Radical Right

Just got “Conservatives Without Conscience” by John Dean for my birthday. Dean, legal counsel to Richard Nixon, makes the same point I’ve been making for sometime - today’s so called “conservatives” are not conservative at all. They are radicals.

Dean summarizes the book in this Boston Globe op-ed piece:

Contemporary conservatism and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners' bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest -- none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today's so-called conservatives are quite radical....
I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House, which has created a Nixon ``imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra.

I’ve just started reading the book and the opening chapter talks about how conservatives today are not even sure how to define conservatism. But even though people are not sure how to define it, they have a good reaction to the term and more people are willing to embrace that label than the villified term “liberal.”
I’ve noted many times how I tend to be “conservative” in my personal habits, but “liberal” in how I treat other people. How you treat other people is the key, in my opinion. I can forgive people for their own personal foibles, but I have a hard time when they are in turn intolerant of the foibles of others.
If being conservative means being prudent and efficient with government resources, then I am all for it. But if it means spending billions on military misadventures overseas while being tightfisted with spending here in our own country, then I have a big problem with it.
It grates me the way many conservatives today hyperventilate about patriotism and go on and on about how much they love their country, when in truth the only thing they really love is the symbolism (like the flag) while actually despising most of the people and the institutions that make up the country.

Is Bush losing it?

Or is this just how he normally expresses himself when not reading from a prepared text?

One of those pesky open microphones caught President Bush in a foul-mouthed tirade against Hezbollah the other day.

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over," Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.

Generally, it is a sign of a poor intellect when someone has to routinely resort to using swear words in their conversations. It means they don’t have a proper command of the language to adequately express themselves and so they fall back on these common words that are considered offensive in polite society. It is sad, really, to know that this is how our President talks to foreign leaders when he is not being scripted by his handlers.

Middle East mess

Civilian casualties in Lebanon are up to 86, including 16 children just today. And the Israelis don't seem to have any intention of letting up anytime soon. President Bush isn't even bothering to suggest that they use restraint on civilians anymore.
In fact, most conservatives act like this is great news. Why is that? Never mind that the escalation has caused the Dow Jones average to plummet, wiping out all of the gains for the entire year, and as oil prices surge towards $80 a barrel we could soon find ourselves paying $4 a gallon for gasoline.

But none of this phases most conservatives - not the civilian deaths nor the economic carnage back here in Bushland. I think Kevin Drum comes closest to explaining the conservative response:

"...most conservatives simply take the uncomplicated stance that Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way. The fact that this hasn't worked very well in the past doesn't deter them."

And apparently all Lebanese and all Syrians are terrorists, too. Not to mention all Iranians, most Iraqis and just about anyone of Arabic descent. Therefore, civilian deaths in those countries do not matter and they don't merit human treatment when captured by our side either.

It is a sad situation over in the Middle East right now. The folks who touted the Iraq war as some kind of boon to Democracy across the region have a lot of explaining to do right now. Instead of a domino effect of democratization springing up everywhere, we have increased militancy by terrorist groups that are threatening to overthrow the more moderate governments in those countries, not unlike the way Hamas did in Palestine.

Hatfields and McCoys

I’ve been hesitant to comment on the latest fighting in the Middle East, knowing that when I do I will probably be attacked for being anti-Israel or some other such nonsense. But I am thoroughly disgusted right now with the Israeli response to the aggression from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Israel is the strongest and most developed country in the region, both economically and militarily, and thus they should be setting the example for others to follow. By this I mean that they should use more restraint in dealing with these militant groups yapping at their heels and not meet every provocation with an equal and more devestating provocation.
And yet Ehmud Olmert, the new Israeli PM, has let loose the dogs of war at the latest provocation by the militants on their border. Many people will say this is entirely justified, but I believe it will only further enflame tensions in the region and force Israel into an ever increasingly defensive posture. It is unfortunate, because Ariel Sharon would probably have had more leeway to use restraint, but it appears that Olmert feels it necessary to take the “eye for an eye” approach to a whole other level. I just have one question, though. When has “getting tough” like this ever worked to resolve all their problems in the past? I have no sympathy for the Hamas and Hezbollah militants, but wreaking havoc on the entire Lebanese population will only serve to radicalize that population as it has done to the Palestinians and will ultimately drive more and more people into the arms of the militants. Al Quaeda, I’m sure, is overjoyed at the prospect.

