Minor Annoyance Monday

If she's gonna start using her celebrity to promote her husband's agenda, then First Lady Laura Bush (why do I always want to type "Barbara Bush"?) is opening herself up to the public critique of her words and actions. In that context, I'd like to note that this is a silly statement about the protests that met her in Jerusalem:

"As we all know, this is a place of very high tensions and high emotions," the first lady said while standing in the garden courtyard of the Church of the Resurrection. "And you can understand why when you see the people with a deep and sincere faith in their religion all living side by side."

I'm not sure what her religion is teaching her, but mine suggests that the deeper and more sincere your faith is, the more tolerant and peaceful you'll become with the people living side by side with you, regardless of who they are.

For once, though, I actually agree with Scott McClellan:

President Bush talked with his wife by telephone Monday and she told him the trip was going well, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. McClellan dismissed the protests as "a little commotion" and said the demonstrators were few although they got a lot of coverage.

From what I could see in the TV coverage, the protests were indeed just a little commotion. But this is where I get a little annoyed myself.

Here in the US, shouting or wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush or his policies when Laura is nearby can get you whisked away and arrested. So it's not surprising the US press was surprised by folks within shouting distance actually voicing something less flattering than all-out admiration. And I'm sorry, but that's really about the lamest thing I can imagine for the leader of the "free world" to have his people do in his own country.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"I'm not sure what her religion is teaching her, but mine suggests that the deeper and more sincere your faith is, the more tolerant and peaceful you'll become with the people living side by side with you, regardless of who they are."

This seems to require some general projection of specific religious beliefs that actually apply only to specific religions. Can you find me some examples of this sort of worship amongst, say, Kali-worshippers, or Moloch-worshippers, Edward? More immediately relevantly, can you find me some, say, Lubavitchers who preach more tolerance for other religions as they become more sincere about following the guidance of the Lubavitcher rebbe? With all due respect to what your faith teaches you, it's not the same as what other faiths teach; that's why they're different faiths.

[Gary Farber]

"I'm not sure what her religion is teaching her, but mine suggests that the deeper and more sincere your faith is, the more tolerant and peaceful you'll become with the people living side by side with you, regardless of who they are."

This seems to require some general projection of specific religious beliefs that actually apply only to specific religions. Can you find me some examples of this sort of worship amongst, say, Kali-worshippers, or Moloch-worshippers, Edward? More immediately relevantly, can you find me some, say, Lubavitchers who preach more tolerance for other religions as they become more sincere about following the guidance of the Lubavitcher rebbe? With all due respect to what your faith teaches you, it's not the same as what other faiths teach; that's why they're different faiths.

[freelunch]

Gary-

Which is why I've given up on religion. I see great value to many tolerant religious traditions, but I see great evil done in the name of the god that is being worshipped by others, often from the same religious text and claiming to be part of the same religion or religious tradition. I'm fairly well persuaded that there is no such thing as a personal god, in part because no god worth the stories about him would allow evil to be done in his name unless he were Chthulu, in which case, I don't really care.

Even in the Western tradition of Judaism and Christianity, we see that the God of the New Testament is clearly different than the God of the Old Testament and the Old Testament God(s) that predate Abraham is different from the God that predates the Kingdom is different from the God of the Kingdom, or the God of the Captivity or the God of the Return. Islam does have an advantage of a greater unity in its holy book, but even they have very great variations in the interpretation and application of what it means to be a Moslem.

[bob mcmanus]

"Here in the US, shouting or wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush or his policies when Laura is nearby can get you whisked away and arrested."

Only in America. Ain't it grand.

[John Thullen]

"Here in the US, shouting or wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush or his policies when Laura is nearby can get you whisked away and arrested."

This sentence stopped me because I know it is true but I can hardly believe yet that it is true. I had to think about it and I also had to think about the docility of those who permit it to happen to them.

[CaseyL]

"Here in the US, shouting or wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush or his policies when Laura is nearby can get you whisked away and arrested."

Laura doesn't need to be nearby. Neither does Bush. I don't think we've gotten to the point that wearing such T-shirts anywhere but in the privacy of your own home will get your arrested, but I imagine we'll get there soon enough.

In other news of The Country We Have Become, the BBC is reporting that the Bush Admin and Pentagon are considering building death chambers at Gitmo. Yeah: so the people whom we imprisoned without charges, and who never got to speak to an attorney, much less have a trial, may be tidily executed far from public eye.

Here's the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2979076.stm

I don't know any way to think about this that doesn't lead to utter despair. Godwin is not only dead, he's spinning in his grave.

[KCinDC]

CaseyL, it's the logical outcome. If it's treasonous to report misbehavior by US interrogators, such reporting must be prevented by any means necessary. The only way to ensure that such reports don't get out is to make sure no witnesses get out.

[Edward_]

Gary,

Considering Bush and I practice more or less the same religion, I think your question's based on a misinterpretation of my statement. The emphasis was meant to illustrate that she shouldn't "understand" the protests this way (sarcasm is hard to communicate in print sometimes).

