Three Cheers for the Union Jack

The first post on this subject was Three Cheers for England, which covered the first five of the ten greatest events in British history. This will cover the next five and is entitled Three Cheers for the Union Jack, which sneaks Scotland into the fold. Sure, it’s arbitrary, but, it’s no fun to just write ten things that were maybe okay in British history.

5. Winning by losing - . The events of the decade,1664-1674, changed the course of history. They might surprise you, a little, because the loser was the winner. We call that unintended consequences.

Remember, for almost the first century and three quarters of European settlement in America, it was British, not United States’ history. 1664 was a momentous year. In 1607 Britain had begun a successful colonization at Jamestown, Virginia. Actually, it was only eventually successful. At the beginning, it was a disaster - starvation, illness, war and death being prevalent. But, eventually, you know what happened. In 1609, the very famous Captain John Smith, whose life was far more exciting and dangerous than any movie or tale about him has ever shown, left the hellhole of Jamestown. A few years later he was surveying New England including an area he named New Plymouth. A colony was established there six years later by a group of English Separatists we know as the Pilgrims. You know the names from early school – The Mayflower and The Mayflower Compact, Plymouth Rock, Thanksgiving, Miles Standish and so on.

Not much later the Massachusetts Bay Company founded a colony which was soon thereafter heavily populated by Puritans, which, despite a lot of confusion, are not the same as Pilgrims. An early governor, John Winthrop, gave the City on a Hill speech on his way to America in 1630. Late in the century, the Massachusetts Bay Colony swallowed up the smaller Plymouth colony.

The British were not the only Europeans to follow up on Columbus. The French, the Spanish, the Dutch and the Portuguese (Russians, Swedes and I'm sure others) were exploring all about, fishing and trading with the Indians. Around the same time as the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s meager beginnings, the Dutch followed up well over a decade of exploration around Manhattan and founded the colony of New Netherlands and the settlement of New Amsterdam. The timing of the development of the two colonies is complicated and I could not say who really has primacy (although Jamestown and Plymouth definitely preceded both). It didn't matter to the British who believed that the settlement at Jamestown gave them the right to the entire continent.

The European countries were not like today, by any stretch. They were competitors and sometimes violently so (in 1565 the Spanish slaughtered hundreds of French in Florida near St. Augustine, starting the fun). 

Between 1652 and 1674 the Dutch fought three naval wars (a fourth soon after if you include England’s Glorious Revolution, a Dutch invasion, and yet another one during our own revolution the next century). The first of these three wars was a draw, the second a Dutch victory and the third mostly a Dutch victory too, but ended with a treaty, the importance of which was not then recognized. Maybe it’s still not.

But, first, in 1664, something seemingly just a move on the global chess board, but actually quite momentous, happened. There was officially peace between the two powerful maritime nations after their first war. But, then, under a patent to The Duke of York, a British fleet appeared off the Manhattan coast. Peter Stuyvesant, the director of the Dutch East India Company, had no way to defend the colony and they surrendered. Actually, the leading citizens petitioned to him not to fight. New Amsterdam became New York. Actually, nothing happened to the Dutch citizenry or the many other peoples who resided in what was already an extremely diverse population. The English guaranteed the rights of the residents, and the transfer of power went fairly smoothly. Many Englishmen already lived and already had much influence there, and once the English conquered, the Dutch, who were the preponderance of wealthy citizens, continued to dominate the fairly autonomous government.

But, this act arguably was among those that set off the second Anglo-Dutch War, although the reasons were more so commercial, and which war ended two years later in a Dutch humiliation of the British. Yet, as there was no treaty signed, just the neutering of the English fleet, Manhattan Island remained New York.

After that, though, the English rebuilt their fleet. They were not looking for another war with the Dutch, but France’s Louis XIV was and Britain was bound to him at the time. Louis was unsuccessful in his land invasion due to the Dutch brilliantly using their lowland position and letting water in to block the French troops. So, along with the British navy, they attacked the Netherlands by sea. Once again, the Dutch humiliated the British fleet along with the French fleet to boot. More, as is little known and definitely not taught to American high school students, the Dutch (the nation though, not the Dutch East India Company, which had controlled it until then) actually retook Manhattan in 1673. And, this time there was some actual fighting. It was brief, as the British were not prepared to defend themselves either. Everything that had been changed by the British was changed back and that included the official language.

And then, with the English Parliament refusing to pay for more war, another treaty was signed in 1674. The Dutch and British essentially exchanged some island colonies to bring back the status quo. The Dutch received a number of islands in the southern climes and the British got New York back (which by the way – was known in the interlude as New Orange, after the house of Orange – and I bet you never learned that in high school).

Why is this important? The British had lost two wars in this turbulent decade, yet managed to wind up with the prize. Not that the Dutch really cared that much. Their other holdings were more important to them. The Dutch were on the rise at the time at least for a little while longer. I am not suggesting that America might have ended up Dutch if the British had not acted prudently, but it is possible. The following decade the Dutch William became Britain's king, and there were Dutch troops there for a while and then an alliance against France. The Dutch naval power began its decline and the Brits their great rise.  And, if we swing ahead almost two century, Winston Churchill pointed out that the most fortuitous thing for the British in WWII was that they and America spoke the same language. And, it was the British Empire and America which saved the free world in the 20th century.

4. Three little rules – There is no doubt that Albert Einstein was brilliant. After his Annus Mirabilis (Miracle Year), many other scientists, even many of those who quarreled with him about the science, recognized that there was something special about him. Yet, it has to be acknowledged that he reached so far for the stars, he was very often quite wrong about some his theories. The right ones however, being so important, easily drown out his misses. Einstein is often put in a scientific league which is occupied by only one other person – Sir Isaac Newton. As much as I appreciate Einstein’s mind and theories (to the degree I can understand them), I do not think he can compare to Newton, who revolutionized science in many fields. Although it may be argued by some that Gottfried Leibniz, who independently discovered some of innovations to calculus at the same time as Newton, was as brilliant, this is about Britain, and we will not consider him.

Even studying Newton biographically is an awe inspiring task. His work with physics and astronomy has dominated the hard sciences for over 200 years until Einstein’s theories of relativity. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"), published in 1687, provided the world with the two of the most practical and dramatic theories ever discovered – gravitation and the three laws of motion.

Einstein did not prove Newton wrong with relativity theory, just that there was more to it than Newton could have understood. And, just as Einstein worked from the discoveries of others, Newton too acknowledged “If I have seen a little further, it is from standing on the shoulders of giants” (which was not his saying – but many centuries old – look up Bernard of Chartres).

Without even discussing his theories of optics and sound, his discoveries (even if shared) in differential and integral calculus, other mathematical developments and his building of a useful reflecting telescope, the theories of gravity and motion made a couple of centuries of technological wonders possible and are the basis for all modern physics – even to some degree relativity.

There is actually a controversy with gravity too, this time with another genius, Robert Hooke. Newton acknowledged that Hooke and even others had conceived of the theory of gravity's main principle – the inverse proportion between gravity and the square of distance (I sound like I understand the math, don't I?) However, he pointed out that without his proofs, the theory was mere guess work, and he also claims he learned nothing new from Hooke (although some scholars recently dispute that).

Yet perhaps his greatest achievement were the three little laws of motion. I’m certainly not a physicist. I never took it in high school or in college (although, oddly, I took a course my freshman year called Physics0/WesternCiv0, which was neither a physics course nor a civics course – long story). But, I read laymen physics books and articles for fun and like to speculate on it. Here, I’m going to give the watered down of the law from the Principia which seem so simple now, it is hard to see at this late date, why Aristotle or someone like him didn’t figure it out.

One - a body initially at rest or in uniform motion continues in that state unless a force changes it. This is the law of inertia.

Two - The change of momentum of a body is proportional to a force made upon it, and the change is made along the same line on which the force is made.

Three – to every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

These laws are the basis of classical mechanics (which preceded relativity) and work in the world at large as we know it. The rules break down or must be modified at extremely high speeds or extremely small sizes, which is where relativity and quantum mechanics come into play. But, together with his theory of gravity and calculus, it explained all mechanical physics at the time.

Of course, science didn’t stop there and if not Newton, some day these theories would have been discovered by someone else. But, he put a rocket under the physical sciences. Einstein himself has said:

“[Newton’s] clear and wide-ranging ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy.”

“In my opinion, the greatest creative geniuses are Galileo and Newton, whom I regard in a certain sense as forming a unity. And in this unity, Newton is [the one] who has achieved the most imposing feat in the realm of science.”

When Albert Einstein, the third man on that Mt. Rushmore, says you achieved the most imposing feat in the realm of science, everyone should listen.

Two things in this world have made our lives so good – the development of a social order that gives us unparalleled freedom in the history of nation-states, and the development of science which has made it so much easier to live and enjoy ourselves, and gives us so much time to read about Newton and Einstein or anything else we want. In the words of Austin Powers – “It’s freedom, baby, yeah.”

3. The Glorious Revolution of John Locke – That’s a little pun there, son, you see. The Glorious revolution was the defeat of King James II of England by parliamentary forces and a Dutch invasion, putting King William of Orange-Nassau on the throne. But, it wasn’t as simple as that. As part of the deal, William agreed to the English Bill of Rights in 1689, the basis of much of our own bill of rights almost 100 years later. Although much more was needed to be accomplished in terms of individual rights, it was a landmark achievement of liberty in the world.

That same year, John Locke, returned to England after exile, published his Two Treatises on Government.

The first treatise was an argument against absolute monarchy – the divine right of kings. Locke had written it at the beginning of the decade, but clearly, with the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights, England didn’t need him to publish in order to come to the same conclusion.

It is his second treatise that is of interest today. In it, he had some revolutionary ideas. Like others before him, particularly Hobbes, he had a social contract theory. Men were born free in nature (although, it might shock some who quote him that he qualified this with the idea that some people God clearly put in a position of authority over others). Men gave up some of their freedom for the security of a society – “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”

Again, it might be shocking to some that this revered figure of liberty perhaps writes to justify slavery and conquest. This is not the consensus for most scholars, who claim he was arguing against a right of slavery. Maybe that's a post for another day.

His ideas on property seem to be an expansion of Hobbes and by capitalists and communists alike he is considered a father of capitalism (not that it didn’t already exist in practice).

It has to be remembered in judging Locke that he was a 17th century man, not an 18th century one. Although celebrated as a founder of modern democratic thought, he could accept things that would be more difficult for us. Thus, he was okay with forms of monarchy and oligarchies (although not absolute power). However, in his philosophy, there was a guarantee against their tyranny, and men were obliged to revolt when government stopped serving the people’s interests.

