Bush gets the Shoe!

When it's time to go, some get the boot.

Pres. Bush got 2 shoes.

Ironic or appropriate?

Originally posted by rachy.

Creation and Politics

It was Christmas Eve in 40 years ago. It followed a tumultuous year that saw the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. It saw riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. In Vietnam, American troops killed civilians in the infamous My Lai massacre.

But on that day in 1968, humans saw, for the first time, an earthrise over the surface of the moon. Apollo 8 was the first manned flight to leave earth’s gravity. William Anders, Jim Lovell, and Frank Borman were the first humans to orbit the moon. Inspired by this breathtaking view – a photo that is credited with inspiring not only Earth Day but the entire environmental movement – the three astronauts read about creation as written in the Hebrew Book of Genesis.

A moment of awe and reverence?

Maybe to some, but it may have been the first salvo in battle in the national political scene over the biblical creation account.

Accounts of Creation

Anthropologists will tell you that every culture and civilization typically has some account of creation. The details vary, but often there is acknowledgement of a creator god who was responsible for it all.

In the US, creation as described in Genesis is the most known account. But, within the sects of Christianity and Judaism, there are disagreements about how Genesis should be understood. While nearly all of these sects would acknowledge Genesis as the inspired word of God, some take it more literally than others. Some believe God literally took 6 days to create the world, while others say that timeframe might have been a little longer (maybe even 15 billion years).

Here’s where I have to state my position. Yes, I am a Christian, but I don’t think the “days” in Genesis were 24 hours. You see, in Psalm 90, the psalmist, who really understood the eternal nature of God, says that a 1,000 years to us may be like a single day to God. So I say, 6 days, 1,000 years, or 15 billion years, what does it matter to an eternal God?

Creation and Politics: The Origins of Conflicts

Perhaps the first major conflict between the Genesis creation account and national politics was 1925 Scopes Trial. The state of Tennessee enacted the Butler Act, which prohibited teaching any theory that denied the Biblical account of the origins of humans. John Scopes, a high school teacher, was found guilty after intentionally violating the Act.

After the reading of Genesis from Apollo 8, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an atheist, sued the United States government, alleging that government employees were involved in public prayer in space. While the suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to lack of jurisdiction, this action irritated many Christian religious leaders.

Creation and Politics: The Invention of Creationism, Creation Science and the “Intelligent Designer”

The conflict of evolution vs. Genesis is still alive nearly 80 years on. We now have seen some advocates of a literal reading of Genesis come up with Creationism and Creation Science as “scientific theories” that should be taught side by side the “theory” of evolution.

This is quite an interesting development. While in science, many ideas are called “theories” even if there is a substantial body of empirical evidence supporting the theory, we have seen others throw out these “theories” even though there may be no scientific evidence to support them.

What we see here is the translation of the fair coverage principal in the media (covering each side of a new story) to the realm of science. Only here, fair coverage is expected to apply to whatever crazy “theory” anyone throws out.

More recently is the invention of an “Intelligent Designer” who supposedly worked out all the details of creation. Instead of the random mutations and other incremental changes integral to natural selection in evolution, there was intelligent causes that guided the evolutionary steps.

Another editorial interjection: Personally, I don’t believe in this new-fangled Intelligent Designer, but rather the good old-fashioned Almighty God, Creator of All! In fact, I believe the Christian Right has created a false idol. I believe God the Creator did not have to “sweat the details.” Creation is the product of a loving act of the Creator. When parents create a new life through a loving act, they do not “sweat the details” of their baby. Much the same with creation.

Creation and Politics: Why Does the Right Cling to Creationism?

The easy answer would be votes. A significant number of Christian voters do not believe in evolution, and many are easy votes for the Republicans: if they say “I oppose abortion and gay marriage. I believe in a balanced discussion of evolution” they’ve won a lot of the values voters.

But the second point goes a bit deeper. Creationism or evolution – this is irrelevant to national politics. But global warming is. I’ve seen Creation Science expanded to propose other “theories” on environmental issues form global warming to the extinction of species. Interestingly, these “theories” align with business interests, particularly, the reduction of environmental regulation.