I essentially agree with this commenter from TPM:

The larger points in the current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon crisis are two: Olmert's apparent lack of "maturity" as PM for lack of a better word, and seeming inability to measure his govt's response, has escalated the situation close to a point of no return. Given the harsh rhetoric and extreme measures being taken it appears the the situation is being run by the war-makers in the cabinet and there seems to be no countervailing voice of reason, moderation or diplomacy. The other is that the crisis has exposed in stark relief the US' utter inability to influence the situation. Bush has nothing to offer, having bought wholesale into the rhetoric of "terror"-he can't ask for moderation, he can't use any bargaining chips, he can't bully Olmert in any of the ways his predecessors have done.

Bush’s response during this ordeal has been truly pathetic.
The most he will do is to meekly ask Israel to “try to limit civilian casualties” as they continue to step up their attacks.
“Hey guys, Try not to kill too many innocent civilians over there, OK? Thanks.”

Maybe someone else will step up to the plate and try and talk sense to these people. It’s obviously not going to come from this administration. We have done nothing to promote peace and stability in the Middle East and have, by contrast, only stirred the pot of resentment with our unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

Poll: Americans want Democrats in power

Woo Hoo!!

With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

Let’s just hope that this pans out on election day.

The same poll also shows President Bush’s approval rating has slipped back into the mid-30s after climbing briefly back up to the low-40s.

We need a new law

So Robert Novak has now acknowledged publicly what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew long ago, that White House consigliere Karl Rove was one of his sources for his infamous column that exposed one of our covert CIA operatives.
And yet, even knowing that Rove blabbed to Novak, Time Magazine’s Marc Cooper, and who knows how many other reporters, it still appears that he will not be charged in connection with this crime. How can that be?
The most obvious explanation is that Fitzgerald has determined that the law has so many provisions and loopholes in it that he cannot make a case stick against any of the conspirators for reasons he has yet to reveal. This has resulted in great fanfare in conservative circles (along with sighs of relief), but it should garner a different reaction from folks who care anything about the security of our nation. The law needs to be changed.
We cannot tolerate having our covert agents and their operations left vulnerable to exposure by politically malevolent presidential administrations in the future. Once the outcome of this case is final, we will need to draft a new law to better protect our covert operatives so that they will never again become pawns in a vengeful political game.

Tangled Up Tubes

Sen. Ted Stevens, the Octogenarian Republican from Alaska, gave a hilarious reason last week for why he is opposed to net neutrality.

Now, Steven’s explanation has been immortalized for all time in a remix version set to some snazzy electronica music.

Who’s on First?

The American League has won eight straight All Star Games since 1996 and it looks like they will win another one tonight.
Here is the lineup:

American League
Ichiro Suzuki, Mariners, RF
Derek Jeter, Yankees, SS
David Ortiz, Red Sox, 1B
Alex Rodriguez, Yankees, 3B
Vladimir Guerrero, Angels, LF
Ivan Rodriguez, Tigers, C
Vernon Wells, Blue Jays, CF
Mark Loretta, Red Sox, 2B
Kenny Rogers, Tigers, P
National League
Alfonso Soriano, Nationals, LF
Carlos Beltran, Mets, CF
Albert Pujols, Cardinals, 1B
Jason Bay, Pirates, RF
Edgar Renteria, Braves, SS
David Wright, Mets, 3B
Chase Utley, Phillies, 2B
Paul Lo Duca, Mets, C
Brad Penny, Dodgers, P

I’m not even familiar with half the players on the National League team. I’m also disappointed that the defending National League Champion Houston Astros are not represented in the starting lineup. Of course, the World Series Champion Chicago White Sox were likewise shut out of the starting lineup for the American League.
But the lineup the American League does have looks like a modern update of Murderer's Row.
The Post article notes that since MLB began awarding homefield advantage for the World Series to the winner of the contest, the American League has dominated the series and swept the World Series the last two years.