Not only didn’t England need him for the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights, but they didn’t really even know what he wrote. Unlike Hobbes’ work, it was mostly ignored (which gives me hope that my own theory of our free will being actually under control of invisible aliens resembling M&M's will some day be taken seriously).

Although he had gained some renown in England, it was really long after his death in America that he gained his greatest fame, and his theories were put to good use in support of our revolution. And, we all know the magnification of freedom that came out of that little experiment.

But, Locke’s contributions were not limited to the Second Treatise. I am here ignoring his psychological and epistemological work, which were important, particularly as they inspired a number of other philosophers (like Hume, see below),  But, as I have two other events to get to,  I will just mention a little known work of his – really a letter – which also was ignored, but was a forerunner of better government and civil life. If you have an interest in enlightenment values, you take a look at Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration, also written in the same year of 1689.

“Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. . . It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit.”

* * *

“The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.

Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.

It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. . . .?”

2. Like a bright torch on a dark night – That’s my description of the philosophy of David Hume, who I put in my own little pantheon, even over Locke. Hume, I believe, now out of fashion, was the wisest of the wise, not least because his philosophy is closest to my own. Isn't that how we usually judge brilliance?

Hume was a Scot, a member of a vaguely later defined group of Scotsmen who brought about what is now called The Scottish Enlightenment, whose work inspires and guides us down to this day. While Locke, who inspired Hume to some extent, is given great credit for inspiring our own founders, particularly Madison and Jefferson, the Scottish philosophers that came about in the next century probably did more so. I cannot even begin to cover them in the page or so I dedicate to them here, and will just speak of Hume, who I deem the greatest of them. However, I will recommend to any interested in the founders and what led up to them, Garry Wills’ great work – Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, which details how the Scots, and not Locke, was Jefferson's inspiration (although, in later additions, Wills admitted he made a mistake in excluding Locke as an influence completely). Or, if you aren’t going to read a book, you might be interested in my own Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence (3/7/09) where I discuss Jefferson's sources, including what I learned from Wills (although the point of that essay was to cut Jefferson down to size, which is never Wills' point).

Hume was an empiricist (as was Locke) and his own A Treatise of Human Nature was revolutionary (the truth of much of it being proved by how unpopular it made him with those in power) and more far reaching than Locke’s Treatise on Human Understanding which long preceded him. Inspirational is not a big enough word for this work. He inspired Kant, who said Hume “woke me from my dogmatic slumbers.” Some credit this work with founding the modern science of cognition – that is – thought processes. I think it is a little too much to say, although certainly he made a great contribution. More, Adam Smith, perhaps the most practically important philosopher to come out of the enlightenment thanks to his work which explains the benefits of capitalism, The Wealth of Nations, credits Hume with heavily influencing his economic theories. Smith published a eulogy for Hume upon his death, which was brave in itself. Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy has been described as Humean and he himself (at least sometimes) recommended reading Hume or an imitator (for those who know my feelings about Jefferson, it is not his philosophy I criticize so strongly, but his character) although he had one picayune problem with him that colored his thinking and also made him harshly criticize him.

Even last century, he was highly influential to Karl Popper, who may be the most influential philosopher (even if still not widely known to the public) of the 20th century for his work on scientific theory (though I prefer his political theories), and also Ludwig Wittgenstein, Popper’s competitor. Wittgenstein's best friend, by the way, was David Hume Pinsett, the great philosopher's descendant.

You can throw in William James, John Stuart Mills and Arthur Schopenhauer too, but that’s just getting started. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is deemed by most (sorry intelligent design theorists), as one of the greatest achievements of the 19th century. To see the degree to which Hume influenced him read http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2009/06/david-humes-influence-on-charles-darwin.html.

But wait, there is still more. Einstein’s theory of relativity is considered the greatest scientific achievement of the 20th century, and for some, ever. Here’s what he wrote about Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature: “[Positivism] was of great influence on my efforts, and specifically E. Mach and still much more Hume, whose treatise on understanding I studied with fervor and admiration shortly before the discovery of the theory of relativity. It is very well possible that without these philosophical studies I would not have arrived at the solution. (translation taken from http://scienceforums.com/topic/3025-einsteins-intellectual-debt-to-david-hume/.

Is it unfair to say that the man who inspired or influenced Smith, Kant, Hamilton, Jefferson (although, again, in some aspects, TJ reviled him - but mostly his famous history, which he found too Tory - it's complicated), Popper, Wittgenstein, Darwin and Einstein was the greatest philosopher? He’s got my vote.

I cannot go through the entire output of Hume’s work here (he was a historian and economist as well as a philosopher), but I can state a few ideas which attract me and seem important. He wrote on the problems of induction, that is, whether we can prove causation by past experience. He didn’t invent the idea but is still the best guide to this day on the subject, and, he understood better than others that you can’t prove anything by past experience, you were crazy to ignore it – because experience is still the best guide. That may seem obvious as you read it here, but too often I am frustrated by the argument of others who condescendingly state that you can’t prove anything, to which I like to reply, that’s true, but it is always the argument of last resort by those who have no evidence at all.

Hume understood that we are emotional creatures and that our reason was dominated by passion rather than reason. ‘”Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." I would argue, that the need for science is, in fact, to help reduce the problems caused by the seductiveness of inductive reasoning and our natural inclination to confirm our feelings with faulty rationalization. Reason does exist to help us make judgments, Hume explained, but our passions determine what we do with these judgments. Thus morality is based on feelings, not reason. You can understand, I’m sure, how this would make him unpopular with religious groups.

All great thinkers stand on the shoulders of others, as Newton confirmed, but Hume was quite original. His theory of self is difficult to intuitively grasp. There is no self, in fact, no real essence of anything. We are a bundle of sensations that are linked by our memory as with a chain. To speak of a self without the properties is to speak as if there was a chain with no links. This is the opposite of Plato’s essentialism where the reality is the idea as an essence, and all copies a degradation of it. I am not sure if this would be born out by modern cognitive science centered on the workings of the brain.

Hume's religious philosophy would earn him the nickname The Great Skeptic. For example, he asked, if there is evil and God is all powerful, then he must be part evil. If he cannot control or stop evil, then he is not all powerful. Of course, like any prolific writer, there are aspects with which I would disagree, even vehemently.

If you don't at least momentarily feel like going out to buy a book on Hume after all this, then you just don’t like philosophy, which is fine. In the immortal words of Stan Lee, ‘’Nuff said”.

1 - Let’s wrap it up with the Great Man – I can’t write about Britain and not mention Winston Churchill. In World War II his greatest contribution was the indomitable will to survive and prevail he inspired in his nation. I’ve written on him specifically before, so I will just give two quotes here which riveted not just the British, but freedom lovers all over the world.

“Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”

* * *

“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

See more on this iconic figure at Move Over Einstein – The greatest man of the century is . . . (5/9/07).

And . . . All Hail Britannia!

Political update for March, 2011

Not Western Values?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland last week. After singing the praises of democracy and what I usually call enlightenment values, she said “Democratic change must grow from within. It cannot be implanted from the outside. And let me be among the first of many to say the West certainly does not have all of the answers.”

After more praise for things like democracy and free speech, she said: “These are not Western principles or American ideals. They are truly universal, lessons learned by people all over the world who have made the difficult transition to sustainable democracy.”

Clearly she is trying to maintain this administration's policy of differentiating themselves from the Bush Administration and appeasing Islam. And, just as clear, that’s just the kind of talk that makes Republicans and conservatives say "stop the apology tour.” Unlike some of my Republican/conservatives friends, I have never believed that Barack Obama is anti-American or wants us to fail. But, there is a question of whether he is using faulty tactics to further his foreign affairs strategy, and Secretary of State Clinton is helping to implement it. The strategy is to get other regimes to like us more and therefore be more cooperative with us. It’s hard to fault that as a desire. But, the tactics include apologizing for American behavior and displaying a level of humility which he hopes will highlight the difference between this administration and the Bush administration’s more muscular approach.

You’ve probably seen the clip of Barack Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia and asked yourself – what’s up with that (unless you really believe Barack Obama is a Muslim and was acknowledging his lord and master)? I cringed. I watched it a few times to see if I was just falling for a right wing narrative – I don’t think so. It seemed to me the left wing dismissal of it as misreading the president's movements was a falser narrative. Then the Obama administration gave nearly a billion dollars to help rebuild Gaza after our ally, Israel, legitimately defending itself, took it apart, instead of letting Iran pay for it. It has to be wondered if this approach to winning hearts and minds scored any hits in Gaza with anyone but secret anti-Hamas Gazans. Then President Obama went to Cairo and made a speech which included:

“I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

That may have made some scratch their heads and ask in what Muslim country there was tolerance and dignity for all human beings, at least as we might recognize it? But, in fairness, that is not all he said:

“The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum – ‘Out of many, one.’”

And also words which sound very much like the ones spoken by Hillary Clinton:

“That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere."

It was a mixed speech, at best, frequently praising democracy and our values, but, while not ignoring militant Islam, he was quite tepid about it. As if - the two systems are different but equivalent. The two cultures are not equal when it comes to discrimination and abusive relationships built right into the system. He was clearly looking for the same type of reset he wanted with Russia. The problem is, as I see it, there aren’t any countries which seem to respond to his overtures. Russia? Iran? Gaza? Syria? No. No. No and no.

The truth is, many of the ideals Mrs. Clinton was speaking of in Geneva and the president in Cairo are in fact creations of Western civilization, at least in the sense that they have continuity and as we have them now. You can say, well, Confucius had a golden rule just like ours. But, China's history has not one of a free society. In fact, arguably, all the advances of China today are due to its adoption of at least a form of capitalism, and, all of its defects, ideology which has been at its greatest in the East – such as central planning.

The idea of democracy comes to us from Greece. The idea of separation of powers from there and Rome, and more recently the coin was termed by a Frenchman (Montesquieu). Most of the ideas of liberty we possess come from the rights of Englishman or were specifically designed by our founders – such as the first amendment religion clauses. While admonitions against and punishments for crime have been found in all organized societies, that is not what they were talking about. And, even if toleration has been found in some societies at some times and places (even in Islam), it was not sustained and institutionalized anywhere but the West.

We don’t have to claim we made up everything - there is nothing new under the sun, as we well know too - but the values of the West are one of the reasons that citizens of Islamic and others flock to the West, and not visa versa. There is nothing wrong with saying we got some things right and have sustained them, even if imperfectly, and the most important of them are the enlightenment values - and that includes capitalism. If we don’t claim these and promote them as better than other ideas, why would anyone else think they are a good idea?

The Middle East

It’s interesting, probably sad, to note, that despite the revolutions taking place across Northern Africa and the Middle East, the always volatile Gaza and also the more pacific West Bank have remained quiet. What are we to make of that?

