What People Are Saying

Christian editorializing in the NY Times

Interesting editorial today in the NY Times... it speaks for itself. [Warning - requires 'subscription' (free)]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09wills.html?ex=1144987200&en=4d49edd66477d90d&ei=5087%0A

Letter to Byron York: Read "In re: Sealed Case" again - carefully

I sent a letter to Byron York, White House correspondent for National Review, in response to an article he wrote in the 2/27/2006 issue of NR. The article is available at NRO here. Strangely enough, he didn't give a link to the actual decision (always a bad sign). I've included it (from FindLaw) here.

Here's my letter in it's entirety -

**begin**
Mr. York,


Your article in NR (I read it at NRO) from February 27, 2006 titled "It's Legal" has a few material errors. The real shame is that you had a great opportunity to write an article in support of the PATRIOT Act and the real intent of FISA, especially as amended by the PATRIOT Act. Instead, you chose to write an article in support of the President's "Inherent Authority", and ignored the FISA Court of Review's actual conclusions regarding Truong and the cases that flowed from it (more often than not misconstruing and over-interpreting the limits it sought to impose).

The most relevant (to my point) parts of the ruling (I got a copy from FindLaw):

The FISA Court of Review did not 'decide' the question of inherent Presidential Authority, nor express "irrefutable legal support for its actions" in bypassing the FISA Court -

"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President's power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government's contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable." [from pages 48-49]

This part's actually in the "Conclusion" section -

"Although the Court in City of Indianapolis cautioned that the threat to society is not dispositive in determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable, it certainly remains a crucial factor. Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable. Accordingly, we reverse the FISA court's orders in this case to the extent they imposed conditions on the grant of the government's applications, vacate the FISA court's Rule 11, and remand with instructions to grant the applications as submitted and proceed henceforth in accordance with this opinion."

The FISA Court of Review said that such searches should be issued warrants, and that the FISA Court erred in rejecting such warrants and imposing it's own skewed interpretation of Truong and post-Truong cases, as well as it's own misinterpretation of the 1995 DoJ procedures. The PATRIOT Act successfully removed any institutional "wall", and overly restrictive requirements (legal - not paperwork, unfortunately) on warrants for surveillance in these cases.

This decision was not a "Slam-dunk win for the government" - the three Judges did their job well and thoroughly. But there seems, legally, to be no need of any so-called 'warrantless' searches, unless there is another secret ruling overturning this one. Or, unless the FISA Court ignored this ruling.



Regards,
**end**

Intelligent Design Loses - In Court

The decision was handed down today regarding the Dover (Pennsylvania) School Board's (and the "Christian Right") attempt to insert "Intelligent Design" into the science curriculum.

In short - the ID Movement lost. Here's the decision (pdf) -

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

Will the ID Movement stop here? Will they admit that they're trying to make a religious - not scientific - point?

Sure - when pigs sprout (or 'evolve'?) wings and fly :-)

It will be interesting to see how our President reacts to this decision. His last statement on the matter was, well, not very bright.

Stay tuned...

I beg of you, don't ask me what I do

I work in the behavioral healthcare field, and of course one must work with others as it is the nature of our job. The extent of this outside contact depends a lot on the level of one's job. At an entry level therapist position in a hospital behavioral healthcare setting, a therapist will have to work with co-workers, clients, and referring agencies such as probation and schools. Once you move up a bit in this field, you begin to attend more meetings and do more networking with both people in the field and those outside of the field. The culmination of this level of interaction comes at the top level where you get to beg for money from people who normally would be happy to see you, but now are just gun shy at you eyeing up their potential deep pockets. Conversations are always filled with tense air as they're waiting for the inevitable shoe to drop on forking up cash for your non-profit organization.

I had one previous executive director, who was not only good at this type of behavior, he was proud of it. He would absolutely glow when he talked about his begging efforts and go on about some of his greatest panhandling accomplishments. It was eerie watching him, as he was single, no children, and talked about this as if he was showing me pictures of his son who just made varsity his freshman year. That presentation of his, and the fact that I'd rather get root canal done than beg somebody for money, were the two things that I saw as hindering my full growth into the executive director position.