So, here’s the benefit. In another post, I explained how the Bush Administration believes science should not be independent of politics, but should serve the party line. So, creationism is the “gateway theory.” If you can put creationism and evolution as competing theories, you can take theories of global warming or other environmental issues and throw out competing theories. Now you can take any theory from the world of science and, if it conflicts with national policy, simply say “it’s just one theory and here’s another theory.” That’s the wedge.

Conclusion

In the long unfortunate national debate on evolution vs. Biblical creation, we have seen the politicization of science, particularly in the Bush Administration.

What have we lost? We’ve lost the sense of simple reverence and awe on seeing the beauty of our planetary home.

Originally posted by rachy.

Conflict in the Cabinet?

President-elect Barack Obama made an interesting remark about his cabinent choices:

"(I want) strong personalities and strong opinions” to foster robust discussion. “One of the dangers in the White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrapped up in groupthink and everybody agrees with everything and there’s no discussion and there are no dissenting views,” he said. “So I’m going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House.” But he added: “As Harry Truman said, the buck will stop with me.” [Baker, Peter, “Appointments Begin a New Phase for Obama,” New York Times, Dec. 1, 2008.]

Now some will say that conflict won't work. The President doesn't need advisors who are likely to go off and follow their own policies instead of the President's.

But, I see this as a potential triumph of true democratic thinking -- where policies and decisions arise out of a vigorous discussion of ideas. Where this discussion is not colored or filtered by predetermined political ideology.

This is the strength of democracy: the chance to air a full range of opinions, and then making decisions based on the best ideas and suggestions. This is far superior to a cabinet of loyal “yes-men” and “yes-women” who stay with the party line.

I see this as moving from the “Maoist” approach of the Bush Administration – where the party line came first and everything else followed from that. (Examples: the triumph of political policy over science and the invasion of Iraq: as early as the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, the Administration was looking for an excuse to invade.)

Will it work? Well, we’ll see in 2009.

Originally posted by rachy.

So, What to Do about Gay Marriage?

In the course of the fall, same-sex marriage (often referred to as "gay marriage") was voted down in California while it became legal in Connecticut and remains legal in Massachusetts. Other states allow a "civil union" or other rights to same-sex couples. (A US map of the current status of such rights can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage ).

Everyone is familiar with this issue and there is no shortage of strong opinions out there. Before I present my suggestion, I would like to present a brief history of what marriage has been in society. (Note that the state is a relative newcomer.)

A Brief History of Marriage

Forms of committed relationships between a man and woman date back millennia in many cultures. In many of the earlier forms a woman was considered given to a man. In European history, this was often seen as more a business deal, arranged by the families, where the woman may have been given as part of a transaction involving material goods.

Cultural traditions for marriage vary around the world and date back centuries, though the particulars typically evolved over the years. Often religious beliefs or superstitions were entwined in these traditions.

Formal state and/or religious recognition are relatively recent additions. In Europe, the first example of requiring a religious ceremony of marriage was in the Catholic Church, after the 1545 Council of Trent. However, religions ceremonies did occur for centuries before this date, but they were optional. Civil marriages emerged in Europe in the 1700s and 1800s.

The emergence of state recognition of marriage, particularly in Europe, roughly parallels the transition from state religions to tolerance for multiple religious traditions. Before that, the bureaucracy of state and church were so intertwined that the need for separate state involvement was not needed.

Controversy

In short the controversy over same-sex marriage relates to the state’s involvement in marriage: determining who can marry and under what circumstances. For advocates, it is clear that marriage is yet another right that should not be denied to any group. To the opponents, it is often contrary to deeply held religions beliefs. To some, it just seems strange or they may just feel “it’s not right.”

It is very clear that these positions are irreconcilable.

What to Do?

My proposal is simple: get the states out of the marriage business. A good pragmatic Libertarian has to always ask: “Does it make sense for the state to be involved in this?” I say: “No!”