CaseyL,

This is a perfect example of why Bush should own up to and apologize for the mistakes he's made in implementing policy based on intelligence in the GWOT. In a nutshell, at the moment he has next to no credibility internationally. Getting away with executing prisoners after secret tribunals demands that the world trusts him, our intelligence, and his commitment to due diligence in seeking out the truth before executing anyone. Sad to say, his track record on such matters is not encouraging, making some effort to restore his credibility all that more important.

[votermom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2979076.stm

Un-*****-believable.

Hang on though -- the date on that article says Jun 10, 2003. Any hope that it's no longer true?

[Anderson]

Which is why I've given up on religion. I see great value to many tolerant religious traditions, but I see great evil done in the name of the god that is being worshipped by others, often from the same religious text and claiming to be part of the same religion or religious tradition. I'm fairly well persuaded that there is no such thing as a personal god, in part because no god worth the stories about him would allow evil to be done in his name unless he were Chthulu, in which case, I don't really care.

Far be it from me to solve the venerable Problem of Evil (or to evangelize Freelunch), but if we assume that a god who operated humans like marionettes would be obnoxious, then it's got to follow that religions are practiced by ordinary people, and that any such practice is going to be more or less flawed.

So I don't take it as an objection to religious practice that evil things have been done in the name of religion. It would be odd if they hadn't. Rejecting religion because its practitioners ain't perfect has a whiff of disappointed idealism about it.

[lily]

My guess is it's a flier that got shot down. Also, I don't think they can get away with it now in light of all the revelations about the torture of innocents. But it is awful that such an option was ever considered.

By the way, Tacticus has a really interesting thread about the need for a draft. The debate is predicated on the need to win. I'm really curious about the definition of winning in Iraq. For one thing, who gets to define it, them or us? But I'm digressing and this isn't an open thread.

[Edward_]

Good catch on the date votermom.

Lily,

consider it an open thread.

e

[CaseyL]

Oops! I didn't realize it was an old article. That's embarrassing....

But it's also part of the same problem, of trust, credibility and transparency: How can we know whether that story is still true or not? Because I know the report produced very little, if any, outrage - or even comment - here in the US. I think I'd've remembered.

Maybe the article did outrage our allies enough that the plans for a death chamber were stopped.

Or maybe not. Maybe the death chambers were built. Maybe they're being used. Who knows?

Maybe the people in Afghanistan and Iraq know. Maybe that's why the attacks on Americans and American-sponsored government figures keeps getting worse, not better.

[votermom]

I agree. We need more transparency in the military, and the government.
And in ballot-counting, dammit. *glares at Diebold machines*

[Gary Farber]

"I think I'd've remembered."

I remember this article, and the fuss well. If I'd not been away for a bit just now (still feeling excessively dizzy, etc., actually; had to lie down again for a while), I'd have said "wait a sec, I remember the fuss about this from a couple of years ago" before reading the article, and then I'd have seen it was precisely the same article that was talked about all over the place two years ago.

"Maybe they're being used. Who knows?"

I'm still naive enough to believe that there's no way they'd be using execution chambers without prisoners having gone through tribunals, and the results, though not all the details, of said tribunals being announced. This is entirely different from cases of soldiers/interrogators committing either atrocities or "abuse"/torture, and policies on that. They couldn't possibly be formally executing people without formal policy and formal review and public announcement. I pretty much can't believe they'd do that.

[Gary Farber]

"We need more transparency in the military, and the government."

This is vague to the point of utter meaninglessness. What do you propose that needs to be done, specifically?

[Jesurgislac]

Edward: Hang on though -- the date on that article says Jun 10, 2003. Any hope that it's no longer true?

The death chamber exists, according to a reporter:

To correct the grainy picture of the camp, the pentagon let reporters in Guantanamo after the first few months. Guards took us to a building, which was also ringed by barbed wire. Three youngsters aged between 13 and 15 live there. They are among the so called enemy combatants.

And at the end of our tour we were allowed to take a look at the X-Ray camp, the first place prisoners were taken there. Footages of prisoners in orange outfits, pulled by soldiers were shown across the globe. In these pictures prisoners are being pulled on the ground with their eyes and ears covered.

A fifth camp is now under construction. It is scheduled to open in July this year. It will take one hundred prisoners, those who are supposed to go before a military committee. The camp has a death chamber for those receiving death penalty. cite

I do not believe that it has ever been used: I think it improbable that it could be used for secret deaths.

Whether it ever would be used?

On the one hand, given that Bush is such an enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty in the US, and that the Bush administration has already deemed all inmates of Guantanamo Bay guilty without trial, it would seem naive not to accept that it's a possibility.