The main reason has to be is that the groups that are rebelling are of the same country, peoples, religion and culture as they are protesting about. Tunisians against Tunisians, Egyptians against Egyptians, and so on. There is no doubt that Israel would view any rebellion as a threat to its existence and crack down hard, possibly even harder than Libya. It is also hard to imagine a Palestinian revolt being successful for the same reason. And they've tried before.

While the West Bank, ruled over by the Palestinian Authority finally seems to be determined to abstain from violent opposition, and to develop its infrastructure and society, and perhaps some day be free of occupation, Gaza has not.  But, it is surprising that Gaza’s leaders, Hamas, have had patience at this time and would not try to take advantage of the swelling of feeling in their neighbors, perhaps the world. This moment will pass and it looks like it will without there being an uprising. Perhaps it is because it is only 3 years since Hamas last tried and they are still rebuilding. Perhaps the last “war” was more than even their leaders could bear. Perhaps they are wiser than we in America give them credit for.

Complete peace is probably not possible while the current leadership of Gaza remains in power. But, it is also interesting to note that Gaza’s own people have not rebelled against their own leaders, which means they are either satisfied or cowed.

I won’t try and predict what is going to happen there and I won’t give my usual schtick about Israel needing to lead by getting out of its settlements in the West Bank. Since no one predicted the uprisings that took place, we can’t even begin to guess what will happen next.

But, let me say this. It is a shame. Although peace and a two state solution seems no closer than ever (despite revelations of how close it was while Ehud Olmert was Israel’s prime minister), it should happen. No conflict in the world has the same effect on the rest of the globe as this one. I wonder if I will ever see peace there in my lifetime.

And the winner . . . What? No one is running?

You just can’t tell. We were well into campaigning 4 years ago for the 2008 presidential election, and all we hear now is speculation. Newt Gingrich didn’t even announce forming an exploratory committee on March 3rd, as was expected, but only announced a website with the word explore in the address. So, now I guess we have exploratory committees to explore whether their should be an exploratory committee.

I’ve said before that the Speaker will be hard to predict, but I was betting against it, and I still will. Although fairly sure about Ms. Palin and Mr. Huckabee not running (which Fox has almost confirmed for us by not suspending their contracts), the idea machine is harder to predict with any certainty. But, I am sticking with my “no”.

Tim Pawlenty, who may have the best nickname, this time around, T-Paw, is still testing the water, but he won’t even get into his bathing suit yet. While Mr. Gingrich is busy burnishing his image with religious types by talking about his faith, in the hopes that they forget he cheated on his old wife with his new wife while he was blasting President Clinton for the same thing, Gov. Pawlenty is practicing his anti-gay rhetoric to help him win them over. It rather disgusts me, but he seems to believe it will help. In the meantime, I have some advice for him – never, ever give another stem-winding speech. He’s just not good at it and it doesn’t come out as sincere.

Whoever runs for the Republican nomination knows he has to please the south as a block, or his/her chances of winning are slim. That's not going to be difficult for a Sarah Palin or Haley Barbour, but others will have trouble. One of Mr. Gingrich's problems may be that he converted to Catholicism, his present wife's religion, and that is not big in the south. In my little southern town, I've calculated we have about 1 church for every 85 people, but not one of them is Catholic.

Of course, there are no Mormon temples in my town either, which brings us to Mitt Romney, who also hasn’t announced. I have to admit, despite my visceral distrust of him, and his palpable flip flopping, he still seems to be the only one of likely candidates who might beat the president in an election if it were held today. I do not believe any of the others so frequently mentioned could, other than perhaps Governor Huckabee (and he’s not running – I'm 97% sure).

Yet, I think that Gov. Romney is handling himself well, practicing his presidential airs, staying just out of the spotlight and keeping from saying anything controversial, or worse, stupid. There are polls which have made Ron Paul (not running) and Mike Huckabee (not running), the front runner. I think they are wrong. Among the hoi polloi, Gov. Romney is the true front runner on the right. However, he had better create some feeling of excitement, or he risks Bob Doling himself.

Jonah Goldberg wrote an article the other day where he made predictions about the Republican nomination which sounded a lot like he has been reading my posts (they all read me, you know – in fact, I am convinced that George Will is the guy who is constantly spamming my comments). But, I noticed that Mr. Goldberg didn’t even mention Sarah Palin once in his article. Something has changed in the last month, and as we move forward, it looks like Republicans of all stripes are beginning to recognize she is not running and, more probably, shouldn’t. That’s a big change in a month.

Last, Sen. Rick Santorum – please, for the sake of your family and those who cringe in embarrassment for you - don't run again. You have no shot at getting the nomination. None.

Most hated group wins in the Supreme Court

On October 10, 2010, I wrote the Churchill-Einstein-Gandhi award winning* post, Look, it’s their opinion – Snyder v. Phelps. The case had been argued before the Supreme Court at the time I wrote it, but not decided. It involves the first amendment rights of a church group and its members (who are mostly, I believe, one family) to stand down the street from the funeral of a serviceman and hold up horrid signs castigating the departed soldier, his family and America in general because of our sinfulness. Our sin, by the way, is tolerating homosexuals.

I stated there my opinion that the Phelps and their church were within their rights (however, like everyone who comments on this case, let me add – yccchhh) and I still hold that position, although I admit to weakening a bit. The court ruled 8-1 in favor of the defendants and the plaintiff, the bereaved father, who probably acted out of a sense of duty to his son, must even pay the court costs, although they are not extensive (it’s just the insult of it).

Robert’s wrote what you’d expect he would (if, of course, you have read my previous post, which was, incidentally, also just awarded the No Bell Prize for Legal Commentary*). The Westboro signs, the court stated, contained content which were primarily a matter of public, not private concern, but the church is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. At the time of the protest, Maryland did not have a criminal statute in place concerning funeral picketing (which law may or may not be constitutional), and the church group sought out the assistance of the local government and followed their rules. The government cannot prohibit speech simply because it’s offensive to some or even all to the speaker because of content.

The most important facts were as follows: “Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were. Westboro alerted local authorities to its funeral protest and fully complied with police guidance on where the picketing could be staged. The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity, or violence.”

The decision held no new law, but applied it to a set of extremely provocative facts that had attracted national attention.

But, I’ve been brief with the majority opinion, signed by all but one judge, for a reason - I've already covered it - and turn to that one judge, Samuel Alito, whose dissent left him alone on the court but probably higher in public opinion. And, despite being in the minority, perhaps he is right. Here’s what he wrote:

The Phelps have a right to express themselves, he acknowledges. They can do so in a myriad of ways and in a myriad of places. “It does not follow however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate. To protect against such injury, ‘most if not all jurisdictions’ permit recovery in tort for the intentional infliction of emotional distress . . . .” 

In order for speech to be available to make out a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) the speech has to be “‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’” And, the Phelps admitted that their speech was just so.

Sadly, Justice Alito points out that the strategy of saying horrible things at funerals “works because it is expected that respondents’ verbal assaults will wound the family and friends of the deceased and because the media is irresistibly drawn to the sight of persons who are visibly in grief.”

Moreover, he asserts, a reasonable observer looking at the Westboro signs would have believed they were asserting that the dead soldier and son, Matthew, was gay. There were also signs that were specifically addressed to his Catholicism (which the Phelps detest) and his military service. The law in some circumstances allows the prosecution of speech criminally and civilly even where it is mixed with protected speech.

Alito takes what he says are the 3 main positions of the majority opinion and declares them all wrong. First, he disagrees that the statements made generally concerned public matters, but were statements about Matthew and those were vulnerable to suit. Second, it matters not at all that the statements were not part of a private grudge, but only made because of a strategy to increase publicity for their views. To the contrary, Justice Alito argues that a private grudge should be more protected than an excoriation of a private citizen based on a cold and calculated strategy to garner publicity. And, third, it really shouldn't matter that the Phelps were protesting on a public street. Neither a physical assault or fighting words are immunized by being done in public - why should intentional infliction of emotional stress?

Justice Aliton finished with a philosophic or political argument rather than a legal one. “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent.”

This is a very difficult case emotionally. It is not hard to believe that many people wish humiliation, pain and even death on the members of the Westboro Church for their cruel tactics. I know I despise them, and I'm sure the 8 justices aside from Alito do as well. A change in one of a number of single facts might have made a difference to me. If the church group had placed a sign in the church window where the funeral was held or stopped plaintiff’s car or shouted down the ceremony, it would be easy to say they crossed the lines. But, this is why the Phelps are so careful – they want their message heard and they are disciplined in obeying the laws so that they are not stopped.

However revolting the Phelps are, we protect their speech so that our speech is protected. Virtually every day online I see comments made, occasionally directed to me, which are hateful, false or designed to be hurtful. Only rarely do I see them rise to the level of the Westboro group, but once we cross the line of stopping some speech which is not violating a content-neutral law because most of us don't like it, where do we stop? I find, for example, many statements I read about ordinary American Muslims online and in the media offensive, but would not for a second wish that the speakers were prevented from offering their opinions or that they could be sued for having them. Certainly, I emotionally find such attacks on Nazis, Bolsheviks or fascists, for example, just fine. We cannot draw a line that is dependent on personal opinion of the speech's worthiness, nor the worthiness of the offender and offendee.

That being said, let me try to make an argument in support of Justice Alito’s opinions. Suppose instead of Catholics, who are perceived as a very large and powerful group, these statements were made about Jews, or blacks, or, unlike Matthew, actual homosexuals. Do you think the Supreme Court’s opinion might have come out differently? Suppose, if Matthew was Jewish, the signs said "Christ killers" and "They have all the money".  It is quite possible, although impossible to prove.

If the Phelps are constitutionally protected in making these purposefully hurtful statements, how can we justify any hate speech law that is not a face to face confrontation (where the fighting words doctrine kicks in)? Was this not anything but hate speech? Or, are we just going to pick some groups who are protected (say, blacks, Jews and gays) and too bad for everyone else? It doesn't seem morally right or legally just. In fact, in the case entitled R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) the court invalidated a hate symbol ordinance which prohibited certain symbols such as a burning cross or a swastika "which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender".

Finally, we do have a fighting words doctrine which allows laws to punish some speech made directly as a confrontation where the content seems to have know social value but seems likely to cause a violent reaction. Here, we must again remember that, first, the Phelps violated no law, and there was no confrontation at all. In fact, Mr. Snyder did not even know that there was a protest until later. The fighting words doctrine cannot apply even though I suspect that if the Dalai Lama’s mother was subject to the scurrilous statements made about her that Mr. Snyder later heard about his son, he’d want to punch some of the Phelps clan in the mouth.  

But, let me also offer one little silver lining. If a group as offensive and hated as Westboro Church can win in the Supreme Court, it tells us not everything is partisan and political, even if it sometimes seems so. The majority made, in my view, a wise and courageous decision. And though I appreciate Justice Alito's concerns, I think, in the end, he is wrong.