Conservatives heart Kennedy-McCain

Conservatives are rallying behind Ted Kennedy on immigration reform.
Yes, you read that right.

A group of 31 prominent conservatives signed an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal that essentially agrees with the major tenants of the Kennedy- McCain Immigration Bill.

Funny how these pro-immigration conservatives have to run in tight packs like this to keep from being picked off one-by-one by the ravenous anti-immigrant hyenas of the far-right. They also try and couch their support for rational, common-sense immigration reform as if it were blessed in advance by Saint Ronny himself.

Unfortunately, this Congress has already squandered its best opportunity to get immigration reform legislation passed this year before we slouch into the mid-term election cycle.

Do nothing Congress

I suppose with the group of right-wing yahoos currently running things in Washington, this is pretty much a blessing: Congress has many unfinished tasks.

US lawmakers returning today from a weeklong break will resume work on a long list of unfinished -- and possibly insurmountable -- tasks that could help decide whether voters will reelect them in November.

I’m not sure who other than sadomasochists could possibly justify returning these Republicans to office in November. Even a hardline conservatives like former House Republican leader Dick Armey is disgusted by this Congress’ inability to get anything done.

``I'm not sure what this Congress has accomplished," said Dick Armey, who is now with FreedomWorks, which advocates lower taxes and less government.

In the first two-thirds of the 2006 legislative session, the Boston Globe reports, Congress has passed two major bills: renewal of the Patriot Act and an extension of $70 billion in federal tax cuts. That’s it. What a pathetic record of non-accomplishment. Political scientist Larry Sabato sums things up pretty well:

``Historically, this is certainly not a Congress that will be remembered," said Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. ``There is just not much there."

Instead of tackling serious issues like the dozen spending bills that have to be addressed by Oct. 1 or legislation needed to shore up pension protections for 44 million workers, we have watched lawmakers waste time posturing over flag burning amendments and gay marriage.
Republican lawmakers should be happy that they are not working in the private sector or else they would have been laid off a long time ago.

Nothing to brag about

Think Progress spells out what should be obvious to everyone. The Bush administration has presided over an anemic economy while at the same time exploding our national deficit. Recent efforts by the administration to put their economic accomplishments in a good light suddenly pale when placed in the proper context.

Let’s set aside for a moment that the “fact sheet” conveniently ignores the 22 months of jobs losses that proceeded August 2003. Instead, let’s put Bush’s job record since August 2003 in perspective:

1. Monthly job growth since August 2003 is 50% lower than the average of President Clinton’s entire term. Since August 2003, job growth has averaged 160,000 per month. During Clinton’s eight years in office job growth averaged 236,000 per month.
2. Real wages have fallen since August 2003. The average worker’s real wages were twenty cents lower in June 2006 than they were in August 2003.

Any way you slice it, Bush’s economic policy has resulted in slower job growth and lower wages. That’s nothing to brag about.

FOIA a terrorist tool?

Is the Freedom of Information Act the next target of the Bush administration in its neverending War on Terror? FOIA which has been with us since 1966 has suddenly become the focus of forces looking to clamp down on our personal freedoms here in the United States under the guise of protecting us from future terrorist attacks.
Most recently, they have enlisted the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University here in San Antonio to study ways to limit the scope of FOIA.

The Defense Department is sending St. Mary's University School of Law $1 million to help fight terrorism by studying ways to limit the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, a landmark open government law that celebrated its 40th anniversary Tuesday.

The fellow who will be heading up the study is Jeffrey Addicott, an Associate Professor of Law at St. Mary’s who serves as director of the center. Addicott is a frequent commenter on Fox News and has authored a number of academic works including this one that claimed that Bush's military tribunals are Constitutional. Oops!