On the other hand, the only time I read about it being directly threatened to be used was around summer 2003 when the news broke in the UK that Moazzam Begg, arrested for being a British Muslim in the wrong place at the wrong time, was threatened with a military tribunal with the death penalty if he was found guilty - unless he confessed to whatever crime his captors had found him guilty of and got life imprisonment instead. The British government, extremely slow in pressing for the release of the British kidnap victims held in Guantanamo Bay (indeed, at least two British residents are still held there after being kidnapped in the Gambia), did manage to obtain a promise from the US government that Moazzam Begg would not be executed, but his lawyer was not permitted to see him to tell him this.

[Anarch]

By the way, Tacticus has a really interesting thread about the need for a draft.

How's Klatch treating you, by Jingo?

...sorry, couldn't resist.

[Nicholas]

the deeper and more sincere your faith is, the more tolerant and peaceful you'll become with the people living side by side with you, regardless of who they are.

Nice idea. But not completely supported by observation. When I first read the article I thought it might be about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, famously contested between different Christian denominations all of whose faith is no doubt deep and sincere! TBH, though I suspect you and I have more in common politically than either of us does with Laura Bush, I think her reported statement is on the money.

[Jesurgislac]

The death chamber exists, according to a reporter:

My apologies: I just looked at the source of that article I quoted and linked to, which I should have done before posting the link, and it's not what I would consider reliable unless backed by other evidence. Mea culpa: I have to take it back.

I do recall reading about reporters saying there was a fifth camp with a death chamber: if I find another reference to it in a more reliable resource, I'll post that link. Until then, leave it as "I don't know if the death chamber exists: I do know there were very definite plans for building one, and Moazzam Begg and quite possibly other innocent inmates were threatened with it to make them confess."

[Gary Farber]

"The emphasis was meant to illustrate that she shouldn't 'understand' the protests this way (sarcasm is hard to communicate in print sometimes)."

I think sarcasm is mostly easy to convey and pick up on, actually, Edward, when one has a clue as to the starting point of someone, but in this case, even after you've explained, I still don't see it and am baffled, but never mind, it doesn't matter. (Example of sarcasm: "ooh, sarcasm is sooo hard to do in writing! Yeah, right!" See, was that difficult? :-))

[Edward_]

Gary and Nicholas,

I concede...the statement struck me as illogical, but clearly it makes sense to others.

[Gary Farber]

Without disputing anything in your comment, Jes, and purely as a digression, I'd just like to note that Iranian radio is an interesting choice of a cite, and a reliable source of information. Great stuff on the home page, though, such as that nifty ad on the top for "Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei's Website." (Warning: when I clicked on the link, Norton Internet Security warned me of a "High Intrusion Alert!" and I stopped; I've never gotten that warning from a website before.)

[DaveC]

Here in the US, shouting or wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush or his policies when Laura is nearby can get you whisked away and arrested.

Pres Gerald Ford was twice the target of assasination attempts, even though he was about as uncontroversial as they come. You can't be too careful.

[Edward_]

Pres Gerald Ford was twice the target of assasination attempts, even though he was about as uncontroversial as they come. You can't be too careful.

Er, if someone were planning on killing the President or his wife, advertizing their disapproval would hardly strike them as the smartest way to get close enough.

[Gary Farber]

Incidentally, there are a bunch of jpgs of beautiful Persian carpets here.

"Pres Gerald Ford was twice the target of assasination attempts, even though he was about as uncontroversial as they come. You can't be too careful."

Dave, are you kidding? You're saying that a tee-shirt is a sign of an assassin? Which assassins do you have in mind that wore "I Hate [the President]"?

And, dead serious, you really think that in America, people with messages on tee-shirts should be hauled away for questioning by the authorities solely on that basis!?!

Please tell me you're kidding. Because they're not, and this keeps happening, and how can one joke about it? (This really does push up against Godwin territory.)

[Jesurgislac]

Gary, Iranian radio (about which I have no opinion) was not the original source but the transmitter: the reporter was from Le Monde Diplomatique, which is a resource I would not consider above reporting a planned death chamber as if it were already in existence. That the death chamber was definitely planned, we know: I want (ideally) several eye-witness reports of having seen it in existence, or at least one from a definitely reliable source, to be certain that it actually was built.

[Gary Farber]

Jes, possibly these leading words were more examples of my incompetent writing: "Without disputing anything in your comment, Jes...."

I actually know how to read, and was clear on what that extremely obscure publication, "Le Monde," is, but, as ever, thanks for the helpful and necessary tip.

You needn't reply to this. No, really, you needn't. But you may want the last word, so go ahead, have it if it will help. (The US government hasn't exactly kept it a secret that they've intended to have military tribunals, and the death penalty, all along, incidentally, so having a "death chamber" hasn't been news for several years either; is this redundant and condescending information to you insofar as you already knew?; gee, why would anyone write anything like that?)

[cleek]

By the way, Tacticus has a really interesting thread about the need for a draft.

bah, that site's nothing but a bunch of liberals.

[Anarch]

Gary, Jes... please: less sniping, more kissing and making up. Don't me lock you guys in a closet with a bottle of Malibu rum!

[Hey, it worked for a couple of friends of mine, it's worth a shot!]