The states should deal with legal contracts, which is one of the necessities of “being married” -- for example, ownership of common property, joint custody of dependents, rights related to health care, etc. So, I say any couple should be able to draw up a state-recognized legal contract regarding these matters.

And let the marriage ceremony return to the cultural traditions of the couple, be they religious or non-religious. Those traditions that recognize same-sex marriage can perform them; those opposed don’t have to have them.

Freedom and choice for all with no government intervention. That’s my solution.

Originally posted by rachy.

The Doldrums of These Lame-Duck Days

It’s all over, and now we wait. Over are the long campaign, the high of Election Day, and the afterglow of the historic victory of Barack Obama.

Now we sit and wait. And wait. And wait.

Like a long, boring half-time, when will it end? This is the “hot stove league” of politics. We can only speculate about the next political season. Who will be in the cabinet? What will be the first issues that Pres. Obama will work on?

Back in the horse and buggy days, they needed 3 or 4 months to make the presidential transition. Communications took days. Travel to Washington, DC might have taken a week or so. That’s how we ended up with a 3-month power vacuum.

We still may have the biggest financial crises since the Depression plus a couple of wars, not much will happen until January.

Yep, there’s just not much going on.

Originally posted by rachy.

The Real Work of Community Organizers

At their National Convention, Republicans such as Mayor Giuliani and Gov. Palin belittled Sen. Obama’s experience as a community organizer. Sneering, Giuliani seemed to say it wasn’t a real job.

But this does not only injustice to the real work of community organizers; it flies in the face of their own smaller government platform!

By way of an example in Boston, Massachusetts, let me show how community organizers have accomplished a significant renewal of a depressed urban neighborhood, all at little to no cost to the taxpayers! Think about it, this:

• Republicans and Libertarians should applaud how urban renewal can be accomplished by the private sector: no expansion of government and little to no taxpayer support. And by neighborhood literally picking up itself (as they say) by its bootstraps.


• Democrats and Liberals should applaud how the process empowers the neighborhood, giving the people a direct hand in decisions impacting their neighborhood and its renewal.

My example: The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. This community-founded non-profit is involved in a range of activities from urban renewal (taking empty lots and designing/funding/constructing new housing and commercial space) to activities for kids and teens. Many of its leaders grew up in the neighborhood when things were at its worst and now witness the revitailzation, rising like the phoenix from the ashes.

Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative

The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiate's website (http://www.dsni.org/history.shtml) sums it up as follows:

“The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) is a nonprofit community-based planning and organizing entity rooted in the Roxbury/North Dorchester neighborhoods of Boston. DSNI's approach to neighborhood revitalization is comprehensive including economic, human, physical, and environmental growth. It was formed in 1984 when residents of the Dudley Street area came together out of fear and anger to revive their neighborhood that was devastated by arson, disinvestment, neglect and redlining practices, and protect it from outside speculators.”

What the Neighborhood Looked Like

By the 1980s, urban decay hit heavily in the Dudley Street area. Disinvestment by land owners lead to deteriorating housing and commercial properties. Fires, many the result of arson, gutted many structures. The area was home to illegal businesses including chop shops (where stolen cars are dismantled and sold as parts to avoid identification), illegal drug traffic, and gangs.

The result of decades of decay was a “a staggering amount of vacant land (21% or 1,300 parcels) in the 1980s” (quote from website). This was the condition of the neighborhood when DSNI was formed in 1984.

So how does DSNI accomplish redevelopment?

Again, quoting the DSNI website:

“DSNI works to implement resident-driven plans partnering with nonprofit organizations, community development corporations (CDCs), businesses and religious institutions serving the neighborhood, as well as banks, government agencies, corporations and foundations. The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative has grown into a collaborative effort of over 3,000 residents, businesses, non-profits and religious institutions members committed to revitalizing this culturally diverse neighborhood of 24,000 people and maintaining its character and affordability. DSNI is the only community-based nonprofit in the country which has been granted eminent domain authority over abandoned and within its boundaries.”

So, rather then the City’s redevelopment agency performing the planning and contracting out the construction work, all that is performed by the CDCs. All of this is accomplished by community organizers!