Addicott says "the purpose of the yearlong project is to find ways to rewrite the law to prevent terrorists from getting sensitive information about water, sewer, electricity and transportation systems."

The project's end product will be a "model" statute that state governments or Congress can adopt, he said.
"The mission is to balance increase in security with civil liberties, which are precious," said Addicott, a former legal adviser in the Army Special Forces. But "in a time of war, balance goes toward security."

Hmmmm. Balance goes toward security. I guess that sounds reasonable. But is it really? The E-N article goes on to quote a couple of officials who raise objections to this new study, inlcuding my old boss from The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Randy Sanders, who is now heading up The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.

"It seems like we're just losing all our freedoms in the name of homeland security, and I just wonder where the real threat is," Sanders said. "We're not going to keep terrorists from finding out about power plants and water supplies by tightening the Freedom of Information Act."

In the past, Addicott has expressed his view that civil liberties need to be curtailed in the "war against terrorism."

(Addicott) said the USA Patriot Act, which makes it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance and obtain records, doesn't go far enough to protect the nation.
"If you want to shift toward security, you have to give a little on civil liberties," Addicott said. "People who don't want to give an inch on civil liberties are dooming us to a police state - the thing they dread most."

Is he quite sure that we will only have to "give an inch?" Hasn't he ever heard the old addage about "give an inch, take a mile." It's a favorite among conservatives arguing against the legalization of gay marriage.
Interestingly enough, this article goes on to quote Gerald Goldstein, a nationally known criminal defense lawyer from San Antonio, who challenges Addicott's views and accuses him of using scare tactics to advance his goals.

"I'm not suggesting he's not bright and totally bereft of foundation for his opinions," Goldstein said. "I am going to suggest that he is willing to set upon a path that engages in scare tactics. This kind of rhetoric only fuels the flames of paranoia."

In the same article, Addicott is quoted saying that "Americans have hit the snooze button on the alarm and gone back to sleep after Sept. 11," he said. "I'm just saying, 'Hey, we're still at war.'"
And here is what he has to say in today's E-N article:

(Addicott) said he believes it's only a matter of time before terrorists figure out how to hack into computers that run the nation's infrastructure.
So far, Addicott said, he doesn't know of any terrorists who have used freedom of information laws to get such information, but he believes it is inevitable that they will.
"They don't need bombs anymore," he said. "They can hack in and tell the Hoover Dam to release the water."

Hack into the computer that controls Hoover Dam and tell it to release the water. Hmmmmmm. I think Goldstein may have a point. This certainly sounds like he is "fueling the flames of paranoia" here.

As for the terrorists not needing bombs anymore, I think we figured that out a while back. All they needed to pull off the devestation from 9/11 was to sneak a few box cutters onto some planes. That and the element of surprise.
They didn't need to do any elaborate computer hacking and they certainly did not have to file any FOIA requests to pull off 9/11.

As Paul McMasters, a public information expert at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., says in the E-N story, reconciling discrepancies in law "is not a bad idea."
"But for this to be done at the direction of a federal agency where secrecy is paramount and where confusion is frequent gives one pause," he adds.

And all of this under the direction of an administration with a track record for gross incompetence. I don't see anything good coming out of it.

Happy Birthday to Me

Today is my 41st birthday. My wife surprised me at work by dropping by at lunchtime with the kids in tow bringing a cookie cake that she made and a balloon. We spent yesterday, the Fourth, at the zoo and had a really good time. My little boy is going to turn 3 soon and my little girl is seven months.
On Sunday we decided to go see the movie Cars (the earliest possible showing) and the kids did extremely well. Isabel slept through the whole thing in her car seat and Nathan sat in my lap and was enthralled with the whole film. Pixar is a national treasure and I’m glad the folks at Disney decided to wise up and maintain their relationship with the company. It was the first time Nathan had seen a movie in a theater (not counting the 3-D shorts we saw at Disney World last year). Nevertheless, we aren’t planning to do this very often. Watching movies in theaters will continue to be a rarity for me for the next several years at least.