[Anarch]

bah, that site's nothing but a bunch of liberals.

You think we're gonna take crap from a guy with a kitten that cute?

[votermom]

This is vague to the point of utter meaninglessness. What do you propose that needs to be done, specifically?

Gary, I'm not submitting a paper to you, please stop grading my comments. I'll be vague if I want to.
*pms-ing*

Transparency in military is needed as evidenced by the fact that Dilawar's relatives could not find out what happened to him. Pat Tillman's family was not informed that he was killed in friendly fire. The families of people detained in US prisons abroad frequently do not knopw where the detainees are, and cannot contact them.

Transparency in the government is too broad to tackle in one comment. Let me put it this way -- anyone here have a case that supports that the government is TOO transparent?

[Jesurgislac]

Anarch: [Hey, it worked for a couple of friends of mine, it's worth a shot!]

I hate Malibu rum, and I hate closets. Try a cafe on the waterfront with tables in the shade, a hot day, an endless supply of iced lattes or chilled white wine, vegetarian tapas, and I promise you that Gary and I will become extremely good friends...

...or if we don't, it won't be my fault. ;-)

I wasn't sniping at Gary this time, though I acknowledge having done so in other threads.

[cleek]

You think we're gonna take crap from a guy with a kitten that cute?

:)

she's only cute when she wants to be. most of the time, she's a wild-eyed little laceration machine.

regardless, Tacitus is still a place where the moonbat lefty commie whatevers get together and plot.

[Gary Farber]

"Gary, Jes... please: less sniping, more kissing and making up."

She started it, dad! (Okay, hard to say, in reality.)

The fact is, I like Jes far more than not, and have considerable respect for her. She's articulate, and we agree on a very great many things indeed. I do take issue with some of her presumptions, and do find her a bit too often predictable to the point of boring annoyance, but I'm sure she has equivalent, and at least somewhat valid, complaints with me. If she'd simply stop condenscendingly explaining things to me that I've known for decades, or at least as long as she has, I'll stop reacting with such annoyance at her when she does. Presumably she has equivalent desires. (On what ticked me off last night: really, Jes, did you start working in publishing and as a professional editor before 1975, when I did?; do I need to list the number of companies I've copyedited manuscripts for, for the nth time in more than a decade of online writing about it, before you'll stop lecturing me on commonplace platitudes I learned in the Seventies?)

[Gary Farber]

"Transparency in the government is too broad to tackle in one comment. Let me put it this way -- anyone here have a case that supports that the government is TOO transparent?"

Okay, fine, we agree there should be more tranparency in government. Now I'm all sure we've learned something we didn't know before we read this interchange.

Jes: "Try a cafe on the waterfront with tables in the shade, a hot day, an endless supply of iced lattes or chilled white wine, vegetarian tapas, and I promise you that Gary and I will become extremely good friends..."

I'd find it more enjoyable if I were allowed some seafood and meat tapas, as well, but if that would offend or disturb you, I can make do with the vegetarian-only. Just make it a not particularly hot day, please: I really really really hate heat. If that's acceptable, I will happily join you, and we can argue, trade anecdotes, and agree on all sorts of things. Do you have a particular waterfront in mind?

[Anarch]

Transparency in military is needed as evidenced by the fact that Dilawar's relatives could not find out what happened to him.

That's not precisely true, votermom; it's even worse than that. Long story short, the Army gave Dilawar's brother a piece of paper saying "Mode of death: Homicide" on it... but it was in English, so he had no clue that he had just been told that his brother had been murdered.

How's that for gruesome?

[carpeicthus]

True, cleek, and to suggest there's more to the story is to make certain parties' heads explode, so we couldn't have that.

[Jesurgislac]

Gary: (On what ticked me off last night: really, Jes, did you start working in publishing and as a professional editor before 1975, when I did?; do I need to list the number of companies I've copyedited manuscripts for, for the nth time in more than a decade of online writing about it, before you'll stop lecturing me on commonplace platitudes I learned in the Seventies?)

Gary, if you're going to profess that you don't know when you're writing a loaded question, then you can hardly then claim to be an expert in the use of language, can you? That was my beef with you on the other thread: not that you asked a loaded question (it was a polite/intelligent one, not impossible to answer correctly despite its inbuilt bias) but that you denied that you had and asserted that if I (and others) read it as a loaded question it was our misreading, not your writing.

When you behave like that, I have to assume you are either incompetent as a writer/editor, or dishonest as a debater. If you prefer I assume you to be dishonest, fine.

[Edward_]

the Army gave Dilawar's brother a piece of paper saying "Mode of death: Homicide" on it... but it was in English, so he had no clue that he had just been told that his brother had been murdered.

A fine example of the values we're trying to spread across the world, eh? (Gary, did I get the sarcasm thingie right?)

