Harriet Miers, the Shifting Right, and Dred Scott

I was talking with my friend, Juan, the other day about Harriet Miers. His stance was that we aren't going to get anyone less objectionable, and there is some evidence that Miers may be somewhat moderate, so Dems should go ahead and go along with her nomination.

Apparently, Miers once stated that she supported civil rights for gays. As I told Juan, you can't take that to mean what it means today. Harriet Miers is a member of a strict conservative fundamentalist evangelical church. As someone who grew up attending churches like this, let me explain:

An "evangelical" is someone who believes the Bible is the literal word of God - every word within it is meant to be taken it its most common and ordinary sense as the 100% pure, unadulterated truth. As a preacher once said to me, "The Bible said Jonah was swallowed by a fish - not a whale. That means you can't talk about Jonah being in a whale because a whale isn't a fish. You have to believe it is a fish, but obviously a big enough one to hold a man. If the Bible meant whale, it would say whale. It doesn't. It's trying to show that God saved Jonah by divine intervention through a common fish." Yeah, it's a small point. You have to understand, though, that if they are going to argue that "fish" can't possibly mean "whale" (when did "whale" actually begin to refer to an animal that wasn't a fish?), then they are talking about the strictest literal interpretation possible.

A "fundamentalist" is someone who wants civil law to be written in accordance with, and under the authority of, divine law. There is no possible way for civil law to hold any authority when it violates divine law. Which, if you look at the paragraph above, and you take it with the Biblical warnings not to change one letter of the Bible, then you would very quickly see that it really wants a civil law that would prevent any interpretation or teaching of the Bible other than their own. You would literally be sent to jail for saying that Jonah was held in the belly of a whale, and not a fish.

"Conservative" is where all of the interpretation lies. It's what makes it imperative for Democrats and moderate Republicans to oppose Harriet Miers' nomination in the strongest possible way. You see, today's debate considers the biggest issue in gay "civil rights" to be marriage. I can assure you, this is not what Harriet Miers had on her mind in the late 1980s in Dallas. The proof of this lies directly below on that questionaire when she states that she opposed consensual sex that is considered to be an affront to God - because the fundamentalist evangelical interpretation of the Bible says very clearly that it is so. "Civil rights", to the woman who signed the questionaire, meant the right to vote, to own property, to be free from unlawful search and seizure. It most assuredly wass not, in any manner, meant to construe support for homosexuals having a legal union recognized by law.

It is important because of the two conservative activist judges already working on the Supreme Court - one of which, Clarence Thomas, has decided that prison is a good place to give birth. Or, to put it more succinctly, a convicted woman has lost the right to claim her body as her own. The state's right to not spend money is more important than a woman's right to have adequate medical care. You have to wonder if Justice Thomas has put ten seconds worth of thought of what will happen to the baby after it is born in a prison hospital wing. Does the state have a right to deny health care to the child, since it is technically the woman who is imprisoned and not the baby?

Well, that doesn't matter at all for Harriet Miers. Abortion is wrong, no matter what. In this best of all possible worlds, we should praise God that He has, in His infinite wisdom has decided that prison is, indeed, the best place for this child to be born. After all, our Lord was born in a feed stall and look how good He turned out!

They understand that they don't even have to rule on the case. After all, in just five short weeks, the law will have made the case moot - Missouri law does not allow abortions after 22 weeks. They can allow arguments to draw out, then drop the case for lack of standing. All the while, they are snickering up their Hallelujah sleeve that they have forced a woman to "pay the price of her sins" or "live up to her responsibility". All the while, they have condemned another child to a soul-destroying life.

Juan argued that the President will never nominate anyone more acceptable. I argued that it is unknown how acceptable Harriet Miers is. The stressing of her Evangelical faith is the equivalent of the President's Dred Scott debate comment. It's how the President is reaching out to his base without exposing his real position - or hers - because liberals are too damn stubborn to learn how to talk to Christians.

I agree that we are not going to get a liberal - or even a moderate - nominee out of this Administration. What we can do is force them to play openly and honestly and state what they are really trying to do. That was what the Dred Scott decision was really all about.

How Much Does it Cost to Buy a Justice?

Some info about Harriet Miers from The Institute on Money in State Politics:

Although not a prolific contributor to state-level political campaigns, Miers did give $30,357 to Republican candidates in Texas from 1994 to 2000, primarily to Bush.

Yeah, it isn't much, but how's this for managing a conflict-of-interest?

Miers, then the Bush-appointed chairwoman to the Texas Lottery Commission, gave $22,960 to
Bush for his 1998 re-election campaign.

She also maxed out her personal contributions to Bush's two Presidential campaigns - which is perfectly fine and is her right as a private citizen. I'm not exactly sure about making contributions to your boss, though. Some places tend to frown on that, for what should be obvious reasons.