The time would come when it would be my turn to beg, or if not to outwardly beg, to associate myself with community members and let them know that I'm open for pandhandling business. Sometimes in this position, you just have to point blank, beg. You have to say: "Our 'no hope' program is having difficulty getting off the ground, and we'd like you to plunge $10,000 into this effort". Other times you just have to network with community business members, let them know that you're the head of one of the local begging non-profit companies, hoping that one day you'll be the recipient of their good will and hard earned cash. One of the ways to indirectly beg is to take part in a local club or organization. This way you are seen by the local business men and women, and when your request to support your agency comes, and it will come, then they can at least have a face and name to associate with their guilt of saying no. They will also have the uncomfortable feeling of saying hello to me next time at this meeting, knowing that I know they were cheap and uncaring. However, it's not their anxiety I care about, it's mine.

It's bad enough when you tell somebody you're a therapist, or a drug/alcohol counselor, because they look at you all funny like.

Most people have two basic approaches; some will ask you to analyze them.

"I think you're a total asshole; that will be $125.00" I would say to them at the end of this type of request. That would pretty much end all conversations at the moment and either shatter or further entrench their given belief about those who work in this field.

Others want your advice on the way their own therapy is going (if they're so bold to admit such a thing), or talk to you about their 15 year old kid who is smoking pot and painting his fingernails black. I'm sorry, but I'm off the clock and I don't want to tell you what to do, because it will likely involve you and your inability to parent properly. Then there's the whole legal liability issue of me dolling out advice while being a licensed professional.

"Excuse me" the high priced lawyer will say at my malpractice hearing, "but you told my client to quote 'kick the cheating bastard out' after having how many Michelob Ultra's at the party?" He'll then go on to say "and you understand that in my client's suicide note he listed this advice clearly as the thing that pushed him to jump." No thanks I don't need that hanging over me.

This has pretty much led me to create careers when I am in social settings where people don't know me well. If you want to shut people up and move the conversation in a different direction, just say you're an engineer. If they ask what type, say electrical not chemical, structural or genetic engineer. Chemical engineers will keep the conversation going because its stuff you rarely hear about, so it will peak the listener's interest and cause them to continue this line of questioning. Being a structural engineer will get questions about the person's recent house expansion that you can't answer, and if you try will land you at the same malpractice hearing ("you told him to section his house together with crazy glue is that correct" and "isn't it true you're a therapist and not even a structural engineer"). However, genetic engineering can be fun if you generally want to mess with people. You can just make up all kinds of shit. "Yeah, just grew a human ear on the back of a mouse last month". The chance of somebody following genetic engineering advice is slim to none, and you can think of all kinds of odd and entertaining commentary: "Yep, grew a penis in a Petri dish just yesterday, and get this, it actually gets erect when you show it porn! This is final proof that either men don't have a brain, or at least don't think with it." Electrical engineering however, is passe and boring and will quickly divert the conversation onto something else.

If I'm at a party and somebody pisses me off (which really isn't a hard thing to do) or is just generally annoying, then I go with my staple, I tell them I'm a product tester. When they ask what type of product (because they're annoying, there's a 99% chance you'll get that question next), I tell them I test adult incontinence product lines, all types...and I'm currently on the job. Then I'll pretend I need to refill my drink and go around pulling at my ass, as if my adult diaper is testing poorly, or I'll excuse myself telling them I'm searching for the host to see if he has any prune juice or fiber laying around.

Then there's those people who you can't do that kind of fun and exciting stuff with, because they're potential donors. So you're stuck with the double stigma of being a therapist or drug/alcohol counselor, and a panhandler out to suck the profit out of their business. In this professional club setting they also have these cookie cutter expectations of you, that you're emotionally sensitive, that you're a bleeding heart liberal hippie tree hugger, that you're a do-gooder, that you're an activist who is community oriented, that you care and are actually listening to what they're saying, you know all those false stereotypes. All in all, I'm determined no good can come from this and to this point I've successfully avoided any such nonsense in my professional career.

So, while I hate to professionally beg, I won't hesitate now to beg you not to ask me what I do. It will likely be painful for all involved no matter how I react, and we could all better spend our time talking about George Bush, couldn't we?

Taken from "Happy Dollar/Sad Dollar", a chapter I've written but haven't published yet. - Guedde

Strategy? What Strategy?

Well, the White House unveiled its strategy for victory in Iraq, and it's..... Not. Unfortunately it's more of the same campaign-style rhetoric from The Boys Who Can't Talk Straight (with us peon-people anyway). As a commentator on NPR said this morning (he has taught at both the Air Force and Army War Colleges), a Strategy requires Ends (goals), Means (what do you need to have), and Ways (methods - the 'tactical' part needed to implement a strategy). The White House's "Strategy" is just a Public-relations list of 'accomplishments so far' and it's goals. Oh well - one out of three ain't bad. And all of this was bracketed today by W's usual bluster - "America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander-in-chief". Wonderful - more studly "Big Dick" language from our Jackass-in-Chief.