[Jesurgislac]

Gary: I'd find it more enjoyable if I were allowed some seafood and meat tapas, as well, but if that would offend or disturb you, I can make do with the vegetarian-only. Just make it a not particularly hot day, please: I really really really hate heat. If that's acceptable, I will happily join you, and we can argue, trade anecdotes, and agree on all sorts of things. Do you have a particular waterfront in mind?

I have no problem with watching other people consume seafood/meat so long as they don't ask me to join in. (Or rather, providing they don't insist after my first refusal.)

Living to the north of most of the continental US, I find that what I consider to be a hot day is a moderate day to most USians (or freezing cold, if they live in California or Arizona). Despite the intemperate nature of my last comment, I think I'd really enjoy having a lengthy face-to-face discussion/argument with you - especially if tapas, wine, and coffee were involved.

My favourite seafront is either in California or in the South of France, but if you have a preference for somewhere else, no problem.

[votermom]

That is gruesome. I had missed that -- I was thinking the part in the NYT report where it said the Army told the brothers that the Americans had given him a bed. That they had been nice to him because he had a weak heart.

[Jesurgislac]

Anarch: Long story short, the Army gave Dilawar's brother a piece of paper saying "Mode of death: Homicide" on it... but it was in English, so he had no clue that he had just been told that his brother had been murdered.

That's... horrible.

My current reading is Alexander Solzhenitzyn's The Gulag Archipelago (just started: I'd been looking for a copy for a while) and it has me spooked.

But that thinking "We can safely hand the man's brother a piece of paper saying 'We killed your brother' because it will say so in a language we know you can't read" - that they had checkboxes for the choice of 'natural, accident, suicide, homicide' - that's got a kind of bureaucratic practicality about it that's horrifying.

[Gary Farber]

"Gary, if you're going to profess that you don't know when you're writing a loaded question, then you can hardly then claim to be an expert in the use of language, can you?"

And, fortunately, I've never claimed any such thing in my life.

"...and asserted that if I (and others) read it as a loaded question it was our misreading, not your writing."

Ditto, I have no recollection of having asserted any such thing.

Edward: "(Gary, did I get the sarcasm thingie right?)"

Yep.

Back to Jes: "I have no problem with watching other people consume seafood/meat so long as they don't ask me to join in."

I would never offer someone something I knew they disliked, let alone more than once. More shrimp for me, then!

"Living to the north of most of the continental US, I find that what I consider to be a hot day is a moderate day to most USians (or freezing cold, if they live in California or Arizona)."

It's been in the high 80's, Fahrenheit, here in Boulder the last few days, around 88, actually, and even hotter not far off, setting a few records. That's generally quite unpleasant to me if I'm not lying by a pool of inviting water. Fortunately I have a large "swamp cooler" on long-term loan to me or I'd find summers in this apartment that was advertised as having a/c, but in practice has none that's noticeable, exceedingly intolerable. I prefer temperatures in the 70's, F, or even cooler; thus one of my preferences for Seattle and environs over the weather of, actually, everywhere else I've lived (NY, Boston, East Lansing, and let's not talk about the 6 weeks in Phoenix, AZ in July and August with no a/c).

"Despite the intemperate nature of my last comment, I think I'd really enjoy having a lengthy face-to-face discussion/argument with you - especially if tapas, wine, and coffee were involved."

I'm sure I would as well. I'd even enjoy that with you, too.

;-) ;-) ;-)

"My favourite seafront is either in California or in the South of France, but if you have a preference for somewhere else, no problem."

If I could get to the South of France, I'd love to. I'd perfectly well enjoy visiting a coast of Britain again, as well. Seattle, as mentioned, is nice. But I'm quite open-minded about any such nice place. Hereabouts, you might enjoy Dushanbe Tea House, although it only has a stream running by for water, and we'd have to walk a block or two to some of the fine local tapas places. We also have some fine sushi, and plenty of other excellent cuisines in this small college town. Whatever, I'd be game, if only I had a dollar to travel, and a dollar for the restaurant. (Ditto for a fair number of other folk if you ever find yourself passing near Boulder, Colorado, or, you know, want to import me for a meal; it's entirely possibly that I'm a lot more pleasant seeming when you can see me winking and being goofy and silly, though who knows?)

[Jesurgislac]

And, fortunately, I've never claimed any such thing in my life.

Fine: I'll write you down as incompetent/dishonest, then.

[Barry]

Wow, that was a switch.

[rilkefan]

Jes, my only suggestion about TGA is don't read it - it's soul-numbing. I can come up with a half-dozen anecdotes that stuck in my mind and you can hit your toes with a hammer and save time and anguish. And if you do insist on reading all five or however many volumes, try to do so on a sunny patch of grass.

[Gary Farber]

"Fine: I'll write you down as incompetent/dishonest, then."

As you wish. You might also want to utilize your skills to look into the distinction between failing to agree with an assertion and denying it, or the distinction between making an assertion and failing to contest one, but probably not. (Hint: try quoting my "profession," my "claim to be an expert in the use of language" and my "denial.") ("if you're going to profess that you don't know when you're writing a loaded question [...] then you can hardly then claim to be an expert in the use of language, can you? [...] but that you denied that you had....")

