A group of Cubans rigged a 1951 Chevy pickup truck with pontoons, attached a propeller to the drive shaft, and then "drove" it toward America. They were picked up about 40 miles offshore and returned to Cuba. The amphibious truck was sunk by the Coast Guard. [link]

First, this gives new meaning to the old slogan, "See the U.S.A. in a Chevrolet".
Second, without commenting on the general policy of returning refugees intercepted at sea, I think we ought to be giving people points on their asylum applications for style and originality in the design of their watercraft (apparently, the floating truck was a first, but others have set sail in refrigerators and bathtubs). Seriously, if people are desparate enough to travel 90 miles across open ocean in order to get here, we ought to at least consider their applications.
Third, it is a shame that they sank the truck. '51 Chevys are hard enough to come by as it is.

I love it! Let the narrow-minded critics criticize. At least one reviewer sees in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix shades of Hannah Arendt (on the banality of evil), Franz Kafka (on the evil of bureaucratic good intentions) and George Orwell (on the self-righteousness of the converted). [link] It's refreshing to see some learned discussion of what is, to my mind, a good read. Okay, maybe it's not exactly Hemingway or Faulkner, but I, for one, am tired of being lectured that only addle-brained idiots would read (or worse, like) this book. I am neither, and I liked the book.

Notice to any interested Laboville readers: It would appear that the commenting system for my blogs is temporarily out of commission. There's not much I can do because I use a third-party commenting system, but as soon as their system is back up, the comment button should return on its own. In the meantime, if you want to comment, please feel free to email me.

It Can't Happen Here?

Apparently, all of life is like high school, where the popular kids try to rule the school through tyranny. Today's illustration comes from the Washington Post, which describes a fight between Congressional Democrats and Republicans that has Tom DeLay's fingerprints all over it. [link] If this weren't the Congress, and if it weren't part of an emerging and disturbing trend of Republican abuses of power, and if the implications weren't so serious, it would all be funny. In the circumstances, however, it's scary and makes me sick to my stomach.

Apparently, a House committee was considering a bill that will alter corporate pension obligations and revise upward the amounts that people can put into IRAs and other retirement accounts (and, if implemented, will cost the government approximately $10.3 billion over five years). Around midnight Thursday/Friday, the Republican members substited a 91 page version for a longer version that had been circulated weeks earlier. At the committee meeting on Friday, the Democrats on the committee protested that the timing of the shift prevented them from reading the bill, and noted that there was no exigency that would warrant fast-tracking the committee process. Therefore, as was their right under the rules of the House, they demanded a public reading of the bill. During the public reading, they retired to the House library to plot strategy, and left Democrat Pete Stark to watch the committee -- without him there, the Republican members could vote by unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Even so, the chairman of the committee made a motion to dispense with the reading and lowered his gavel at the same moment; when Rep. Stark protested that he had objected, the chair stated that he was "too late". Stark then left the committee meeting, whereupon the committee approved the bill by a unanimous voice-vote (and without any Democrats in the room).

What makes this story somewhat ominous is that at the same time that the Republicans were railroading the revised bill through committee, the chairman of the committee called the Capitol Police to have the Democrats ousted from the House library, in order to disrupt their "strategy session". [The good news is that after consulting the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Capitol Police determined that this was a "committee matter" and declined to get involved.]

Are you a Bright?

It would seem that ethical humanists, aetheists and other descendants of the Enlightenment have some new company, known as "brights." This bit of news was recently reported by Daniel Dennett in the New York Times. [link]

According to Dennett, a bright is "a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death."

Truth be told, until I saw Dennett's op-ed, I had never really considered the question of where I stand on the whole "God" thing. On the one hand, I have a deep and abiding respect for Jewish traditions (even when I don't practice them myself), and I believe in prayer as a communal experience, but those things aren't the same thing as believing in God. Similarly, I believe that the majesty of the cosmos and the beauty of complexity surely indicate some kind of higher force at work, but whether that is "God" at work I can't say. It would be just as easy for me to say that the universe is the product of a infinite number of single decisions whose confluence produces a coherent whole that unfolds at, and beyond, the limits of my puny powers to comprehend.