Check this out:

“DSNI's major accomplishment has been, and continues to be, organizing and empowering the residents of the Dudley Street neighborhood to create a shared vision of the neighborhood prioritizing development without displacement and bringing it to reality by creating strategic partnerships with individuals and organizations in the private, government, and nonprofit sectors. That shared vision first emerged from a community-wide process conducted initially in 1987 that resulted in a resident-developed, comprehensive revitalization plan.”

How can any Libertarian, Liberal, Socialist – or even Republican – not applaud this process? It is accomplished with little government intervention or expenditure; it engages residents in helping themselves revitalize their neighborhood!

And it has been successful – consider these accomplishments as noted on the DSNI website:

• "Over half of 1,300 vacant lots rehabilitated for homes, gardens, parks, orchard, playgrounds, schools, community centers and a Town Common
• Over 400 new homes built and over 500 housing units rehabbed since DSNI formed
• Business and investment are growing
• Visitors come from around the world
• Residents who were children when DSNI began have become leaders throughout the community"

Tour of the Neighborhood

Some aerial photos and photos from the 2008 Walk for Dudley illustrate some of the successes.

New commercial and residential buildings:

1. Recently open for business, the mixed use building at Dudley and East Cottage Streets houses Project Hope (a non-profit organization focused on community health) in commercial space with 50 rental units on the upper floors. The Dorchester Bay EDC is responsible for

2. Almost ready for construciton are other mixed use buildings along Dudley Street near Brook Ave. Each has commercial space on the 1st floor and family-sized apartments upstairs.

This aerial photo shows the empty lots before the groundbreaking for these buildings:

On the left below is one of the mixed residential and commercial buildings near Brook Ave. On the right is the new home of Project Hope with 50 rental units on the upper floors.









Community Gardens:

Many of the abandoned lots have been turned into community gardens, growing a great varitey of vegetables and fruits. Below are photos of one of the gardens, this one run by the non-profit The Food Project (http://www.thefoodproject.org/).

Deen Street

The aerial photo below shows both a community garden location and some in-fill housing lots.



















The picture below shows a six-family house under construction on Dean Street at the corner of Victor Street.






















For more about the DSNI, see: http://www.dsni.org/history.shtml

A new Dawn Part 2: The Return of Liberties and the Rule of Law

I was encouraged by evidence of a New Dawn reading about the groundswell within the US Senate to restore lost liberties and bring back the rule of law.

Adam Cohen, writing on the editorial page of today’s New York Times, reports of progress made by US Senators, even before the new President takes office. Lead by Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, the effort has included a Senate hearing back in September – long before Barack Obama won the election – when law professors, lawyers and civil libertarians outlined the challenges.

Senator Feingold prepared a list of key actions. Quoting from Mr. Cohen’s article, these include:

• “… amending the Patriot Act”
• “… giving detainees greater legal protection”
• “… banning torture, cruelty and degrading treatment”
• “…amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to restore limits on domestic spying”
• rolling “back the Bush Administration’s dedication to classifying government documents.”

Senator Feingold concedes that it will not be easy to restore the rule of law. As Mr. Cohen reports: “Many programs, like domestic spying and extraordinary rendition – the secrete transfer of detainees to foreign countries where they are harshly interrogated – have operated in the shadows.” (In actuality, the practice of extraordinary rendition started in the Clinton Administration.)

The time to act is early in the Obama Administration. The Bush Administration distorted the intent of the Constitution through the unlawful expansion of the powers of the executive. Through the practices of torture, detention without trial, and extraordinary rendition, it defamed the reputation of the US as a beacon of freedom and defender of human rights throughout the world.

When it comes to President-Elect Obama restoring liberties and the rule of law, I’m hoping: “Yes, he can!”

Reference: Cohen, Adam, "Democratic Pressure on Obama to Restore the Rule of Law," New York Times, Nov. 14, 2008, p. A28;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/opinion/14fri4.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Adam%20Cohen%20Rule%20of%20Law&st=cse&oref=slogin

Originally posted by rachy.