*I created the celebrated Churchill-Einstein-Gandhi Award and the No Bell Prize previous to finishing this post. It is not unexpected I will win more in the near future as other nominations are likely. I am considering establishing a Pull Its Ear Prize Award for Journalism, as well.

Did you know III

I had started writing this post on philosophy. And then, I looked at my previous posts this year and seven of eight of them were on history or politics, with another political update coming up next week. I said to myself, “Lookit here, son, I say son, write something light-hearted.” So I will.

It’s also because I can’t find the philosophy piece I was writing, but, same difference.

I haven’t done a Did You Know in quite a while. A Did you know is a post about movies and tv trivia. I have done two before (10/29/07 and 12/24/07), and despite the fact that I know almost none of the information before I start researching it, it's a lot of fun. By the way, I am furious to see that IMDB now calls it's trivia section "Did you know?" and I am thinking of suing. Does anyone know a lawyer?

So here we go. Did you know. . . .

that I dream of Jeannie (1965) was based on a movie made only the year before called The Brass Bottle, where Tony Randall played the master and Burl Ives the genie? And that Tony Randall’s girlfriend in the movie was played by a stunning 31 year old actress named – Barbara Eden? But, she wasn’t expected to play Jeannie. The producer, Sidney Sheldon, wanted a brunette, to differentiate it from Elizabeth Montgomery in Bewitched. That is, until Jeannie – I mean Barbara, auditioned.

that Alec Baldwin was offered the role of Richard Kimball in The Fugitive?

that Mel Gibson turned down the lead in Gladiator (I hated that movie)?

that Will Smith was supposed to be the lead in The Matrix? That would have been different. He won the first rap Grammy ever, had a hit tv show and has been in 15 movies that have grossed over $100 million dollars.

that John Travolta could have been Forrest Gump and Tom Hanks the lead in Field of Dreams?

that Christopher Walken has played Hamlet and Romeo and MacBeth? That he has been married 42 years, which is a like a thousand years in Hollywood? That he was briefly a lion tamer when a kid and was that close to being Hans Solo – Lucas’ second choice?

that John Ratzenberger, who played Cliff on Cheers, has been in movies grossing over 3.7 BILLION DOLLARS, making him number 4 all time only behind actors Samuel Jackson (2) and Tom Hanks (3), and beating out actors like Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise? That one of those movies was Gandhi, in which his voice was dubbed?

that the all time box office king is someone named Frank Welker, who I sure never heard of, but is a voice in a zillion animated films which have grossed over 5.7 BILLION, dwarfing even films Samuel Jackson has been in?

that When Harry Met Sally was in the works it was originally called Boy Meets Girl and How They Met? That in the original script, they didn’t end up together at the end? That Meg Ryan was the 5th choice for Sallie? That Billy Crystal and the director, Rob Reiner, were actually best friends and that Harry's character was based on Rob's loneliness after his divorce to Penny Marshall, and his conversations with his friend in the movie (played by their real friend, Bruno Kirby) were based on Rob’s and Billy’s conversations after Rob's breakup? That Sallie's character was based on writer Nora Ephron (and her friends)? That Bruno Kirby (who I think was one of the best actors around when he died very young in 2006) has a jawbreaker of a real name – Bruno Giovanni Quidaciolu Jr.? That Meg Ryan’s real name is Margaret Mary Emily Anne Hyra?

that cute little Brandon Cruz, who played Eddie on The Courtship of Eddie’s Father, quit acting at age 18 (1980) to play punk rock, starred as the lead singer for years with the Dead Kennedy’s (who coincidentally, have the only punk song I have ever liked – Kill the Poor) and still performs with a different group?

that not only did David Carradine play Kwai Chang Caine but so did his little brother Keith, as a younger version?

that Happy Days has to be the all time spin-off king (itself spinning off from Love, American Style), including, Laverne & Shirley, Mork & Mindy, Joanie Loves Chaci, and two I never heard of and which were incredibly short lived – Out of the Blue and Blansky’s Beauties, not too mention animated spin-offs of Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley and Mork & Mindy?

that NCIS’s Sean Murray (McGee) is the step-son of the producer, Don Bellisario, whose mother used to play the mysterious redhead dating Jethro in season one? That Ziva's (Cote de Pablo) real name is Maria de Jose Pablo Fernandez, who was born in Chile, raised in Miami, and of course speaks English just fine? That in the first season Tony didn't know anything about movies, not even who Gary Cooper was? That in the first episode Gibbs didn't know FBI agent, Tobias Fornell, but later on later it became Fornell was briefly married to Gibbs' second wife, though Gibbs tried to warn him? That Sasha Alexander (Kate) is Sophie Loren's daughter-in-law and has never really said why she left, but has said there are a million reasons she can't talk about? That George W. Bush appeared as himself on the first episode.

that Cary Grant was one of Ian Fleming's models for James Bond, and he turned down the role in Dr. No, believing himself too old? That's kind of odd, because the next year he starred in Charade with a vastly younger Audrey Hepburn as his co-star and 3 years later he married a young starlet, Dyan Cannon, and had a kid with her.

that Stargate-SG1, a favorite of mine, was the longest running American Sci-Fi show ever - even longer than X-files, but soon to be passed by Smallville? That Christopher Judge, who played Teal'c, was was once on Richard Dean Anderson's MacGyver, which was also the show that inspired Michael Shanks (Dr. Jackson) to become an actor? That the voice of Thor is actually Michael Shanks?

that Megan Mullally, Karen on Will & Grace, played George's girlfriend on Seinfeld in the "double dip" episode? That Debra Messing played Jerry's girlfriend who turned out to be racist? That Michael Chiklis (The Shield, Commish) was the friend from LI whose house the gang went to for a party at which Elaine says to an obnoxious mother "Maybe the dingo ate your baby"? That Courtney Cox, shortly before Friends, played Jerry's girlfriend in the episode where they pretended to be married to get a discount at a dry cleaner? That Amanda Peet was a Jerry girlfriend in the episode where she lived with another guy while dating him? That Brad Garrett (Everybody Loves Raymond) played the mechanic obsessed with cars who steals Jerry's car to protect it?

that, speaking of Courtney Cox, she was supposed to audition for Rachel, but liked Monica's character -- already turned down by Janeane Garofolo -- better? That she was the only one of the six not to get nominated for an Emmy? That John Cryer, Alan of Two and a Half Men, was first choice for Chandler? That when Matt LeBlanc auditioned for Joey he actually was a broke actor? That the original plan was for Joey and Monica to be the main couple?

that Jennifer Taylor, the actress who played Charlie Harper's fiancee for a while on Two and a Half Men, had previously played four different women on the show?

that the actors and actress who play Raymond and Deborah's kids on Everybody Loves Raymond were actually brothers and sister?

that Bob Munden, at least at one time considered the world's fastest draw (I've seen him on tv and his abilities appeared super human), claimed that Jerry Lewis was actually Hollywood's fastest draw followed by Sammy Davis, Jr.?

that The Andy Griffith Show was actually a spin off from Make Room for Daddy? That Barney and Andy were cousins in season one?

Okay, that does it.

Three Cheers for England

You can probably tell from this blog that I’m a Grecophile. But, I’m also an Anglophile. Both countries were essential to the development of logic, philosophy, critical reasoning and science, not to mention political freedom. And, while I'm at it, also not to mention – America.

But, like with Ancient Greece, the amount of time I indulge myself in learning about England or Britain is not proportionally reflected in this blog. I wrote a post on Churchill (Move over Einstein -- The man of the century is . . . 5/9/07) and one on an interesting murder (The Strange Case of Edward Bellingham - 4/28/08). But, can I even count the four on Tolkien (7/17/07, 4/10/08, 5/14/09, 2/21/10)? Yes and no.

Recently, I saw a discussion forum on Amazon asking what are the best books to learn about Britain. I recommended:

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain
Le Mort D’Arthur (these first two are hardly real history, but critical to understanding Britain)
Churchill’s History of the English Speaking Peoples
Antonia Fraser’s Cromwell
Catherine Drinker Bowen’s The Lion and The Throne
Then, Churchill’s History of the Second World War
I didn’t write it on Amazon, but I’ll add here The Ultra Secret. With WWII, ends the long heroic age of Britain.

But, no book reports here (rare, anyway). I’m heading towards the ten greatest events in British history and, no surprise, they are all about liberty. I hope it is a little different than you've seen elsewhere, if at all. Hang on to your bowlers, gentle folk:

10. Common, but great. Ah, King Alfred, how little are ye celebrated now in lands settled by your descendants. Born royal, Alfred the Great long fought the Danish Vikings, eventually defeating, at least for the time being, forcing them to surrender and their leaders to accept Christianity. He was a scholar, as well as a military man, translating many Latin works into Anglo-Saxon himself. He has been credited with creating England as we know it, and it might not be overstatement. It is easy to be cynical about very old history, but as far as we can tell, the King was a pious Christian and a very good man, writing, “My will was to live worthily as long as I lived; and after my life to leave to them to come after me, my memory in good works.” Better still is the epilogue of his anthology, Blossoms, mostly taken from St. Augustine’s Soliloquies (having bored myself silly with Augustine’s Confessions in my youth, I never attempted Soliloquies; it might be better than I fear): “He seems to me a very foolish man and very wretched, who will not increase his understanding while he is in the World – and ever wish and long to reach that endless life where all shall be made clear.”

But, his greatest achievement was his code of laws, or Doom Book (meaning “Judgment Book”) , created from previous codes of Wessex, Kent and Mercia and from the old and new testaments. Fortunately, the golden rule was part of it. Following Leviticus, he wrote, “Doom very evenly! Do not doom one doom to the rich; another to the poor! Nor doom one doom to your friend; another to your foe!” His code was the basis for our common law, ever after in England and then in America, supplemented by Magna Carta, our own constitution, and a gazillion other statutes. But, still, a foundation of our freedom, which gives our lives such joy.

9. The best defense isn’t always a great offense. A few years ago, at the U.N., after a French diplomat bragged about his country being a great nation founded by the French people, a British diplomat joked that they were also a great nation founded by the French people. And, in large part it was true, 1066 being one of the most famous years in history, when Britain was successfully invaded for the second to last time (a Dutch army in 1688 was last). Of course, William the Conqueror claimed that he was entitled to the throne, in any event, but the French dominated England for many years and blended with the Anglo-Saxons (and others) to form the laws, culture and language we know as English or British.