Delving further, I can't say with any assurance that I believe in the God of the Bible, or that the miracles of the Bible happened the way that the book suggests. Rather, I tend to discount the miracles as reflecting the limited worldview of the men (and women) who wrote down the stories. It's not likely that Abraham was hundreds of years old, or that Sarah gave birth when she was in her late eighties; more likely, they were simply older than was the norm, and their ages were exaggerated to make a point. Similarly, it seems to me simply not possible that Noah gathered every animal two-by-two, or that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that any of the other miracles took place exactly as described. Did each of them originate in some real fact or actual occurence? Sure. But that's a rationalist, non-Godly interpretation, which only begs the question: am I a bright?

The fact is, the traditional notion of God doesn't hold a significant place in my life. When the World Trade Center collapsed, many people turned to "God" through prayer for comfort. I didn't. When my mother was diagnosed with cancer, I didn't curse God, but didn't seek solace in God, either. For solace, I turned to my personal community of friends and confidants, and instead of prayer, I have sought knowledge.

I don't think this makes me an aetheist, however. Aetheists reject the concept of God; I merely don't know whether I believe in God or not. For example, I retain a sense of magnificent wonder at things I can't explain, and feel heartbreaking awe in the presence of natural beauty and splendor. And I allow for the possibility that my sense of wonder or awe may objectively be a belief in God, just described by another name. On the other hand, while I allow for the possibility that prayers may be heard by some supernatural force, I believe that the real power of prayer derives from the fact that it's a communal experience. It is hard to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with hundreds of people singing the Avinu Malkeinu (Our father, Our King) at the end of Yom Kippur and not be moved. But am I being moved closer to God? Or am I identifying with, and being comforted by, the shared expression of human frailty and recognition that our existence is fleeting? It seems to me that the power of the supplication has nothing to do with whom we are beseeching, and everything to do with admitting and coming to terms with the fact that I too will diminish.

Which leads me to the brights' lack of belief in life-after-death. Judaism has a concept Olam Ha'bah (the World to Come) and a belief that our souls live on after our bodies have died, but I don't know that I believe those notions. At the same time, I find myself conflicted: I find some psychic comfort in the funeral traditions that Judaism has developed to help ease the soul's transition from this world to the next, but even as I have observed these rituals being practiced, I have often wondered whether, beautiful as they are, the rituals aren't more about soothing the restive souls of the living than those of the dead.

***

I have struggled mightily to devise a conclusion to this post, but haven't found an easy explanation or neat way to tie off the loose ends of my thoughts. I guess my principal observation is merely this: I have often defaulted to saying I believe in God because I don't fundamentally not believe in God, so none of the aetheist/secular humanist labels felt like they fit. I don't know that the bright label fits any better, but it did move me to consider the alternative categorization, so I thought it was worth mentioning here.

Has logic completely escaped the Wall Street Journal's editorial board?

Consider the court order for the government to produce Ramzi bin Alshib for a deposition in the case against Zacarias Moussaoui. According to the New York Times, the Justice Department has indicated that it will refuse to produce bin Alshib because it is concerned that permitting him to be deposed by Moussaoui "would necessarily result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information" and that "such a scenario is unacceptable to the government.". [link] The likely penalty for non-compliance is an order dismissing the charges against Moussaoui. And the likely result is that the government bring charges against Moussaoui in a military tribunal, where the Constitutional protections he is entitled to will be far fewer.

In response to this mess, the Journal wrote an editorial entitled "A Military Commission for Moussaoui" (7/16/03) [link]. The essence of the Journal's view on the matter is summed up in the first sentence: "It's clear that President Bush made a mistake when he decided to assign Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged '20th hijacker,' to trial in a federal civilian court." The bulk of the editorial is devoted to proving why the assignment of Moussaoui's case to a civilian court was wrong, but is best summed up by a sentence that is conveniently misquoted in a block quote in the center of the editorial: "the regular justice system is not up to the task of trying terrorist suspects." (the block quote reads, "Civilian courts aren't up to trying most terrorist suspects". Note the insertion of the word "most", which fundamentally changes the meaning of the quote.)

The problem with the Journal's argument (and by extension, the right's argument) is that it doesn't make sense. Let me demonstrate:

"As we know from captured al Qaeda training manuals, recruits are instructed in how to manipulate the Western legal system if they are captured. We can assume that Moussaoui was an A-plus student"

In other words, anything that Moussaoui does to assert and enforce the rights contained in the Constitution must necessarily be attempts to manipulate the system. But that argument relies on a false assumption that because Moussaoui has admitted his allegiance to al Qaeda generally, he must be using al Qaeda training in this case specifically. In the end, there's no way to defend against that charge, since to defend against it would be to give further "proof" that Moussaoui is subverting the legal system and therefore, a terrorist. The logic ends up being circular.