No pardon for Ken Lay

I take no pleasure in the news that Ken Lay has apparently died from a massive heart attack. I was glad when he was found guilty on most counts for the Enron debacle, but as an avowed opponent of the death penalty I would never have wished this fate upon him.
I was actually looking forward to seeing President Bush squirm over the question of whether or not to issue Lay a pardon at the end of his term. After all, as one of the biggest financial backers of Bush’s political career, Ken Lay probably more than anyone else without the last name of Bush, could be credited with helping to put George W. Bush in the White House.

Censorship at UIW

The dean of library services at the University of the Incarnate Word (UIW) here in San Antonio has canceled the school’s subscription to the New York Times.
He did so “to protest articles exposing a secret government program that monitors international financial transactions in the hunt for terrorists.”

"Since no one elected the New York Times to determine national security policy, the only action I know to register protest for their irresponsible action (treason?) is to withdraw support of their operations by canceling our subscription as many others are doing," Mendell D. Morgan Jr. wrote Wednesday in an e-mail to library staffers. "If enough do, perhaps they will get the point."

This is nuts. It’s the kind of thing I would expect from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, not a liberal arts school here in the Alamo City. Oops, sorry, apparently it is now a conservative arts school. After hearing all the partisan ranting from rightwing bloggers and the phony outrage from Bush and Cheney over this story, I’m more convinced than ever that the Bush administration had something to do with getting it disseminated in the first place. I think it was clearly in their interest to let the public know about the anti-terrorism activities the administration has undertaken, especially during an election year when they are suffering in the polls. And then turning around and criticizing the media is a great way for them to fire up their base of supporters. This has all the earmarks of a Karl Rove political operation and it has apparently worked like a charm.

No word yet on whether Mr. Morgan has also canceled the school’s subscription to the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, since all those papers ran the same story on the same day. I’m also curious to see if he will cancel the school’s subscription to the local Express-News since they subscribe to the New York Times news service and frequently reprint stories from the Times.

I was glad to read further down in the article that library staffers and some students at UIW were outraged by Mr. Morgan’s act of censorship. I also found it interesting that Mr. Morgan was conveniently unavailable for comment after pulling his little stunt because he was “on vacation.” Hmmm. A wingnut and a coward. How typical. I guess he figures students at UIW can get all their news from Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh just like he does.

Somehow I get the feeling that UIW will soon be looking for a new dean of library services.

A return to our fundamental values

I like this headline at CNN right now - “Supreme Court voids Bush’s ‘blank check’”

This was a very reassuring court decision today. It means we are still a nation of laws, and we still strive to be the “good guys” wearing the white hats. Commander Charles Swift sums it up nicely.

Cmdr. Charles Swift, the Navy lawyer assigned by the military to represent Mr. Hamdan, said at a televised news conference held outside the Supreme Court that the logical next step would be for Mr. Hamdan to be tried either by a traditional military court martial, as provided for under the Geneva Convention, or by a federal court.
He called today's ruling "a return to our fundamental values."
"That return marks a high-water point," Commander Swift said. "It shows that we can't be scared out of who we are, and that's a victory, folks."

Breathtaking Waste and Fraud

Two stories in the NYTimes the other day merit further comment as they pile up further evidence that Bush is indeed the Worst. President. Ever.

The first titled 'Breathtaking' Waste and Fraud in Hurricane Aid describes the complete and total collapse of fiscal control and oversight by the federal government in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster.

Among the many superlatives associated with Hurricane Katrina can now be added this one: it produced one of the most extraordinary displays of scams, schemes and stupefying bureaucratic bungles in modern history, costing taxpayers up to $2 billion.

Wow! $2 billion down the drain because the incompetent Bush administration can’t get its act together. Imagine if something like this had happened while Democrats were in power? Do you think it would have been a one-day story generating little more than a collective shrug from the establishment media as if to say “What else is new?”