There were actually four Kings of England that year. The first was Edward the Confessor, who barely made it into the year, dying on January 4th. Harold Godwinson was crowned King, and he, unlike his predecessor, was a warrior. But the Duke William of Normandy, Edward’s cousin once removed, claimed the throne as well, believing he was promised it by Edward and sworn fealty to by Harold, who had earlier fought alongside him. Actually, in England at the time, it was the Witenagemot, elderly nobles, who determined the king, and they selected Harold. He didn’t exactly get to enjoy it long as in September, while waiting on William's attack, he had to hurry north to defeat the Norwegian Harald Hardrada in league with his own brother, Tostig Godwinson, and then turn around and head south with a depleted army to fight William, who had already landed, a little over two weeks later near Hastings. He died there, as essentially did Anglo-Saxon rule, although the Witenagemot selected Edgar Æthelring (“Edgar the Exile”), another Edward the Confessor relative, as the new king. William defeated him too – Edgar fled - and was crowned king. It took about another 8 years to polish off the resistance, including Edgar who had fled to Scotland, but the Normans accomplished it (mostly done with William across the water in Normandy).

However, neither the invasion nor 1066 itself is my no. 9 choice, but a momentary decision or perhaps reaction in the battle of Hastings is. The English had no cavalry or bowmen (if any, few). The armed themselves like Homeric warriors with sharp clublike weapons, mostly axe and sword. And like later Greeks, they defended themselves by making a shield wall, which was a good defense against the short range bow and arrow and also cavalry, which could not penetrate the strong wall without room to maneuver within it.

After a long battle where the wall held, the left of the invaders broke and fled downhill, and others on William’s side, sensing disaster, began to flee as well. Sometimes an army is criticized for not pursuing and routing their foe, but, this is where the English made their mistake. Their equipment and strategy worked well on defense, but not well in the open field upon a calvary. William’s own horse itself was felled and it was thought William was dead. But, he rose and threw off his helmet, and rallied his troops. There’s my big moment, although perhaps, like much history, apocryphal. Without the shield wall, the English were vulnerable to the French cavalry. Also, by aiming their arrows over the shields into the rear, the invaders took a terrible toll on the defenders and perhaps then Harold received an arrow in the eye, as we are told. Perhaps he died otherwise, but dead he was. Harold’s two brothers were also slain and William regained the momentum. Slowly, the Norman cavalry found the room it needed to break up the shield wall and win the day. It is entirely possible the invasion would have faltered had the English maintained their position and not broken ranks. Indeed, perhaps Harold would have appended to his name “The Great,” as only Alfred had before him and none after.

8. A great charter, but mostly because of one part. Even I, the worst of school age students remember covering Magna Carta. Although something stirred inside me, I never read it or understood its value until I was an adult, despite the fact that individual liberty was an essential part of my personality - some might add "flaw". It was, of course, not intended to be a statement of the rights of the common man, but of free-men, not women, not serfs. However, it was restated again and again, and is undoubtedly a founding document in the bibliography of liberty.

It was forced upon King John of England, who signed it under threat of destruction. The most controversial part of the charter was its clause which permitted the barons, in sufficient number, to overrule the king. It was rescinded by him as soon as the barons, who now swore fealty again, left London. The Pope at the time also condemned it. John was dead a year later and not until a year after that was the term Magna used before Carta Libertatum - later just Magna Carta. It was not until 1225 that it really entered English law, although much changed.

Clause 39 of the original charter read as follows:

“No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.”

Close to a hundred and fifty years later in one of several revisions, the phrase now read (as clause 29 now):

“No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

When we formed our constitution, it was written that no person (among other rights) could “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” These words were placed into the 14th amendment, and then applied against the states themselves.

It would not be possible to here provide you with all the freedoms we now have which stem from those words in that useless charter agreed upon only by duress in 1215, but it is the basis of the reason you have a right to know the charges against you, to defend yourself, not to have a confession beaten out of you, and all of the rights we now have which are deemed fundamental. It cannot be given too great an importance.

7. Heroes or villains? I have never been quite sure what to make of Oliver Cromwell. Apparently, neither can the British, as when over there on my second trip, I made it a point to question a few history buffs about whether he was hero or villain. They were all quite frank – they weren’t sure. I recommended Fraser’s book on him for a reason. It is an indefatigably researched work and a classic.

The most dramatic part, in my mind, of the victory of Cromwell and the increase in parliamentary power (forgetting for the time, his own tyranny), was the trial of King Charles I, who the Parliament forces had defeated, where it was established that no man is above the law. Undoubtedly, Charles believed he had right on his side. Had not his own father, James, declared the absolute power of the king? No king of England, or probably any king anywhere else (have I missed someone?), had ever been tried before. They just murdered them. When asked to plea, he answered thus:

“I would know by what power I am called hither. . . . by what Authority, I mean, lawful; there are many unlawful Authorities in the world, Thieves and Robbers by the highways: but I would know by what Authority I was brought from thence, and carried from place to place, (and I know not what), and when I know what lawful Authority, I shall answer: Remember, I am your King, your lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the Judgment of God upon this Land, think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater; therefore let me know by what lawful Authority I am seated here, and I shall not be unwilling to answer, in the meantime I shall not betray my Trust: I have a Trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it to answer a new unlawful Authority, therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me. . . . I will stand as much for the privilege of the house of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever. I see no House of Lords, here that may constitute a Parliament, and (the King too) should have been. Is this the bringing of the King to his Parliament? Is this the bringing an end to the Treaty in the public Faith of the world? Let me see a legal Authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or warranted by the Constitutions of the Kingdom, and I will answer.”

To which the Lord President responded:

“Sir, you have held yourself, and let fall such Language, as if you had been no ways Subject to the Law, or that the Law had not been your Superior. Sir, The Court is very well sensible of it, and I hope so are all the understanding People of England, That the Law is your Superior, that you ought to have ruled according to the Law, you ought to have done so. Sir, I know very well your pretence hath been that you have done so, but Sir, the difference hath been who shall be the Expositors of this Law, Sir, whether you and your Party out of Courts of Justice shall take upon them to expound Law, or the Courts of Justice, who are the Expounders; nay, the Sovereign and the High Court of Justice, the PARLIAMENT of England, that are not only the highest expounders, but the sole makers of the Law. Sir, for you to set yourself with your single judgment, and those that adhere unto you, to set yourself against the highest Court of Justice, that is not Law.

Sir, as the Law is your Superior; so truly Sir, there is something that is Superior to the Law, and that is indeed the Parent or Author of the Law, and that is the People of England . . .

Sir, that road we are now upon by the command of the highest Courts hath been and is to try and judge you for these great offenses of yours. Sir, the Charge hath called you Tyrant, a Traitor, a Murderer, and a public Enemy to the Commonwealth of England. Sir, it had been well, if that any or all these terms might rightly and justly have been spared, if any one of them at all.”

To which the once powerful King responded:

“Ha!”

6. A man and his hat. This trial is so delicious, I cannot pretend to do justice to it as a mere part of this post, but might return to it for a full discussion in due time. I’ve no doubt, if you are American, you have learned about William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But I rather doubt you have heard about his hat, which is the greatest part of his life story. You see, though the son of an admiral, he was a bit of a trouble maker, having fallen in with the Quakers, and outlawed sect which was persecuted by the crown.

In 1670 Penn and a “friend” were arrested and charged for going to a “meeting,” which is what Quakers called their services. Brought to court, the bailiffs removed their hats. However, the Mayor (one of those who sat on the bench with the recorder and aldermen) wanted to have a little fun with the Quakers, and had their hats put back on, which was a big mistake on his part. This is a mere scrap of what Penn put the court through:

Recorder: Do you know where you are?
Penn: Yes.
Recorder: Do you know it is the King’s court?
Penn: I know it to be a court, and I suppose it to be the King’s court.
Recorder: Do you know there is respect due to the court?
Penn: Yes.
Recorder: Why do you not pay it, then?
Penn: I do so.
Recorder: Why do you not put off your hat, then?
Penn: Because I do not believe that to be respect.
Recorder: Well, the court sets 40 marks apiece upon your heads, as a fine, for your contempt of the court.
Penn: I desire that it may be observed, that we came into the court with our hats off (that is, taken off), and if they have been put on since, it was by order from the bench; and therefore not we, but the bench, should be fined.

After the so-called trial, the jury was basically directed to find a guilty verdict. They came back with a mock verdict, finding them “guilty of speaking in Gracious Street,” without adding “. . . to an unlawful assembly. No matter how the bench threatened, they kept coming back with the same verdict. Penn protested, as he did throughout.

Penn: It is intolerable that my jury should thus be menaced; is this according to the fundamental law? Are not they not my proper judges by the Great Charter of England? What hope is there of ever having justice done when juries are threatened and their verdicts rejected?

Later, having had enough:

Mayor: Stop his mouth; jailor, bring fetters and stake him to the ground.
Penn: Do your pleasure, I matter not your fetters.
Recorder: Till now I never understood the reason of the policy and prudence of the Spaniards, in suffering the Inquisition among them, and certainly it will never be well with us till something like the Spanish Inquisition be in England.
Penn: I know it to be a court, and I suppose it to be the King’s court.
Recorder: Do you know there is respect due to the court?
Penn: Yes.
Recorder: Why do you not pay it, then?
Penn: I do so.
Recorder: Why do you not put off your hat, then?

Two days and two nights without food and beds only brought the jury to make a finding of “Not guilty,” which in regular form, the court could not reject. But, he decided to fine the jury 40 marks each and to being imprisoned until paid. Penn demanded his own freedom:

Penn: I demand my liberty, being freed by the jury.
Mayor: No, you are in for your fines.
Penn: Fines for what?
Mayor: For contempt of the court.
Penn: I ask that if it be according to the fundamental laws of England, that any Englishman should be fined or amerced but by the judgment of his peers or jury . . . .
Recorder: Take him away, take him away; take him out the court.
Penn: I can never urge the fundamental laws of England but you cry, Take him away, take him away, but ‘tis no wonder, since the Spanish Inquisition has so great a place in the Recorder’s heart. God almighty, who is just, will judge you for all these things.

Again, this is but a small part of a trial where the court violated substantial rules, not even allowing Penn to know the charges or to put on a defense. The jury was later set free by a higher court, having courageously maintained their integrity. Against Penn’s wishes, his father, near death, paid the fine for his son and his friend. The trial is not the first example of what is called of jury nullification, but it did result in a ruling where courts were no longer permitted to punish jurors for coming to a result which displeased the bench.

Given my propensity for verbosity, I am making this a two parter, so that none might feel they'd rather be held prisoner without due process than finish it today.

Atheist and Bible to marry! Read all about it!