But let's let that pass for a moment. The Journal goes on to say that

"A defendant -- any defendant -- has the right to access all information that might help his case. This is an essential part of American justice. To tinker with it runs the risk of distorting it to the point of long-run damage.

Where to begin unpacking the logical flaws in that statement? Hmm, well, let's start with "any defendant". If "any defendant" has the right to access all information that might help his case, then Moussaoui should have that right too, yes? After all, as the Journal acknowledges, this is an essential part of "American justice", and Moussaoui is a defendant in said system, right?

The Journal continues:

"The lesson from the Moussaoui trial is not to give him what he asks for. Rather the lesson is that the regular criminal justice system is not up to the job of trying terrorist suspects. Terrorists who would kill thousands of American civilians aren't ordinary criminal defendants and shouldn't be treated as such."

And now we're back to circular logic. First, note that in the last sentence, the Journal has absolved the government of its burden of proof. This trial is about whether or not Moussaoui was the "twentieth hijacker", or as the Journal puts it, whether Moussaoui is a "terrorist who would kill thousands of American civilians". In other words, to find him guilty, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Moussaoui is not merely a member of al Qaeda, but that he was involved in the plot to bring down the World Trade Center. But the Journal would, before trial, use the fact that he is a "terrorist who would kill thousands of American civilians" to justify the fact that Moussaoui is not an "ordinary criminal defendant and shouldn't be treated as such."

Notice as well the Journal's sweeping statement that "the regular criminal justice system is not up to the job of trying terrorist suspects." To start with, I'm not aware of the clause in the Constitution that talks about "regular criminal justice systems" and "other criminal justice systems", so I'm not sure I get the basis for that distinction. Moreover, where is the support for this statement? For one thing, the "regular criminal justice system" managed to try and convict the criminals responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, and were competent to handle the indictment and subsequent guilty plea of John Walker Lindh. For another, it seems to me that Judge Brinkema and the Fourth Circuit are more than up to the job, since they have managed a difficult case with a difficult defendant this far; if you ask me, it's the Justice Department that seems to be having trouble with well-settled principles of Constitutional law, not the courts.

In the end, the one aspect of the editorial that I find curious is this statement:

"The evidence against [Moussaoui] is strong, mostly unclassified and could have been produced in open court."

If that's the case, what is all the fuss? Give the man what he wants, move the case forward, and if the man is as guilty as the government and the Wall Street Journal say he is, let them get their conviction and end this mess. After all, isn't that what we're really after?

hypocrisy (hi pok rih se) n. The feigning of qualities and beliefs that one does not actually possess or hold, esp. a pretense of piety or moral superiority.

***

I am officially tired of being lied to by the Bush administration, of being told that black is white, up is down, and that lies are true. There is a tipping point -- a point where you have had enough and can take no more. I have reached that point. If, after the whole WMD flap, the forged Nigerian connection, the flip flop on a Department of Homeland Security, the "compassionate conservative" crap and all the rest, the American public refuses to acknowledge that they are being shamelessly and bald-facedly lied to, then they deserve everything they get, and don't come complaining to me.

In case you're wondering, what finally set me off is an article on Page 1 of the Wall Street Journal entitled "White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation." The thrust of the article is that the Congressionally-mandated commission that is examining what the government knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks before they happened has been hampered by the White House.

First, the Journal reports that "President Bush successfully opposed the creation of the commission for more than a year. He said publicly that an independent investigation would distract leaders from his newly-declared war on terrorism . . . The White House then reversed itself and on Sept. 20, 2002, announced its 'strong support' for a commission."

Later, the Journal notes that once it was clear that Congress intended to establish a commission notwithstanding White House opposition, the White House conceded the necessity for a commission, but pushed for it to finish its inquiry within a year instead of the proposed 2 years. Here, the Journal quotes Dan Bartlett, the White House Communications Director as saying that "The quicker we learn the information that can come from the commission, the better we can protect America against another 9/11." The White House compromised on an 18-month schedule.