In today's political world, it probably isn't possible to find someone who didn't give anything to anyone anywhere. However, giving huge chunks (and $23,000 isn't anything to sneeze at) of money to the person that appointed you to a pretty nice state job is a peek at how she might manage any future litigation that George W. Bush might be a party to in front of the Court.

It deserves to be examined and she should answer questions about it. But don't look for John Cornyn to ask them - he's one of the people she's given money to.

"Corruption" Defined as "What Others Do"

The following was originally posted at Xpatriated Texan and is currently cross-posted at BlueJersey.net. Xpatriated Texan is the online pen name of T.L. Hart, who occassionally cross-blogs here. The following post applies to New Jersey state politics.


Herb Jackson is definitely on to something. It's something so big that, apparently, most people can't see it.

You see, something is rotten in the Garden State - and it ain't the vegetables. It starts at Drumthwacket and ends all the way down at the sorry sotted roots of government in our counties and cities. It's "corruption" - as long as it's someone else doing it. Congressman Bob Menendez once took down a big political boss because of it - then he turned into the same kind of boss he got rid of. I've heard many complaints about Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester both handing out cash to buy-off county chairs. It's only bad if someone else does it, though.

Wikipedia has a good article on political corruption. I plan to use it as a template for exploring exactly how well New Jersey fits as the mold for political corruption. It's not just the people in the government - though that's part of it to be sure. It's the whole system. I'm sure Mr. Menendez looks in the mirror and sees the very same champion of people's rights that took down a corrupt mentor. I'm just not so sure that's what his district gets.

I want to make it clear, though, that corrupt politicians are usually very popular. If they weren't; then they'd never win re-election. In some ways, a political machine makes a politician incredibly responsive to his or her constituents - it's just that you have to pay a price for that responsiveness. Political corruption hurts because it forces people to pay a premium for what should be basic political services.

It bothers me, both as a patriotic American - and that doesn't mean the blind-love crazy kind - and as a Christian. America is built on the dream that all men are equal before the law - without the threat of some being more equal than others. It runs afoul of the Christian notion of leadership being built on service to mankind.

It stinks. This Garden needs some sunlight.

Website Launched to Build Public Voice

You are all cordially invited (see, I can be nice!) to hop on over to Progressive Politics, Popular Voices to take a look at my latest effort to help build a public voice for populists and progressives. The idea is to turn the current monologue of politics where voters are told what they think and what they should do into an ongoing chaotic dialogue (or maybe multi-logue would be a better word - if it is one).

On one page, you can get the latest news, words from the grassroots communities (blogs), policy initiatives from think-tanks (ivory towers), and an occassional word or two from our elected officials (hallowed halls). Once you feel duly outraged, you can click through to the associated forums and join the discussion. Add your voice to American politics - and it's FREE!

Or you can check out the forums directly, too.

Everyone has an opinion - we want to hear yours!

XT

Okay, jihad.

We have seen democracy, and it is called "advertising week."

Please, people. Fuck this all until time ends. This is death.

"Who do YOU like more: Toucan Sam, or Thanatos himself? Good for you!!!"

Donning the Cowboy Hat

Months ago I darkly speculated with Dr. Emile as to the American threat of a nuclear deterrant in the "War On Terror". I did the blog entry when Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R) actually proposed one of my more vile conjectures as to the limits of American capabilities: nuking Mecca in response to a terrorist act. With a US Congressman already broaching the mad notion, the scope of a grimly imaginative "response" is constrained only by whatever resides deep in America's arsenal: it could be done with a "filthy bomb", detonated with a isotope laden sleeve (strontium-90?) insuring a radioactive half life deadly enough to kill any pilgrim attempting to visit for, say, the next couple centuries. And what would Islam then be without the Hajj? Gruesome, and despicable reasoning, to be sure -- but such an exercise can only, at its worst, be slightly ahead of the creative thinking curve going on in the bowels of the Pentagon. Think not?
WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
and:
Pentagon draft plan calls for preemptive use of nukes.

What is the psychological and strategic impact of simply making the threat, even if qualification and disavowal follow? Would it be a deterrent?

Not even a lead umbrella will protect

Oddly, very tiny, very dense bits of curious matter from long ago appear to be slamming their way through the earth. What next, eh? Tiny "strangelets" are bits of Big Bang era matter, and it looks like researchers have found sign of their passing through our innocent little planet at preposterous speeds.

Intelligent design, indeed.

We Could Still Win in Iraq

Xpatriated Texan is a guest blogger on a semi-regular basis. Feel free to read more at his personal blog Xpatriated Texan or see his ongoing fight against Hudson County New Jersey political corruption at Tammany on the Hudson.



I often find that I simply can't agree with anyone on military matters. I surely don't agree with President Bush's idea (and that of his supporters) to simply "stay the course". The reason why is simple: It isn't working. Yes, there is some notable progress (Thanks to Ranting Profs for the link). However, there is a decided lack of realistic goals and therefore a lack of realistic means of attaining them.