Could be a little excess hyperbole in the title there. I was also thinking of calling it - "Why this atheist loves the Bible," which amounts to the same thing with a little less drama. But, the truth is, I do love the Bible, and sometimes that perplexes people who know I do not believe in God. Very rarely, it angers someone, but that has happened. Too bad. Even had they the copyright for it, they couldn't keep me from commenting on it. Nor can they stop me from saying "God bless you" if they sneeze or "God damn," "Good God," "Jeeesus Christ" or any other expression. Sometimes, I have even been known to comment, "that's the weight God wants me to be" (but, I'm fighting it nevertheless) which caused one friend of mine to look very puzzled and to say "But you don't believe in God." I know, I know, but religions have such great metaphors.

I love the Bible, not because I believe it is divinely inspired or the word of God, not because I believe it is accurate in its history or accept the miracles in it as having taken place. I love it for the stories, and the language and the occasional inspiration, and also for its prominent place in the only culture I have ever intimately known. Today I thought I'd write about a Biblical character you wouldn't normally read about. I'm using the NIV Bible, if anyone cares.

My favorite prophet. When I was a kid one of my favorite programs was My Favorite Martian, a show about a martian with certain powers who came to live with an ordinary young man. In the Bible, there are many people with amazing abilities, including prophets, but, for some reason, this one prophet Elisha is my favorite among them. He doesn't drone on and on about the fall of Israel much, bellow angry jeremiads; he just does cool stuff and reminds me a bit of character's in Grimm's Fairy Tales more than an old wizened prophet. Then again, the tales about him also remind me, in his irascibility, a little bit of Gandalf too (as often magical and irascible old men do). Or maybe it's just that the Grimm Bros. and Tolkien were so influenced by the Bible. You can find the tales about Elisha in 2 Kings 2-13.  I'll go through some of them and when you sit down tonight with your King James version in your hand, you can read the whole thing.

Elijah and Elisha. Elisha (meaning, I read, my God is salvation - "El" in a Biblical name always refers to God) didn't just jump out of a rock whispering spells and croaking bad guys. He was an apprentice first to someone who is probably the most popular prophet in the Bible, Elijah, aka, Elijah the Tishbite. Elijah is sometimes lumped together with Moses and Jesus, and that's not bad Biblical company. Jews know him best from the Passover holiday, as there is a place set for him at dinner, and reputedly, he drinks the wine left at the table for him. One day (Elisha's introduction is found in 1 Kings 19), Elijah sees a boy, Elisha, plowing a field with oxen, and throws a cloak over him. The boy says good-bye to mom and dad, burns his plow to make a fire to feed his people, and the goes with his new master. "Then he set out to follow Elijah and became his attendant." Just like that. If it reminds you a little of Jesus calling Matthew - me too.

"Dragons live forever, but not so little boys," says the song, and apparently not prophets either. Elijah was going to be called to heaven. On a journey near his end he told Elisha to stay where he was because the Lord had sent him to Bethel. Elisha replies, almost rythmically, "As surely as the Lord lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So, he accompanied him. At Bethel another prophet asked him if he knew the Lord was going to take his master, and he acknowledged he did, but said, "Yes, I know, but do not speak of it." They repeated this little scenario in heading into Jericho and to the Jordan River and Elisha repeated his little mantra - "As surely as the Lord . . . ."

When they got to the river, Elijah, with a company of prophets watching, took off his cloak, rolled it, and struck the water with it. The river split and the two crossed dryly. If that reminds you a little of Moses splitting the Red Sea by waving his hand - me too. I like to call this event "The Prophet and the Second Parting," not because it's such a big deal, but I just think it sounds like a good title.

When they got to the other side, Elijah asked what he could do for Elisha and his wise apprentice asked for a double helping of Elijah's spirit. Ah, that was not so easy, warned Elijah, but he promised that if Elisha saw him when he was taken, he would have it. Then, walking along and chatting, horses and chariot of fire appeared, separating them and taking Elijah to heaven in a whirlwind. If that reminds you a little of Hades springing up from the earth to snatch away Persephone - me too.

Elisha helplessly calls after him – “My father! My father!” and tore his own clothes. But, he picks up Elijah’s cloak, the one that had been used to call him, and walks back to the Jordan River. He took the cloak and cried “Where now is the Lord, the God of Elijah” and struck the water as Elijah had. With that the waters parted again, and literally taking up his master’s mantle, he crossed. Touching, isn’t it?

The same company of prophets was watching and noted that Elijah’s spirit was resting upon him. They doltishly asked if they should go look for Elijah to see if God put him down somewhere. Elisha says no, but they keep asking until he is embarrassed into it. Of course, they find nothing, and when they come to him, he pretty much says – “Told you.”

Elisha and the thirsty townspeople. Then Elisha, apparently already in his full powers, a sorcerer’s apprentice with his awesome abilities is asked by the townspeople to solve their bad water problem. He tells them to bring him a bowl and put some salt in it. He flings the salt into the spring and fresh water comes out. Seem like a boring tale? Maybe it’s not so dramatic, but when you remember that in some Eastern religions and Western superstitions salt had mystical ability to ward off evil spirits (ever notice Sumo wrestlers throwing salt before a match?), it takes on new significance.

Elisha and the two bears. Don’t mistake Elisha for the Dalai Lama. He wanders back to Bethel where some kids mock him, calling him “Baldy.” I kid you not. I know, because the Bible tells me so. Taking the ribbing rather hard, he calls down a curse of the Lord. Two bears come out of the woods and maul 42 of the kids. If that reminds you a little of Tolkien's "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for they are subtle and quick to anger” - me too.  However, he moves on, probably wisely. I can't imagine the parents would be overly happy.

Elisha and the three kings.  Three kings of Israel, Samaria and Judah decide to attack Moab, which had rebelled against Israel when the new king came in, find themselves in the desert without water (which, of course, is why one does not go into the desert without a lot of it). The king of Judah asked if there was no prophet who they could inquire of (If that reminds you of the Greek oracles . . . ) and someone replied that Elisha who used to pour water on Elijah’s hands was around. When the king of Israel comes to him, Elisha, ever the grouch, asks, “What do we have to do with each other?” and tells him to go to the prophets of his mother and father.” When the king of Israel protests that it was the Lord who called the three of them together, Elisha answers in that cranky yet whacky way, “As surely as the Lord Almighty lives, whom I serve, if I did not have respect for the presence of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, I would not look at you or even notice you. But now bring me a harpist.”

Bring me a harpist? But, apparently it helped put him in the mood, because he is now touched by the Lord and is able to tell them to dig a ditch and it will fill up with water. Not only that, but he will hand over Moab to them, and they can have their way. Sure enough, in comes the water. But, when the Moabites see it, it looks red and they think their enemies have slaughtered each other. So, they attack and got their Moabite heads handed to them, just as Elisha predicted. However, after a failed counter-attack, the king of Moab did what you or I would do – he sacrificed his oldest son. Apparently, God appreciated that, as “the fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.” See why I love the Bible. All it needs are orcs and a balrog.

Elisha and the oil jars. Not all the stories are so compelling. This one makes you want to say – “And . . . so?” One woman comes to him and tells him that her husband, a member of the company of prophets, therefore Elisha's servant, is dead and their creditor wants to sell her two boys into slavery. Elijah asks her what she has and she says a little oil. So, he has her borrow jars from her neighbors and pour the oil in them. She then tells him what they have done, and he replies – “Go, sell the oil and pay your debts.” I think the moral is sometimes you just need someone to tell you that what is right in front of your face – is right in front of your face, and just get busy.

Elisha and the sugar momma. A wealthy woman from Shunem and her husband make a little room for Elisha in their house for when he’s around. One day he is there lying about and he calls his servant, Gehazi, and tells him to summon the lady. He asks what he can do for her in return for this hospitality. Of course, she has nothing to ask for. But, Gehazi suggests that she has no son and her husband is old. The next thing you know, Elisha is telling her that she will have a son next year. She tells him not to get her hopes up, but sure enough, the next year she gives birth to a son. If that reminds you a little of Abraham and Sarah, or the Virgin Mary . . . . Frankly, I am just a little suspicious that Gehazi didn’t have more to do with it than The Good Book is telling us. In any event, some years later, the child complains to his father of a headache, and the next thing you know, he’s dead. His mother rushes off to Mount Carmel to find Elisha. At first, Elisha has Gehazi rush to her to ask what is the matter and she inexplicably responds that everything is fine. But when she gets to Elisha she grabs hold of him and Gehazi shoves her away. But, Elisha barks at him to leave her alone and she tells him what happened. He sends Gehazi to the child with his staff with orders to lay it on the boy’s face (Holy Gandalf! A magic staff!). It didn’t work and Elisha went himself. He lay himself down on the boy, “mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands,” and the boy warmed, sneezed seven times and woke. Mythological tales of bringing someone back to life are quite common, but this one was pretty dramatic. Of course, Isis dancing around Osiris with a magic phallus might be just as good.

Elijah and the bad stew. Back home in Gilgal during a famine, Elisha was hosting the company of prophets. He ordered his servants to make a stew which they did out of herbs, vines and gourds. But, when the prophets ate it they yelled, “O man of God, there is death in the pot!” So, Elisha had them mix some flour in and it worked out just fine. As someone who has had the same thing happen at a dinner party, let me explain. Every good stew needs some flour as stock. Oh, yes, much practical advice can be garnered from the Holy Bible.

Elisha and the bread. Another food related story involves a visitor who brings Elisha 20 loaves of bread (apparently, Elisha entertains a lot). When Elisha tells his servant to feed the people, the servant tells him that he can’t feed 100 people with so little bread. Elisha tells him again to do it and reminds him that the Lord says, “They will eat and have some left over.” Easy for the Lord to say. But, sure enough, when they set it out, there’s enough. Which brings up another practical point - most people over cook for their parties, always sure they will not have enough. By the way, if this story reminds you of Jesus feeding the people . . . .

Gehazi’s big mistake. Another time a man from Aram, Naaman, went to the king of Israel to ask that he be cured of his leprosy by Elisha. The king did not take it well, reading the letter of introduction from Naaman's king, tore his clothes (you notice this happens all the time), and said “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!” But, perhaps I’m being unfair. Unlike, say, the mayor of San Antonio, who never has to worry that the mayor of Houston is going to attack his town one day, these kings had to be quite careful about insulting their neighbors. But, in any event, when Elisha heard about it he sent the king a message, which I will interpret loosely as, “What’s with the drama? Sent him to me and I’ll show him the good stuff.”

When Naaman went to the man of God, Elisha sent out a messenger who told him all he had to do was to wash in the Jordan 7 times. Naaman went away angry, saying that he thought Elisha would have “come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy.” Even then, presentation was everything. Finally, a servant convinced him to do it and lo and behold, it worked. He went back to Elisha, said he knew that the only God was in Israel and asked him if he could reward him. Elisha said in his typical fashion, “As surely as the Lord lives, whom I serve, I shall not accept a thing.” Trust me that wasn't always the case. Personally I usually give up the second time something is offered to me, having learned from experience that my refusal is far more irritating to the giver than the good feeling I get from not accepting, but Elisha was adamant.