Presumably it's my incompetence at work in using language sufficiently carefully as to make such distinctions, and your competence in not seeing any such distinction.

You might also re-examine the Krushchev lesson, but also probably not.

"I'll write you down as incompetent/dishonest, then."

Generally speaking, I don't take up or make dining invitations with people who make such assertions. I'm not seeing a reason to make an exception here, on the basis of this statement. Thank you for making me regret having troubled to write my last nine paragraphs of 3:29 p.m.

[otto]

"the deeper and more sincere your faith is, the more tolerant and peaceful you'll become with the people living side by side with you, regardless of who they are."

One would certainly like to think so, especially in regard to New Testament Christian teaching. This doesn’t seem to me to be the way it works, however (I mean this in a general sense – I have no reason to doubt or judge Edward’s beliefs). What appears to be the case is that the more sincere one’s faith the less tolerant one is of others: as one becomes more convinced of the truth of their religious tenets the less able they are to suffer beliefs with which they are at odds. We often seem to have a problem here since both religious conviction and tolerance of others in our diverse culture are held in esteem. But faith in the absolute truth of one’s belief system seems incompatible with tolerance of others . . . ? I don’t see how one can have it both ways, though we like to pretend we can – recognizing any unfavorable consequences of one’s religion is not an exercise found to be very palatable. But how then are political or religious leaders able to evoke such animosity toward outlying groups by pushing the religious buttons of their constituents or congregations, and why is there so little evidence for the tolerant and peaceful behavior of true believers?

[rilkefan]

Jes, won't you say you were joking at 5:09?

[otto]

Jesurgislac,

Since you are reading "The Gulag Archipelago," you might be interested in Giorgio Agamben's "Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life" if you haven't already seen it. It has garnered some criticism (including a good article in the London Review of Books a few months back - available online, I believe), but there's some cool stuff to chew on even if one doesn't agree with the author.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm not at all happy about suggesting this, but perhaps a 1-day rest for 2 people might be in order?

[Jackmormon]

Do stop, Jes. One minute you two are talking seaside dining, and the next you're scoring empty points.

[lily]

I tend to see religious sincerity the same way Otto does; sincere belief leading to narrowmindedness and possibly bigotry. But I am the daughter of ex-Catholics who hate religion as only an ex-Catholic can.

[Gary Farber]

"But I am the daughter of ex-Catholics who hate religion as only an ex-Catholic can."

How is it different from, and deeper than, the potential hatred of an ex-fundamentalist Protestant, or ex-Hasid, to toss out two possibilities?

[Bernard Yomtov]

"But I am the daughter of ex-Catholics who hate religion as only an ex-Catholic can."

How is it different from, and deeper than, the potential hatred of an ex-fundamentalist Protestant, or ex-Hasid, to toss out two possibilities?

Perhaps we could allow just an occasional touch of figurative language here, Gary.

[liberal japonicus]

Bernard
There's obviously only one kind of hate. That's why there's only one word. And you can take that to the bank (not the side of the stream, mind you, the savings institution)

[crionna]

Hey, stop that fighting.

Look over here!! crionna is advocating the gentle escorting of vociferous protestors out of earshot.

Arresting the woman certainly goes too far, but really, what do you think a President Kerry would have done in the same circumstance? The original story is now off the SPI's website, so I can't really tell what all happened, but should the President have let her go on and on accusing him of murder and asking when his daughters were going to join up?

I certainly would have prefered to read that the woman had been escorted away and held only to find the President and his wife showed up after the speech to speak with her personally about her loss. Unfortunately, I believe that'd be too much to hope of any modern President.

I also had to think about the docility of those who permit it to happen to them.

So, a woman mourning for her son should assault a policeman?

Come to think of it, I thought that the SOP of protesters is to draw attention to themselves and then get arrested but that they do not resist arrest, lest they be charged with a felony, rather than a misdemeanor. Plus don't they want the headline to be "Police arrest grieving mother at Bush rally" not "Protestor assaults police at Bush rally"?

[Jesurgislac]

Jackmormon: Happy to stop, if Gary will leave it be.

[Gary Farber]

"Perhaps we could allow just an occasional touch of figurative language here, Gary."

Fair enough. I do have an unfortunate tendency to be rather literal-minded at time.

[otto]

Lily,

Hahahahahahah! Thanks for the bit of levity.

As both an ex-Protestant and ex-Cat'lic, I think you've got a fair point.

[Gary Farber]

Crionna, the issue isn't how to deal with hecklers. The issue is people being not allowed to be present because they're suspected (correctly or not) of not being supporters of the President. I imagine Prez Kerry would deal with hecklers the way Clinton did, which was to engage them. (Of course, Kerry and Clinton being different people, I can't really say.)