So let me get this straight: the work of the commission is so vital to national security that we opposed it for over a year, and now we want it to work on so unrealistic of a schedule that it will fail to discover anything useful or meaningful.

As if the inherent contradiction wasn't clear enough, we can thank Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey and chairman of the commission, who spells it out for us. According to Kean, finishing the investigation in the time alloted will be difficult, but he won't ask for an extension because, says Kean, "the White House has made it known that they don't want it [the commission's investigation] to go into the election period." Ahh, so that's what's really going on here. We have to wrap this thing up quickly because a report in Fall '04 that reveals embarrassing lapses by the Bush administration wouldn't look so good during a campaign!

But surely, you say, politics is the farthest thing from the White House's mind when it comes to protecting America from new terrorist attacks, right? Well, here's what Bartlett has to say on the subject (again, as reported by the WSJ): "The White House doesn't want the commission's work to drag late into the presidential campaign, [Bartlett] adds, because 'the last thing we want is for the 9/11 commission to become politicized.'" Right.

Like I said, I'm done. As a famous wit surely once said, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." If people can't see that they're being lied to, manipulated and treated with utter contempt by the Bush administration, I no longer have any sympathy.

Worth their weight in gold?

Quick: which would you rather have: the salary of your average Fortune 500 CEO or the weight of that same CEO in gold?

Well, let's do the math -- the spot price of gold is approximately $350/oz. If you figure that the average CEO weighs 175 lbs., then the average CEO is worth approximately $980,000 in gold ($350/oz. x 16 oz./lb. x 175 lbs/CEO). So if you chose the CEO, you would have give-or-take a million dollars.

But if you did that, you'd still come up way short of the CEOs in two surveys this year, one by Fortune and the other by Business Week. Fortune surveyed 100 CEOs and found that the median pay was $13.2 million; Business Week surveyed 365 large companies and found that the median pay was $3.7 million (the average was $7.4 million). [link]

The lesson here? Next time you say that someone is worth his (or her) weight in gold, be sure to do the math, first. Turns out you could be selling that person short...

The following open letter was written by my wife to the Democratic National Committee. I think you'll agree that it's a clarion call for change in the Democratic Party's status quo. Enjoy.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am the kind of person the DNC should be reaching out to. I am a 32-year-old lawyer in New York City with a family income well over $300,000 -- and climbing. I have never voted Republican, and I always vote. I am a firm patriot and I hold strong political convictions that match the historic fundamental beliefs of the Democratic party. But until this year, with one exception during the first Clinton campaign, I have never been politically active: I have never campaigned, I have never contributed money to a campaign, a PAC or the party, and I have never so much as told others how I thought they should vote. This is not because I am ungenerous --I have donated to, and volunteered for, charitable organizations -- but because I am disaffected.

Why? Because the Democratic party keeps putting up uninspiring leaders, dodging hard questions and running from its historic beliefs. I haven't felt like supporting this party. I have simply been silent, passive, and disillusioned.

So why am I getting active enough to write to you now? Because Howard Dean and his grassroots campaign inspire me. I'm giving money -- and in my case, it's much more than the $100 or so that his average supporter has given. It's not just the money, though -- I'm finding time to volunteer, I'm telling friends about this candidate and asking them to donate money, and I'm paying attention again to what is going on in our country. Suddenly I believe again that it is critically important to defeat George Bush and the Republican party. By contrast, in the last election and the intervening two years I didn't care very much about beating the Republicans because I frankly didn't see much of a difference between the two parties.

Howard Dean is different. He says the things that other Democrats seem afraid to say. He stands up for the principles I believe in, and he inspires me to stand up for him.

I am writing now to tell you that the Democratic party needs people like Howard Dean if it wants to energize its supporters. And by supporters, I mean ALL kinds of supporters: voters and volunteers, but also those who can produce money for the campaign. I, and my liberal friends who are rising professionals in New York, are among the very core of the group you should be targeting to give you the Triple Crown -- voting, volunteering and contributing -- of support that you need. The only candidate I know who has been able to energize me and my peers in the last ten years is Howard Dean.

I will not support a party that does not stand on its principles. (Republican-lite has become a catch-phrase, but I view it as a pretty good description of candidates that the DNC is supporting.) I will support a party that differentiates itself from the Republicans and takes strong stands even at the risk of being unpopular among Republican supporters. It's that simple, folks.

Sincerely,
Natasha Labovitz