Neither do I find myself in agreement with the left who adamantly call for an immediate pull-out and abandonment of Iraq. While I abhor the death and destruction of war, I truly believe that leaving prematurely will not make the world a safer place, but simply allow radical elements to grow unabated until they can safely strike any number of worldwide targets. That is simply, in my opinion, a bad option that abandons all claim to fulfilling our obligations as the people who destroyed the existing power structure for extremely flimsy reasons.

However, like most real problems facing the world, there is much more than simply two sides of the equation. We do not face a scenario where our only choices are to continue in the exact same vein as we are acting now or to fully withdraw and abandon Iraq.

The alternative I propose is to expand total troop strength in Iraq and push more resources for rebuilding into it.

Rebuilding cannot be done (in a widespread sense) while their is still fighting and bombings. Implementing peace is the first step towards accomplishing any goal. Peace-keeping can only be accomplished by neutral forces - that means non-US, Muslim forces on the ground in Iraq are needed.

That means Egypt.

Egypt has an army of somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 men. They could easily send a comparable amount of troops to what is maintained inside Iraq by the US. 100,000 Egyptian troops would immediately rob the insurgents of the ideology of "driving out the infidels" and quell anti-US sentiment from fear of colonialism. In other words, it would immediately change the battle from a war against terror on one side and America on the other to a legitimate battle for the future of Iraq. Egyptian troops could accomplish what American troops never will - which is to bring every side to the table for peace talks.

And don't forget Pakistan.

With approximately half-a-million troops in their armed forces and a desire to be a true world power, Pakistan has already moved close to the United States in the post 9/11 world. Moving 100,000 or so troops to Iraq for peace-keeping allows even more American troops to pull out and for Pakistan to move onto the world stage as a responsible world power and fellow-Muslim nation.

Pulling Egypt and Pakistan into Iraq will be a hard sell. Violence against foreign diplomats has been a disturbing trend in Iraq. However, the large contingent of troops would make it easier for those two countries to protect their diplomats and, if accompanied by a US withdrawal (or at least withdrawal into other areas) would lead to a direct lowering of violence.

An Egyptian-Pakistani partnership would strengthen two earstwhile allies that desperately need both respect abroad and legitimacy at home. A joint peace-keeping mission (perhaps under the auspices of the UN) would support both and would use the Pan-Arabic and Pan-Muslim ideologies to their benefit.

An investment strategy by European, American, and Russian (and perhaps Chinese) interests could fund infrastructure development that could actually get the Iraqi oilfields back on line reliably so that country could take advantage of the high oil prices. In other words, they could use the market forces to rebuild Iraq. Again, this investment strategy could be run through the UN (under strict strutiny) and could possibly tie investments to such developments as debt-forgiveness in Africa and South America.

It is a combination of creating a new Axis of Allies with our Muslim allies and implementing a new Marshall Plan for Iraq. Peace, followed by prosperity.

It's a combination that works.

Just too durn funny

You've got to love the sheer and unmitigated madness of even the "reasonable" front line of the religious right. When a creepy old preacher who would be king starts recommending the assassination of a foreign leader, we've really gotten on a roll.

There's a lot to be said for and against weird, weird Hugo Chavez. But that the US should "take him out," as if, again, we didn't even need a threat to take illegal action against foreign lands, as Robertson recommended, well, it seems a bit much. Enough to scare off the loons who still buttress the far right? I doubt it, but I hope.

Here's the logic, in brief, via God-fearing, very wealthy Pat Robertson: Since Chavez wants to undermine capitalism, and thinks we're trying to assassinate him (and we know that we tried to depose him years back), then we might as well just do so, said Robertson: "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

We could save a lot of money as well by setting US loose from radical Christians, especially by investing in a few hungry lions.

The Shiite Islamic Republic of Iraq?

Has the American invasion and occupation of Iraq naively handed substantial portions of the country over to Iranian influence? At a ceremony ushering in a new regional parliament for Kurdistan, Peter Galbraith records the following:

Ann Bodine, the head of the American embassy office in Kirkuk, spoke at the ceremony, congratulating the newly minted parliamentarians, and affirming the US commitment to an Iraq that is, she said, "democratic, federal, pluralistic, and united." The phrase evidently did not apply in Erbil. In their oath, the parliamentarians were asked to swear loyalty to the unity of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Many pointedly dropped the "of Iraq."

The shortest speech was given by the head of the Iranian intelligence service in Erbil, a man known to the Kurds as Agha Panayi. Staring directly at Ms. Bodine, he said simply, "This is a great day. Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power." He did not add "Thank you, George Bush." The unstated was understood.

We've been following the fear of national fragementation in Iraq here and here and ugly occurences in Basra here and here.