Gehazi, however, if you remember him, was not happy about it. He went after Naaman and Naaman, seeing him, got out of his chariot and asked if everything was all right. It was, Gehazi said, but a couple of prophets came by and Elisha wanted to know if you would give them some money and clothes. With this, Naaman happily complied. Gehazi hid the gifts away and came before Elisha.

“’Where have you been, Gehazi?’ Elisha asked.
‘Your servant didn’t go anywhere,’ Gehazi answered.
But Elisha said to him, ‘Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you?’”

Now, you know that Gehazi is saying to himself something like, “Oh, boy. Please not the bears. Not the bears.” But, no bears. However, Elisha arranges it so that Gehazi ad his descendents get Naaman’s leprosy. Remember what I said before about meddling in the affairs of wizards. Anyway, Gehazi does return later, so perhaps it was the leprosy flu.

Elisha and the iron axe. When the company of prophets came to Elisha, they asked him to come down to the Jordan with them, as the place where they met was too small, and they wanted to build a place down the river. At the river, one of the men dropped his iron axe in the water. “Oh, my Lord," he cried out, "it was borrowed.” Elisha asked him where it fell, and cutting a stick, threw it in the water, causing the iron axe to float. The man plucked it out of the water. If this reminds you of Jesus walking on water . . . .

Elisha and the blind guys. Remember I told you they never knew when there neighbor was going to attack them. Well, soon enough the very same Aram from whence Naaman came is raiding Israel. Their king becomes quite frustrated that the Israelis always find out his plans and avoid him. At first he suspects one of his men. But, then it is explained to him that Elisha, residing in Dohan, is telling Israel's king Aram’s plans.

So the king of Aram sends men to surround Dohan. When Eliza comes out with his servant, they see the enemy troops and the servant panics. But Elisha tells him not to worry, that there are many more of us than them. He prays to the Lord to open the servant’s eyes and then he can see a ring of fiery chariots surrounding them. Then Eliza prays that his enemies are struck blind, and so they are. If this reminds you of the story of Lot.

Elisha tells the attackers, “This is not the road and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will lead you to the man you are looking for. And he led them to his own king in Samaria. The Israeli king asks if he should kill them, but, Elisha instead counsels him to feast them and send them home, which is done. And Aram stopped raiding Israel. For a while, anyway.

Elisha and the king's officer. When the Arameans attacked Samaria again, there was famine and the price of food was terrible. The king in a fury decided to kill Elisha (I’m guessing because his God wasn’t helping much). But, Elisha knew it before the king’s messenger even got there, and he had his prophets shut the door against him. The king asked why he should wait for the Lord anymore. Elisha foretold that that time tomorrow, flour and barley will be cheaper. The officer on whose arm the king leaned (hey, that's what the Bible calls him), questioned Elisha further, and Elisha predicted it would happen, and he would see it, but not get to eat any of it. If this reminds you of Moses and the Holy Land . . . .

In the meantime, 4 lepers were living by the gates. They decided that if they stayed there, they would die, so they decided to surrender to the Arameans and hoped they wouldn’t kill them. Unbeknownst to them, the Lord had made a big racket and the Arameans, believing the Egyptians and Hittites were attacking, fled. When the lepers got there, they ate, drank and pilfered. Then they realized they should tell the king or they might get in trouble. So they did. Scouts were sent and found that in their flight the Arameans had discarded their clothes and equipment.

The Israelis came out and plundered the Arameans camp, trampling to death as they went the officer on whose arm the king leaned. As Elisha predicted, prices would come down, and he would get to see it, but he would never eat it.

Elisha and his worst prediction. Elisha went to Aram and the king sent his servant, Hazael, to ask him if he would recover from his illness. When Hazael asked as he was bid, Elisha told him that he should tell the king that he would recover, but that he knew he was going to die.

At that, Elisha began crying. When Hazael asked him why, Elisha said because he knew Hazael would kill the people of Israel (he was a lot more graphic, including ripping open pregnant women’s bellies). When Hazael asked how it was possible that a servant could do this, Elisha said that God had revealed to him that Hazael would be king.

Sure enough, when Hazael went back to his king and told him that Elisha said he would recover. “But the next day he took a thick cloth, soaked it in water and spread it over the king’s face, so that he died. Then Hazael succeeded him as king." Maybe Elisha shouldn't have had such a big mouth.

The end of Elisha. Things become complicated at this point, particularly with war, and I skip ahead to the end of his life. Elisha was suffering from an illness. The king of Israel came to him worried about war with Aram. Elisha had him open a window and shoot an arrow. Then he told him to strike the ground. The king did so three times. “The man of God was angry with him and said, ‘You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times.'”

I'm not sure what the significance of this last tale is, but, it's possible that the old fellow may have just lost it, because that made little sense. Or maybe he was just having fun with him.

And then, just like that, the old man died and was buried. But, later, some Israelis were burying a man when they saw Moabite raiders and they threw the body into Elisha’s tomb. The man rolled onto Elisha’s bones, and then he suddenly stood up alive. If this reminds you of Jesus and Lazarus .  .  . .

Political update for February, 2011

What in the world happened to Glenn Beck?

I barely watch cable news shows any more, pretty much since the ’08 elections, and particularly at night, when the commentators are almost literally throwing red meat to their audiences. Still watch Morning Joe maybe 20 minutes a week and if there is good coverage of havoc somewhere, as there is this week, I’ll watch that. Glenn Beck is someone I have never watched with the exception if I am on the thingee at the gym, and Cash Cab isn’t on another set. I do put on talk radio when I drive and I have to say that personally, I like him personally for the most part.

And I’ve always said about him, he can make a lot of sense (meaning when he agrees with me) – until he says something crazy. I had heard he said wild things, but hadn’t seen it myself because I wasn’t on the thingee all that long and sometimes Cash Cab was actually on too. Then one night, he said something that really made me laugh. While making oodles of money on tv, his own radio show and being a best selling author, he announced – we are no longer a capitalist company.

What? I wish I could have had a line into his show, ring him up and ask him in front of his audience – how much money did you earn tonight? Beck took cable by storm, ringing up huge audiences. And then, for some reason, when the tea party was at it’s hottest in 2010 and you would thing he'd ride that wave, his ratings started going down. Not just a little. A lot. It didn’t make sense. He even managed to have a very successful rally last year on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Washington D.C. speech.

Now, in 2011, his tv audience is down about 40% from the year before and 50% with the younger demographic. It’s not that the network is doing badly. Fox still beats CNN and MSNBC combined. And Beck, bad as he did comparatively, still beats Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer and Headline News together, but his ratings have been progressively going down. But Brett Bair, who seems like a really nice guy with little charisma, is now no. 2 overall on the station, and Hannity no. 2 with the youth rating. Beck is demoted to 5th.

Fox gets its rating from conservatives, not liberals and not that many independents. And, he hasn’t done anything to offend them. So where is his audience going? It can’t be that he doesn’t say whacky things anymore. I heard him defend on the radio the other day Michele Bachman’s statement that the founders worked tirelessly until they ended slavery was true. Really? Even the youthful founder, James Madison, had died almost three decades before the 13th amendment. She specified J. Q. Adams, who was not only not a founder, but the son of a founder, and he was also long gone before the 13th amendment was even proposed. I listened to him say it online again just to be sure and I had it right. It was an unusually angry rant against Chris Matthews (who also says crazy things) and he even claimed that Matthews hates Frederick Douglass because Douglass changed his mind and said the constitution was an anti-slavery document. That’s true, Douglass did do that, but it was, in my opinion – because, as Mr. Beck suggests, I actually do my own homework and read history, that it was purely a political decision by Douglass and even ruined his relationship with William Lloyd Garrison. And, one more thing, Mr. B. He didn’t do it after he had a conversation with Abraham Lincoln. They didn’t even know each other at the time and met over a decade after his 1852 speech.

What happened to Glenn Beck? I don’t know. Still better to be him than Keith Olbermann or David Shuster, of course.

Speaking of Keith Olbermann

I’ve often said out of all the pundits, the meanest, the one I can stomach the least, was Keith Olbermann. Not that I didn’t think he was talented. He is a good looking man with a great voice and can talk a blue streak. Like many of the other television or radio political jocks, he can rambles on about the same thing over and over again and maintain grow his audience (although tiny compared to Fox). He writes much (maybe all - not sure) of his own stuff, and it rings, whether you agree or not.

Back in ’08 when I still watched cable news, I email MSNBC several times. They finally took my request (along with, I’m sure, thousands of other people) and fired him along with Chris Matthews from their campaign anchor positions. I don’t really think someone like Mr. Matthews belongs doing campaign coverage, but Mr. Olbermann made a joke of it to the point it seemed like a Barack Obama campaign commercial.

When he was fired from his job last week I watched some old videos on youtube. In one, while Joe Scarborough commentated from the Republican convention, KO said under his breath – “Someone get a shovel,” and got called out on it. One night he pissed off his co-anchor so bad that Chris Matthews interrupted the conversation with the next guest and yelled at him. This could not have made anyone really happy at MSNBC.

Reportedly, the station wanted to fire him a long time ago. I wish they did. I try not to dislike people, but sometimes it happens anyway and I just have problems with his hubris. The day he was canned I tried to email Bill O’Reilly (not really a fan of his either) as Olbermann had made a regular mockery of him. I couldn’t remember the email address he repeats like a mantra on his show, but I wanted to send him the following idea.

At the end of his show he should face the camera and say: “We learned today that a certain competitor and critic of mine was fired from his job at a network I’d rather not mention. In fact, I’m not going to comment on the whole story at all.”

And, then give the biggest smile he can while the camera just lingered on him.

Wherefrom Egypt and Tunisia?

Egypt is getting the 24/7 news coverage it should, and I never cease to be amazed 10 years after 9/11 how ignorant news personnel are about Islam. Sure, they’ve learned a few buzz words like Shi’a and Sunni, but they don’t know much about them.

Here’s something you can mention at your next cocktail party (incidentally, is there really even such thing as a cocktail party anymore, and if there is, why have I never been invited to one?) – the news media will tell you endlessly that this cycle of protest started in Tunisia last week. And, it may be true. But, it is quite possible that the inspiration for what happened in Tunisia and now Egypt, Yemen, etc., started in North Africa all right, but in an area known as either Western Sahara or Morocco, depending on your view point, back in November of last year.

If you look at a map of Africa, which I confess I do more than would seem healthy, and find Morocco right across the water from Spain, you will find to the southwest of it a country called Western Sahara.