Back to What They're Best At

Well, the administration and the GOP, struggling against events, have decided to go back to what they do well - campaigning. CNN has an article that describes what's coming (sourced from "White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of anonymity") --

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/08/Bush.retaliates/index.html

Here's a prediction: The administration/GOP campaign will focus less on facts than on attacks against the administration's opponents (i.e., any member of congress with a "D" after his or her name). Easy prediction, I know... But I do wonder what they'll do against folks in their own party who are speaking out against the administration's policies.... THAT might be interesting.

On the (sort of) positive side, it must be nice for the administration and GOP to turn their focus away from something they're not very good at - Governing (especially governing honestly) - and get back to Campaigning. After all, campaigning is pretty much all the GOP has been good at since around 1994.

DeLay-ing Tactics

Hey - here's an idea for an office pool: What tactics will Tom DeLay use, and (optionally) in what order? The options:

- Complain about the Judge's political leanings (implemented it today)
- Complain about the city/jurisdiction's political leanings (well, he's actually already considering that one, too)
- Complain that his 'right to a speedy trial' is being violated while he's DeLay-ing (umm... he's talked about that already, too)
- Use political contributions to fund advertisements in his defense (is that legal?)

Any other ideas?

9-11: Four Years Later

I wrote this a few days after the attacks of 9/11/2001, struggling with my anger and my life as a Christian. I just re-read it, and I still think it's apt. I offer it to you...

Who We Are

To those who claim to be our enemies, and say that they hate us: You don't know who we are. You have never even tried to know who we are.

To my fellow Americans: Please don't forget who we are, especially in this time of trial. Don't simplify and demean who we are, either.

Who Are we?

We are Christian: We believe we are all children of our Creator, and that we are to Love our neighbors as ourselves, even if our neighbor is our enemy.

We are Muslim: We believe that our lives must be lived in submission to a power higher than all of us, and most of us call that higher power God.

We are Jews: We believe in a caring God who calls us to obey the laws He has etched in our hearts, and that through Him we can heal the world.

We are Buddhist: We believe in our interconnected-ness, our need to do good and refrain from evil.

We are Hindu: We believe in the realization of the Divine in each of us.

We are Primal: We believe we are connected to each other, and connected to the Earth and to the Spirit World.

We are Humanist: We believe in our ability to improve ourselves, and to make the world a better place.

We are much more than these things (as are each of these faiths), but we need to remember that we are not any ONE thing or people. We must keep in mind, fully, who we are as we struggle to find an appropriate response to what happened to us on September 11, 2001. We should ask ourselves, in any way that will help us: What is the right thing to do?

What would Jesus do? What would Muhammad do? What would Abraham or Moses, Solomon or David do? What would Buddha do? What would Krishna do?

What is the right thing to do?

Those who hate us, especially those who planned these acts of murder, don't ask themselves these kinds of questions. While some may think they are doing the will of God, the unfortunate truth is that they have completely separated themselves from God. They have substituted their own will for that of our Maker. Some may see their steady sense of purpose and resolve in doing these things as a sign of their faith and righteousness. But what they really demonstrate is their complete isolation from God and from the rest of us (remember, even Jesus and Muhammad had their moments of doubt). People like this have consigned themselves to what I believe true Hell and Damnation are: voluntary, willful isolation from God. I hope and pray their separation isn't permanent. I believe all souls can be reconciled to God, that He will not willingly cast any of us away; but I believe any one of us can, by our own willfulness and sin, choose to be separate from Her.

So please PRAY. Pray for our leaders and ourselves to find the right course in these times. Pray for all of us to find the strength to heal those directly affected by this tragedy. Pray for those who planned and carried out these horrible acts. Pray for all of us to heal, and for goodness and righteousness to prevail and continue to spread in the world.

We can show those who hate us, This is who we are: We are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and more. We are the only place and people in this world where all of this is true, where this many apparent differences can not only coexist, but make us better, and help make the world better. We are still the best haven for and source of hope in the world.

This is who we are.

This is US.

The Schiavo Tragedy

Does Terri Schiavo have a "right to live"? On one level, it feels like a deceptively simple question; of course she has a right to live. But life is more complicated than that, whether we like to admit it or not. Some decisions are harder than others, and this decision is one of the hardest anyone ever has to make.

