backup, a former Virginia Cavalier by the name of Matt Schaub, is a quarterback. Matt comes in with 6.9 yards per attempt and a whopping 9.8 yards per rush.
There is an upside for Michael Vick. He is obviously quite marketable, and the potential for an endorsement deal with Valtrex is intriguing. Bob Dole endorsed Viagra, and no one can argue that his career was only enhanced by his admission that his erectile dysfunction was pharmacologically reversible. Harry Reid endorsed Enzyte, but he still finds himself stuck in the minority leader's position. Okay, so I made that last part up.
On a serious note, the Falcons should bench Vick, who has had repeated problems putting his coach's offensive scheme into practice on the field. Quarterbacks who run the ball better than they pass it inevitably run into the same problem that running backs in the NFL encounter: durability is often exceeded by the painful reality of a defensive player's hitting prowess (Note: see Randall Cunningham). Michael Vick is exciting to watch more oft than not, but he is creating a liability for his franchise with his continued miscues at the quarterback position.
Franchises play to win, not to see one individual's potential for excitement realized. Atlanta needs to realize that it has a better shot at future success with someone besides Vick standing under center. When Atlanta played the lowly Jets, Vick was picked off three times. With the season barely half-finished, Vick has been sacked twelve times. In 2004, Vick was sacked forty-six times. Why has Vick been sacked so often? The most obvious answer has to be that a quarterback who runs the ball believes that he doesn't have to let go of it in order to avoid a loss of yardage. In his entire career, Vick has a high passer rating of just 81.6. He has forty-one touchdown passes, but he also carries the distinction of thirty-two interceptions. That does not qualify as a good ratio.
Michael Vick has dynamic personality and playmaking charisma on the field, but this does not translate into a winning team. Atlanta should utilize Vick's talents (and they are considerable) but not in a way that detracts from their ultimate goal of winning a championship. It is time for Atlanta to move on to a new quarterback, and to move Vick to a wideout/kick returner role. The only way for Atlanta to attain their ultimate goal is for sound reasoning to prevail in personnel roles.
There is an upside for Michael Vick. He is obviously quite marketable, and the potential for an endorsement deal with Valtrex is intriguing. Bob Dole endorsed Viagra, and no one can argue that his career was only enhanced by his admission that his erectile dysfunction was pharmacologically reversible. Harry Reid endorsed Enzyte, but he still finds himself stuck in the minority leader's position. Okay, so I made that last part up.
On a serious note, the Falcons should bench Vick, who has had repeated problems putting his coach's offensive scheme into practice on the field. Quarterbacks who run the ball better than they pass it inevitably run into the same problem that running backs in the NFL encounter: durability is often exceeded by the painful reality of a defensive player's hitting prowess (Note: see Randall Cunningham). Michael Vick is exciting to watch more oft than not, but he is creating a liability for his franchise with his continued miscues at the quarterback position.
Franchises play to win, not to see one individual's potential for excitement realized. Atlanta needs to realize that it has a better shot at future success with someone besides Vick standing under center. When Atlanta played the lowly Jets, Vick was picked off three times. With the season barely half-finished, Vick has been sacked twelve times. In 2004, Vick was sacked forty-six times. Why has Vick been sacked so often? The most obvious answer has to be that a quarterback who runs the ball believes that he doesn't have to let go of it in order to avoid a loss of yardage. In his entire career, Vick has a high passer rating of just 81.6. He has forty-one touchdown passes, but he also carries the distinction of thirty-two interceptions. That does not qualify as a good ratio.
Michael Vick has dynamic personality and playmaking charisma on the field, but this does not translate into a winning team. Atlanta should utilize Vick's talents (and they are considerable) but not in a way that detracts from their ultimate goal of winning a championship. It is time for Atlanta to move on to a new quarterback, and to move Vick to a wideout/kick returner role. The only way for Atlanta to attain their ultimate goal is for sound reasoning to prevail in personnel roles.