"The blatant fraud, the audacity of the schemes, the scale of the waste — it is just breathtaking," said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Of course, something like this would not have happened during the Clinton administration because Democrats actually take governing seriously. They put competent and knowledgeable people in place at agencies like FEMA who actually know what they are doing and take their jobs seriously. Republicans see government as an impediment to their buddies in private industry who are just trying to make a profit. Their objective is to weaken government oversight and controls as much as possible and in the case of FEMA they succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

Officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Red Cross acknowledged that their systems were overwhelmed and tried to create new ones on the fly.
"We did, in fact, put into place never-before-used and untested processes," Donna M. Dannels, acting deputy director of recovery at FEMA, told a House panel this month. "Clearly, because they were untested, they were more subject to error and fraud."

You think so, huh. Some might argue that this outcome was inevitable, but that is not necessarily so.

"There are tools that are available to get money quickly to individuals and to get disaster relief programs running quickly without seeing so much fraud and waste," said Gregory D. Kutz, managing director of the forensic audits unit at the G.A.O. "But it wasn't really something that FEMA put a high priority on. So it was easy to commit fraud without being detected."

Not a high priority. There’s an understatement.
The story goes on to note that “there are bigger cases of government waste or fraud in United States history.” But interestingly enough, all of their examples occurred during the George W. Bush administration. Imagine that!

The Treasury Department, for example, estimated in 2005 that Americans in a single year had improperly been granted perhaps $9 billion in unjustified claims under the Earned-Income Tax Credit. The Department of Health and Human Services in 2001 estimated that nearly $12 billion in Medicare benefit payments in the previous year had been based on improper or fraudulent complaints.
Auditors examining spending in Iraq also have documented hundreds of millions in questionable spending or abuse. But Mr. Kutz of the accountability office said that in all of his investigative work, he had never encountered the range of abuses he has seen with Hurricane Katrina.

The other story of note is the one that reveals the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has relaxed its enforcement of food and drug safety laws by more than 50 percent since the Bush regime came to power.

The number of warning letters sent to companies in violation of federal food and drug safety laws has fallen by more than half under the Bush administration, according to an investigative report released Monday by a Democratic lawmaker.
The drop in enforcement actions by the Food and Drug Administration occurred even as agency inspectors continued to turn up a relatively steady number of industry violations, said Rep. Henry Waxman.
''Americans have relied on FDA to ensure the safety of their food and drugs for 100 years,'' the California Democrat said. ''But under the Bush administration, enforcement efforts have plummeted and serious violations are ignored. FDA can't do its job when its enforcement arm is tied behind its back.''

My congressional district is unconstitutional

The Supreme Court today threw out the Republican gerrymandering for Texas CD-23, which just happens to be my congressional district. It is currently represented ineffectively by right-wing wanker Henry Bonilla, a former TV newscaster turned politician. Bonilla nearly lost the seat a few years ago when Hispanics in the district began abandoning him in mass for conservative Democrat Henry Cuellar. In order to protect one of their few token Hispanics, Republican Party bosses led by Tom DeLay dumped more than 100,000 Hispanics from the 23rd District into the 28th as part of their Perrymandering scheme in 2003. The Supreme Court has now ruled that this effectively violated the Voting Rights Act. How and when it will be remedied is unclear, but it is likely that any fix will impact a number of other districts throughout the state - as Justice Kennedy alludes to here:

Kennedy's decision did not specify how quickly the lines of District 23 must be redrawn, but he said that more than one district would be affected.
"The districts in south and west Texas will have to be redrawn to remedy the violation in District 23, and we have no cause to pass on the legitimacy of a district that must be changed," he wrote.

I’m disappointed that the majority of the justices think it is OK to allow redistricting anytime the Legislature feels like it rather than limiting it to once a decade as had been the tradition. This is bad news for both parties, even though Republicans will pretend that it is a victory for them. But it is good that they nailed the GOP for their Voting Rights violations, just as the experts in the Justice Department had warned before Bush’s political flunkies overruled them.