[crionna]

Gary, I understand that people being not allowed to be present because they're suspected (correctly or not) of not being supporters of the President. is an issue, just not one of the issues in this post.*

Now, Edward did indeed turn it into an open thread, so you may, if you feel the need, make a point about that issue (although if I had to guess, your point would be that not letting protesters near such events is wrong, and I would agree). I just don't think that it answers my question.

So, how should the grieving mother have been engaged? IMHO, the examples you offered of how President Clinton engaged his hecklers would not have seemed that compassionate to me.

*Then again, I realize now that it was the First Lady speaking and not the President. Still though, my question remains.

[lily]

The bit about hating religion as only an ex-Catholic can is not original with me. . I think it might be a paraphrase of Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde. Somebody. Frank Harris? And before anyone tells me I should have used quotes, I didn't because I thought it was a common joke. Maybe only in ex-Catholic families.

[JWO]

I apologize if I am expressing thoughts already posted, but I really have a need to express what I have been thinking for the last serveral days. 1) We are in a sad state when we have to send Laura in to try and smooth the waters, and 2) Bush refuses to be subject to heckling of any sort, but is happy to send Laura in his stead. What are these people thinking? That they will succumb to Laura's charm in the ME as they have done here in the US? I think that is unlikely!

Now, I will go read what the rest of you have been saying.

[JWO]

Oops. "Subjected...."

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Heh, Jesurgislac and Gary doing what they do, but to each other. Too bad it died down while I was cooking the popcorn. ;)

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: Too bad it died down while I was cooking the popcorn. ;)

I'm full of good resolutions right now, but I'm sure it will happen again. Next time, don't stay too long in the kitchen making the popcorn! ;-)

[votermom]

Didn't Bush Sr have a heckler in a chicken suit follow him all around the campaign trail? They never arrested that guy, did they?

[crionna]

Didn't Bush Sr have a heckler in a chicken suit follow him all around the campaign trail? They never arrested that guy, did they?

Naw, he ended up in SF for the past few years taunting pitchers who wouldn't pitch to Barry Bonds. Wonder what he's up to now that Barry's not playing?

[Anarch]

Didn't Bush Sr have a heckler in a chicken suit follow him all around the campaign trail?

Is anyone else thinking "Family Guy Election Day Episode"? 'cause that would be sweet...

[crionna]

Is anyone else thinking "Family Guy Election Day Episode"? 'cause that would be sweet...

Oh yeah...

[M. Scott Eiland]

One of the protests was by a group of Israelis wanting Jonathan Pollard released. Now, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that idea--given that the concept of Pollard receiving the identical punishment as Aldrich Ames is rather unsettling--but it's hard to think of a more futile protest (short of whatever PETA's asinine cause of the moment is) than picketing the First Lady of the United States within the borders of Israel regarding the disposition of Jonathan Pollard.

[Gary Farber]

Myself, I'm perfectly happy to let Pollard rot in jail for as long as Ames. They did the same thing. (Anyone who knows anything about intelligence knows that "false fronts" are common; Pollard had no way of knowing if he was passing information only to Israelis, and there's no guarantee that even if he did, the info wasn't passed on to other countries, whether intentionally, or through their own spying in/on Israel.) Either you're illicitly passing on intelligence or you're not; doing it for a "good reason" or for "good guys" makes no difference. It's just that simple.

[M. Scott Eiland]

Yes, false fronts are always a possibility, but intent matters to me. Pollard believed he was giving intelligence information to a friendly power, regardless of where it eventually went. Ames sold the names of ten of our agents in the Soviet Union directly to the KGB, and those men died as a result. Should Pollard have gotten off scot-free? Certainly not. In a world where Ames would have been staked to a fire ant hill wearing a full-body suit with one small hole (smeared with honey) in it for his crimes, perhaps life in prison would have been the just punishment for Pollard--but the crimes of the two men aren't in the same league.

[Jesurgislac]

M. Scott, since you live in a country where (in theory at least) torturing people to death is not legal, the only penalty greater than life imprisonment is the death penalty.

Presume that what Jonathan Pollard did merits life imprisonment.

Presume that what Aldrich H. Ames did was worse than what Pollard did. The only thing worse that can lawfully be done to Ames is to execute him.

It seems somehow muddled thinking to declare that because criminal A's crime is worse than criminal B's crime, yet criminal B and criminal A received the same, maximum, legal penalty, criminal B ought to receive a lighter penalty... in order to show stronger disapproval of criminal A's crime?

Sorry, this makes no sense. If you think Pollard ought to be released early since his intentions were only to pass classified information to an ally of the US, you can make that argument. If you think Ames ought to have had the death penalty rather than life imprisonment, you can make that argument. But it makes no sense to combine the two.

[Slartibartfast]

I imagine Prez Kerry would deal with hecklers the way Clinton did, which was to engage them.

Odd that the DNC had its own Free Speech Zone, then. I guess it's easy to say you'll have a slightly more liberal policy after you're elected, though.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: I guess it's easy to say you'll have a slightly more liberal policy after you're elected, though.