Actually, it’s not quite a country. According to the U.N. it is a non-self-governing territory. It may not look so big on a map of Africa, but that’s because the countries neighboring it are huge. It is actually larger than France, for example, which is the largest country in the European Union. But, it is also mostly sand as you'd guess from the name.

The territory has been disputed between Morocco and the Polisario Front (Communist? Free market advocates? Criminal syndicate? Terrorist links? Freedom fighters? All of the above?) for about 35 years or so when Spain finally gave her up as a colony in the 1975. Some countries recognize her as an independent country and some recognize Morocco as the sovereign. I don’t intend to go through the whole history, but despite the fact that most of it is unusable and that there are only a half million people in the entire area, compared to France again with 62 million or 124 times as many people, they fought a war over it for a while. Morocco continues to govern much of it.

About 3 months ago, there was a dust up. A group of the native Sahrawis set up a protest tent city outside of the major city of Laayoune. It was the largest protest they have ever had there since Spain left. Moroccan troops attacked. The tent city was broken up and there were many injuries and reportedly the deaths of dozens of natives and a dozen officers. The fighting spread to the city and there were fires and stone throwing akin to what we saw in Tunisia and are now seeing in Egypt. France, which backs Morocco in its claim, blocked a U.N. inquiry.

Can I say with certainty that the events in Western Sahara was a cause of what took place in Tunisia and now Egypt. Of course not. But they are in the same area of the world and although we pretty much ignore here what happens in Western Sahara, it is big news in that part of the world (I checked their English language newspapers). While the revolt in Tunisia was going on, the Polisario Front and Morocco were engaged, without fruit, in another round of U.N. negotiations which had originally scheduled to start the same day as the Laayoune battle. And, of course, the attack on the protesters came only a few months ago. Proximity in time and place should mean something.

I’m not suggesting a John Le Carre type conspiracy here. I am only talking about inspiration? The Tunisian revolt did not come from nothing. I’m suggesting that this event, virtually unreported in the United States, might be a large part of it.

As I did with our invasion in Panama, Desert Storm and the last invasion of Iraq, I am glued to the television set watching the same scenes in Egypt over and over again. And, I admit, I am excited by it like I would be watching an NFL football game. That’s probably not politically correct to say and it’s not that I don’t have empathy. I have plenty of that. But, this is not news you can catch up with later.

What amazes me is how many people think they know what is going to happen. Think about it. Mubarak has been there for thirty years and there were only 3 for the nearly 30 years before that. Who knew Sadat was going to be assassinated? Who knew that Mubarak would be there for 30 years? Who knew this was going to happen?

As I write this, there is a deadline given by the protesters for Muhbarak to be gone by tomorrow. They are preparing for an attack on them. But, no one knows what is going to happen. Is the government going to have the so-called “goon squads” charge again? Is the Muslim Brotherhood plotting to take power once the government is gone? Will President Obama be more outspoken in supporting the protesters? Is Mubarak right that if he leaves now, there will be chaos? Does Elbaradei have any real say in anything or any serious future? Do we want a less secular, more anti-Israel democracy in place? These are all questions and I do not have any answers. More, I’d suggest that anyone who predicts correctly, will have just gotten lucky.

I don’t even know what will happen by tomorrow morning and despite that tv will be boring again, I hope for a peaceful solution.

Still no shows on the right for 2012

How different is this than the last time? By now the candidates for both sides were mostly known if you were paying attention. Now, of course, we know Barack Obama is going to be the candidate for the Democrats. The fantasy of the right that Hillary Clinton was going to challenge him for the nomination – always laughable – is not even thought about anymore.

But where are the Republican leader? Tim Pawlenty is busy trying to get anyone to notice him, but he hasn’t announced. Mitt Romney is doing his rounds, boring everyone, not answering questions about the Massachusetts health care plans well, and not announcing anything. It is such a desert out there that now the media is starting to speculate about Jon Huntsman, who has a slightly better chance of winning than I do, and Michele Bachmann, who is more deliberately divisive than Sarah Palin can ever hope to be.

And that is who we are all waiting for, isn’t it? Sarah Palin. That will be front page news. 

I am almost positive I am right about Mike Huckabee (I always want to call him Bill, for some reason). He isn’t running. Maybe I dreamed he already said so, because I had to double check. If I haven’t suggested it before, I don’t think Ms. Palin will either. I think she knows she can’t win and losing might jeopardize her chances forever or hurt her celebrity, which is how she makes her living. The time may be right for her followers, but she is not ready, if she ever will be. For reasons I can’t quite comprehend, Mayor Giuliani said if she runs, he might. I guess he sees himself as the moderate and thinks the comparison will do him well. But, he couldn’t get anywhere last time and this time the party has moved right. He’s kidding himself. Newt Gingrich is occasionally getting his name in the news. With less certainty than my other predictions, I just don’t feel a run by him, even if he donated very heavily to Iowan politicians and went there ten times in 2010. This is what is reasonably called “spidey-sense.”

I am expecting a much smaller field than last time. I’m not counting Alan Keyes whether he turns up on a debate platform or not (the greatest unsolved mystery of the ’08 campaign). It won’t be as exciting as last time unless Sarah Palin running, and in some ways, I’m kind of happy they are waiting. Elections bring out the worst in people. It’s not that I mind family and friends calling me a Nazi, Commie, racist, partisan, American hater and misogynist. Sometimes I find it funny. But, I wouldn’t mind if it was just for a little shorter period this time.

Health care, anyone?

The health care repeal in the senate has failed. It’s done. But, still, a federal district court in Florida has declared the law unconstitutional based on the mandate requiring those who don’t want health care (and some who can’t afford it) to pony up anyway and pay a penalty.

The argument by about half the states, which are opposing the law is that the mandate is the first time in history people will be required to pay for a product they don’t want, which is not authorized by the commerce clause contained in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution.

A Virginian court has already found this, but it stayed the enforcement knowing that it would go up on appeal. This judge, Roger Vinson, instead that as he granted a declaratory judgment stating the law unconstitutional (because the rest of the health care law can’t work without the money from the mandate), no injunction is necessary.

What does that mean for the states? Generally speaking, any district court judge can declare a law unconstitutional and it is until appealed and overturned. Right wing media hosts have been saying that the argument is over and the federal government has no choice – the federal government can’t put the law in effect barring Judge Vinson someday being overruled. That’s pretty funny, of course, as quite recently they were telling us that a district court didn’t have the power to force the federal government to stop enforcing don’t ask, don’t tell.

What do lawyers think? They don’t seem to know. Some attorney generals are already saying that their states should continue and others that they should not. I would say that for those within the jurisdiction of the Florida federal court, that is true. Which would mean in Florida, but not any other state.

The truth is, this should get an expedited hearing in the responsible court of appeals, and then straight up to the Supreme Court. Too much rides on this as a result of the size of the legislation.

I watched a bunch of fancy schmancy lawyers on C-Span the other day as they were questioned by Senators. The lawyers, of course, differed as to whether the law violated the commerce clause. No surprise as the congress usually tries to have witnesses of different persuasions. Some felt this is well within congress’s powers and others that it is revolutionary. Personally, it seemed to me a waste of time for the Senate to listen to disparate opinions now given that it is up to the courts to decide.

This is a politically explosive case. Politically explosive cases often end up as 5-4 decisions in the Supreme Court. However, both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia have shown a bit of leeway in commerce clause cases and it cannot be positively stated what they will decide. However, that is not a prediction. Just a - don't be surprised. I rather think they will side with the complaining states, but one argument, which might have some effect on Justices Kennedy and Scalia, is that no one doubts this would be constitutional if the penalty was a general tax and a credit was given to those who purchased health care. That is, it would be the same thing phrased differently. Justice Scalia sometimes asks in oral argument - so, if we just change the titles around, everything's fine? Another argument that might affect them is one Justice Scalia concerned himself with before, that the necessary and proper clause permits regulation of non-commerce when it affects interstate commerce. However, they may also find that is true with activities but not inactivities like not buying health insurance.

It was a very long decision and I’m not about to decode it here. But, I will give you a few basics. Congress is not authorized to pass any law it wants. It has to be authorized by the constitution's grant of power to it in Article 1, section 8, which lists a whole bunch of things congress can do, including things like coining money, declaring war, and regulating interstate commerce, among them. At the end of the list there is what is called the necessary and proper clause. That clause means that even if something isn’t in the list, congress can still do it if it is necessary and proper to achieve one of things it is permitted to do.

Long ago, and while some few founders were still alive, the necessary and proper clause was interpreted to mean convenient and proper. Fuss all you want, it is too firmly entrenched in our constitutional law since 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland) to be overturned without a near legal revolution. Chief Justice John Marshall noted that the commerce clause was difficult to interpret and probably would be as long as we kept the system we had. He was right. However, for a long time, the commerce law was not that controversial and rarely referred to by congress.

Although you can trace a long change in the history of the commerce clause starting in the late 19th century, it really accelerated in the late 1930s and early 1940s with New Deal legislation. One of the cases that most dramatically demonstrates the sea change in the law is Wickard v. Filburn (1942), wherein a farmer who was also growing food to feed his own family was held to be in violation of a federal law limiting what he could grow. That a farmer could be told that the federal government could tell him he couldn’t grow his own food on his own property to feed his family stunned many people then and continues to now.

This isn’t going to be a full tutorial on the commerce clause which you can get many other places, including on Wikipedia, but hopefully you get the drift. Nowadays, most everything the congress wants to authorize under the clause passes the Supreme Court’s test. While the court drew a line in the sand in the 90s in two cases (Morrison and Lopez, if you care), they then drew back a little (Raich, if you still care), it continues to be the go to provision in the constitution. This is not just because of a change in the interpretation in the law, but I don’t think anyone, even the most ardent states’ right advocate, disagrees that there is a lot more interstate activity now than in the early days of the country.

Two district courts have found that this law is constitutional and two that it is not. Before it gets to the Supreme Court, there might have to be a split in the various circuit courts of appeals. It might get there anyway because of the seriousness of the dispute. But, that the Supreme Court will decide itself.

Personally, I think the interstate commerce clause has been expanded enough. I would also see a liberty interest here under the 5th amendment as more pressing than the commerce clause argument, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here for the lawyers involved. But, I acknowledge that I would have to put in a lot more time to make a decision on the legal aspects of this matter and perhaps I will in a separate post dedicated to it. I have long been a believer that interpretations of the constitution and fundamental law are unavoidably as personal for judges as legal and personal feelings of liberty will undoubtedly matter. And, of course, what the constitution might have meant in the beginning is hopelessly complicated and even distorted forever by the principle of stare decisis, also known as precedent. While Justice Thomas frequently suggests that original meaning be returned to, he is outvoted by every other justice on the court now and pretty much all that have ever been there.