The passions on all sides of this particular case are real (for the most part) and heartfelt, although some are clearly using the situation for their own gain or to advance broader agendas.

What parent could ever give up on their child? What husband would give up on his wife?

In this cynical age, it's easy to forget that the law has, at its base, one goal: to do what is right. The law is not perfect (what is?), but if you look at the majority of our laws and court experience, you will find that that is what the law tries to do, and it generally succeeds. I have read the available transcripts (on the web) for this case, and I believe that the courts have, in this case, tried to meet that fundamental goal.

But do I agree with them? That's a much harder question - and a topic for another more detailed essay... One thing I will tell you - I don't know if I could make the decision Michael Schiavo has made.

Some, notably one writer in National Review, have argued that such cases be considered under the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Sounds reasonable. But that standard is in place to protect the accused from conspiracy - what TV has taught us to think of as "being framed". Who in this case is being accused of wrong-doing and requires such protection? The Schindlers? Michael Schiavo? Terri Schiavo? The NR writer seems to be arguing simply that the standard applied to the decisions that the court needs to make in this case should have been "higher", and uses the court's language of 'clear and convincing' evidence to imply that the matter has received less serious or weighty consideration than any criminal case. After reading the transcripts and judgments, I do not believe that is true. Regardless of what the civil "standard" is, I believe that the judge(s) in this case have done their best to consider the case, absent the written wishes of Terri Schiavo herself.

The courts have considered, in each case, two main questions:

1) What is Terri Schiavo's condition, and therefore her likelihood of recovery?
2) Absent Terri Schiavo's written wishes (as in a living will), can it be determined reliably what her wishes were?

In each and every case and appeal, the courts have decided that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state from which she will not recover, and that her wishes were NOT to be maintained under artificial (which almost literally means "made by man's arts") methods.

You and I and every other decent person in America and the world can argue about the tests performed or the people on whom the court relied to make these determinations. But does anyone sincerely believe that the courts have deliberately abused the legal process in order to "kill" Terri Schiavo? How many people with that opinion have taken the time to read the court documents?

On the other hand, the media has clearly decided Michael Schiavo is not a sympathetic character. He has been accused and convicted by some in the press as guilty - of causing his wife's condition, of "just wanting her [insurance] money", and of being less concerned with Terri's wishes than with his own desire to "move on" - without even a single legal hearing. Where is his protection? What has the press done to his life and future? I have seen one - ONE - television segment that briefly mentioned that he took care of her for eight years after her collapse, and learned nursing to help care for her, and only after that period decided it was time to let her go.

Michael Schiavo has said again and again that he is doing what Terri would have wanted. He has also said that that did NOT mean "giving her back to her parents" - it is his responsibility, as her husband, to see to her care and to her ultimate wishes. Absent any compelling real reason to doubt him, the court has agreed. Regardless of our own feelings about this, we need to allow the process we all live under to work, even though we may disagree with its decision.

I do not know the Right Answer. Neither do any of the folks holding press conferences and carrying placards at the Hospice and in other locations. And our representatives in Washington, DC, certainly don't know the Right Answer. But I do know that the law is built to struggle, to the last, to find what is right. And it seems like the law has tried its best to do that even in this case.

A Compelling Moment

There was a lot of 'more of the same' rhetoric from our President in his 2/2/2005 State of the Union - i.e., the 'magic of the marketplace' will save Social Security, and he will somehow magically cut the budget deficit in half over the next 5 years (?)...

Yet there was also real reason to take notice and be hopeful that his actions will match his rhetoric in Foreign Policy. President Bush mentioned, for the first time, that two key Arab allies - Saudi Arabia and Egypt - are essentially part of the problem, and that they need to take steps to improve freedoms in their own countries as part of the world's fight against terror and for Freedom.

This was an extaordinary statement. Why? A few reasons, most policy reasons, but one personal (for the President). Saudi Arabia is, of course, a key ally and base of operations for our actions in the Middle East, as well as the de facto 'head' of OPEC. Egypt has been our ally ever since Anwar Sadat's courageous (and ultimately deadly for him) decision to make peace with Israel. For too long, we have been unwilling to ask these two allies to 'walk the talk' of Democracy and Freedom.

But this was especially gutsy coming from a President whose Family has strong personal and business relationships with the Saudi Royal Family. Perhaps, we can hope, this is what actually makes it possible for President Bush to make this demand of them.

But after this compelling moment, we need to watch - was it just rhetoric? Or will action follow?