Whereas Bush is upfront about it: anywhere he goes, anyone who might disagree with what he's saying is to be cleared out of the way. I agree it's bad practice whichever side does it, but Bush appears to practice it more extensively and more thoroughly.

I note that in October last year cite a Federal judge ruled that "free speech zones" violate the rights of protesters. Too late for those taken to Pier 57 during the RNC for the crime of asserting their right "peaceably to assemble", but I hope it will end the practice by either side of "Free Speech Zones".

[M. Scott Eiland]

M. Scott, since you live in a country where (in theory at least) torturing people to death is not legal, the only penalty greater than life imprisonment is the death penalty.

True--IIRC, it wasn't available on Ames' case, as the federal death penalty statutes hadn't yet been re-written to comply with the rulings of the USSC in the 1970's. Note that the fire ant example was purely hypothetical, and would not be something I'd want to be given as a formal punishment.

Presume that what Jonathan Pollard did merits life imprisonment.

I don't, though if there were a penalty structure in existence where more serious penalties than life imprisonment were assigned, then I would find such a penalty defensible.

Presume that what Aldrich H. Ames did was worse than what Pollard did. The only thing worse that can lawfully be done to Ames is to execute him.

As noted above, not at the time.

It seems somehow muddled thinking to declare that because criminal A's crime is worse than criminal B's crime, yet criminal B and criminal A received the same, maximum, legal penalty, criminal B ought to receive a lighter penalty... in order to show stronger disapproval of criminal A's crime?

No, to preserve the principle of proportionality. More serious crimes should be punished more severely, with the worst punishments reserved for the very worst crimes. What Ames did was simply a worse crime than the one Pollard committed--it demands a more severe punishment. If a society does away with the death penalty, it needs to acknowledge the fact that it's scaling down its system of punishment, and sentencing should be lowered for crimes below the ones at the top of the pyramid (murder, treason, and the like). Failing to do so warps the system and may even--at the top end of the scale--create perverse incentives to commit even worse crimes (killing witnesses, for example, when one is already facing a life sentence for lesser crimes that the witnesses can identify one as having committed).

[SomeCallMeTim]

Just to be clear: if Criminal A kills a busload of nuns, and Criminal B kills only a carload of nuns, then Criminal A can get the death penalty, but, as a result, Criminal B cannot. Is that right?

[M. Scott Eiland]

No, I wouldn't go that far, Tim--at some point you end up hitting the ceiling no matter what you do, and both crimes in your hypothetical are mass murder, which is at the top of the scale as far as criminal offenses go. I'd argue that there's a far more significant difference between what Ames did (effectively signing the death warrant on ten men, along with intentionally providing crucial intelligence information to his country's worst enemy) as opposed to Pollard intentionally passing intelligence data to a friendly nation (and thereby running the risk that he was being deceived, or that Israel would pass the information to a less friendly nation) than the difference between killing ten people as opposed to fifty. The two offenses are different in intent and degree to a sufficient degree that punishing them equally seems rather unjust.

[Jackmormon]

According to this 2001 NYT magazine article by Hersh (posted at FreeRepublic), Pollard handed the Israelis, among other really sensitive documents, the comprehensive signals intelligence codebook. Pollard himself estimated that the volume of data he passed on was the size of, oh, a posh walk-in closet.

[M. Scott Eiland]

Yes, Mr. Pollard did things that were very wrong--and has spent almost twenty years in prison to this point for them--far more than a rapist, or even someone guilty of murder would often serve (a typical sentence for first-degree murder without special circumstances is 25 years to life, with the murderer often being eligible for time off for good behavior). On the other hand, Aldrich Ames did this--note the number of lives he is known to have destroyed with his treachery. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see one set of crimes as being far more serious than the other, and in fact being sufficiently heinous to merit the most severe sentence the law allows.

[SomeCallMeTim]

M. Scott:

I think the line in the sand is, "actively betray your country." I think it's not up to you to decide if it the party to whom you betray is "good" or "friendly" to your country. That's a job for the government. If I understand you correctly, it's bad, but not that bad, to betray your country to a friendly country (Western Europe, Japan, Israel, once upon a time S. Africa, etc.), and that you should be able to make reasonable claims about our government's posture toward any country. Is that right? And what if you betrayed your country to someone we all thought was bad (the USSR, for example), but you did it because you thought that such betrayal would actually improve things for your country (lessen tensions, make war less likely)?

[Jesurgislac]

M. Scott: What Ames did was simply a worse crime than the one Pollard committed--it demands a more severe punishment.

Please note I'm not actually arguing with you about whether what Ames did was worse than what Pollard did, or the same, or anything. I simply don't know enough about either case to argue one or the other.

If you want to argue for clemency for Pollard, fair enough: do so.

If you want to argue that Ames should have received a more severe punishment than he actually did, fair enough: do so.

The point I am trying to make (and SomeCallMeTim got it) is that you cannot link the two cases and argue for clemency for Pollard in order to show that what Ames did was worse. Everyone has the right to have their cases decided individually on their own merits.