Daily Kos and Off the Kuff have lots more on the decision.

Rick Monday: American Hero

It was 30 years ago that Chicago Cubs outfielder Rick Monday charged across left field at Dodgers Stadium in Los Angeles and scooped up an American flag that a couple of punk kids were attempting to set on fire. That brief moment of patriotic fervor, more than anything else he did in baseball, is what people remember most about Monday today. I remember reading news accounts of the incident when it happened. I was 10 years old and a huge baseball fan. This is how I still remember Rick Monday (a 1973 Topps baseball card that I still have in my collection).

The other day, Monday was in Washington, D.C., recounting his flag-saving exploits at a rally in support of a Constitutional amendment that would make flag burning illegal. I am opposed to the flag burning amendment, but I still applaud Monday for what he did 30 years ago. Those protesters were clearly wrong in their actions and there was no need to have a law criminalizing the act of flag burning itself to punish them. They were already guilty of trespassing (the baseball stadium is private property) and disorderly conduct. One of them could have even been charged with assault. It was reported that one of the protesters threw a can of lighter fluid at Monday after he scooped up the flag.

If the protesters had wanted, they could have applied for the appropriate permits and held their little demonstration at some public place where they would not have been breaking any laws. But what they craved most was attention and they didn’t care if they broke the law to get it. That should tell you something right there about the potential effectiveness of any laws banning flag burning. Fortunately, today nobody knows who the protesters were or what they were trying to protest one year after the end of the Vietnam War. But everybody knows Rick Monday and that is for the best.

The flag burning issue comes up every year around this time. Here is what I had to say about it last year. I still stand by that statement and I hope that we can continue to honor the American flag and patriots like Rick Monday without dishonoring our First Amendment protections of free speech.

Multiculturalism still alive and kicking

What the heck is Jonathan Gurwitz talking about in his latest column?

Multiculturalism, rest in peace. There may have been no obituary for the notion that every group and every belief in a multiethnic society is deserving of mutual respect and tolerance. But thanks to jihadism, multiculturalism and moral relativism, its necessary counterpart, are now six feet under.

Moral relativism is a “necessary counterpart” to multiculturalism? I’m lost here. What does Gurwitz think multiculturalism is, anyway? Here is a definition:

Multiculturalism is a public policy approach for managing cultural diversity in a multiethnic society, officially stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences within a country's borders.

So “stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences” equals moral relativism in Gurwitz’ mind? And what is so bad with having “mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences” anyway? We already stress essentially the same thing for religious differences.

Apparently, Gurwitz thinks because some extremist Muslims have committed terrorist acts in countries that practice “mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences,” this means that these countries will now stop doing this and will, I suppose, enforce a strict mono-culturalism on everyone. And I’m guessing that Gurwitz thinks this would be a good thing?
How much sense does that make? Because of the actions of a small group of Muslim extremists, Hispanics, for example, will now have to abandon their own culture and embrace Anglo-Saxon culture here in the U.S.?
Is everyone else as lost as I am now?

And here’s my favorite part of Gurwitz’ column this week:

Multiculturalism created a political morass in which a religious fundamentalist subculture that denied the equality of women and castigated homosexuality could challenge national secular law.

Hmmmm. A “religious fundamentalist subculture that denied the equality of women and castigated homosexuality”. Doesn’t that also describe Catholicism? Perhaps they would object to the term “fundamentalist”, but denying the equality of women (i.e. women priests) and castigating homosexuality sounds spot on.

Somehow we’ve managed to continue to respect and tolerate religious differences here in the U.S. in spite of the fact that we have had extremist groups like the Branch Davidians and the Christian Identity Movement crop up. Therefore, I predict that we will continue to respect and tolerate cultural differences as well.
As Mark Twain would say “Reports of multiculturalism’s death have been premature.”