Utah Refuses To Part Ways with Past: Polygamous Judge in Utah
In 1890, Utah abolished and outlawed polygamy as a condition of their statehood. However, an estimated 30, 000 practicing polygamists live in southern Utah. One of these polygamists, Walter Steed, is a judge in the town of Hildale, Utah. Although he is entrusted with the duty of enforcing the laws of the state of Utah, he lives in open violation of those laws and refuses to step down or recognize the obvious hypocrisy of his position. Judges are given one principal task: to uphold the law, and the most obvious way that they can do so is by observing the letter of the law in their own lives.
Judge Steed has adopted a piecemeal approach to this task. He observes the law as he sees fit. We have a name for such people in our society and in our law: criminals. Even though His Honor clearly acknowledges that Utah law forbids the practice of polygamy amongst its citizens, he has three wives. His justification for committing and continuing his criminal activity is quite simple: it isn't as bad as other crimes, and it does not prevent him from performing his job as a judge. Judge Steed and his lawyers believe that drug abuse would be reason for removal from the office he holds, but that other classes of criminal activity may not rise to such a level.
In other words, the law is negotiable. We may, as citizens and as law enforcement officers, pick and choose which laws are to be observed and which are to be disobeyed based on our personal whims. There really are no absolutes in the law per se. A sitting judge may decide that while one law is applicable to his life, another is not applicable, and he may proceed to flout that law openly.
Unfortunately, the Utah state supreme court and the attorney general of Utah agree by failing to disagree. The Chief Justice of Utah's Supreme Court, Christine Durham, decided not to remove a lawbreaker from a position that at its core involves seeing that lawbreakers are duly punished for their transgressions. The state attorney general also declined to come against Judge Steed. The Washington County prosecutor also failed to take prosecutorial action. The state of Utah as a whole has failed for many years to stamp out the lawlessness of polygamy within its borders.
The law banning polygamy in theory prohibits the practice of plural marriage, but in actual application (or lack thereof) it allows the practice to proceed and flourish even amongst its own jurists. As a result, it is a meaningless statute that reveals just how resolutely Utah refuses to break with its past in order to forge a future where laws are observed and lawbreakers are punished. Utah should take action against Justice Steed, but in a society where sexually libertine ideals have made great strides under the auspices of individual liberties, it is doubtful that Utah will take action.
Judge Steed has adopted a piecemeal approach to this task. He observes the law as he sees fit. We have a name for such people in our society and in our law: criminals. Even though His Honor clearly acknowledges that Utah law forbids the practice of polygamy amongst its citizens, he has three wives. His justification for committing and continuing his criminal activity is quite simple: it isn't as bad as other crimes, and it does not prevent him from performing his job as a judge. Judge Steed and his lawyers believe that drug abuse would be reason for removal from the office he holds, but that other classes of criminal activity may not rise to such a level.
In other words, the law is negotiable. We may, as citizens and as law enforcement officers, pick and choose which laws are to be observed and which are to be disobeyed based on our personal whims. There really are no absolutes in the law per se. A sitting judge may decide that while one law is applicable to his life, another is not applicable, and he may proceed to flout that law openly.
Unfortunately, the Utah state supreme court and the attorney general of Utah agree by failing to disagree. The Chief Justice of Utah's Supreme Court, Christine Durham, decided not to remove a lawbreaker from a position that at its core involves seeing that lawbreakers are duly punished for their transgressions. The state attorney general also declined to come against Judge Steed. The Washington County prosecutor also failed to take prosecutorial action. The state of Utah as a whole has failed for many years to stamp out the lawlessness of polygamy within its borders.
The law banning polygamy in theory prohibits the practice of plural marriage, but in actual application (or lack thereof) it allows the practice to proceed and flourish even amongst its own jurists. As a result, it is a meaningless statute that reveals just how resolutely Utah refuses to break with its past in order to forge a future where laws are observed and lawbreakers are punished. Utah should take action against Justice Steed, but in a society where sexually libertine ideals have made great strides under the auspices of individual liberties, it is doubtful that Utah will take action.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
