Refreshing solution by Feingold

The gentle, cleansing motion of water promises change and refreshment. Sometimes it comes in a massive tidal action that wipes out so much that we can't imagine a better future, but other times it simply washes a stain away. Water is the purifier and dominant force on this planet - setting up wind currents and weather patterns. Our bodies require water more than food; we will die of dehydration long before starvation.

The censure resolution presented by Senator Feingold offers a drink of water in the vast desert of oversight neglect in our current Congress. From a letter dated March 16, 2006, his intentions are clear:

As Congress heads into a weeklong recess, I hope members of the Senate have a chance to listen to their constituents back home. All Americans want to fight terrorism and protect our country from those who wish to do us harm, but they don’t want to sacrifice the rights and principles our country was founded upon. One of those fundamental American principles is that the President doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws he follows.

There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks, and especially this week, about Congress changing the law to authorize the President’s otherwise illegal domestic surveillance program. Of course, anyone who makes that argument concedes that the program is illegal. In addition, the President has yet to explain convincingly why he can’t follow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which allows wiretapping of terrorists while protecting law-abiding Americans.

The President has broken the law, and the censure resolution I introduced on Monday is intended to hold him accountable. While there have been plenty of personal attacks directed at me this week, few have argued the merits. The facts for censure are clear. FISA makes it a crime to wiretap American citizens on American soil without the requisite court orders – which is exactly what the President has admitted doing. Before the program was revealed, he misled the American people by assuring them that he was getting warrants for wiretaps. Since it was revealed, he has misled the American people about the legal basis for his actions.

If our Congressional representatives of both parties are unwilling to protect the privacy of the citizens of this country, where does that leave us? Isn't their primary job to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How can we have liberty when the government chooses to override or ignore laws it does not agree with or like?

This country is suffering from a drought brought on by fear. By relying on fear as an emotional trigger, the politicians of our day hide in the desert dunes of terrorism justifying previously unimaginable acts. We need refreshment. We need a cleansing drink to remember that no one is above the law. We need the strength to move ourselves to the well of reason, honesty, and integrity.

Instead, this offer of clarity about who we are and what we expect from our government is waylaid by desert marauders. The New York Times quoted various partisan sources about the politics of the act rather than the subject of the violation. Can it be that today, no Republican politician honors the rights of the citizenry of this country? Have we come to that? The acts are ignored; the desire to win or at least look like a winner is all that matters. The deserts of this planet are littered with the skeletons of people who lost their way or were waylaid on their journeys.

This administration violated the trust of the American people. The censure acknowledges this transgression and sets the rule of law above the rule of partisan politics. Yes, I know the author is a Democrat. I also heard he may be interested in running for president in '08. Those are secondary issues. As a people, we must hold our politicians to standards of integrity, and any individual willing to step up and state the obvious deserves respect, regardless of party affiliation. What good is fighting a war on terror if this country becomes a wasteland of skeletons? Just because some people aren't willing to drink or seek to intentionally withhold water from the masses, doesn't mean that we must follow their lead.

Patronized by the Post

Yesterday, the Washington Post offered mockery about the latest sinking of the United Arab Emirates' port deal: "Happy Now?" The editors cast the issue in terms of race, politics, and fear-mongering, as if any economic deal should be pursued and allowed. As if the laws of economics, unfettered and unrestrained, solves problems and the disregard of those superior laws creates issues we will regret as a nation - economically, politically, and socially.

As a disappointed, paternal reprimand, this posture mimics the squeal of our times: trust me, I know better than you do. Where is discernment? Where is analysis? Or why is it always assumed that "economics" is good and "politics" is bad? The politics of Senators Clinton or Schumer aside (although the politicians from the previously attacked state of New York must have a unique perspective), Dubai Ports World is owned by a country not a person or disparate share holders. What "economic self interest" is served when a country makes political shifts? Don't the rules of the game falter? When a business is the arm of a government, its motives and interests are tied to their political system by definition (which is not to assume that it does not occur in our so-called "free market" system as well).

Why should it matter? Well, this country has a dubious past in relation to commonly accepted U.S. political postures. Their political body recognized the Taliban when they ran Afghanistan; they deny the state of Israel; nuclear weapons easily travelled through their port from Pakistan; their banks have been directly linked to terrorist money laundering from the 9-11 attack on the U.S. Yet, editors of the article want us to ignore these elements of reality. We are to believe that the business of managing U. S. ports has nothing to do with the politics of the United Arab Emirates. It may be quite true today, although unproven because it was not investigated, but what of tomorrow? Whose interests would be served if fundamentalist Muslims run the country? Of course, some would say this would never happen. Economics would preclude politics. The business has nothing to do with the country.

Yet there was a time when some contemporary issues initially observed in the article were believed impossible in this country: Congress refusing to provide administrative oversight; fiscal irresponsibility; the torture and abuse of detainees in the name of the people of the United States; illegal wiretapping of citizenry. So why would the "Posts'" paternal overseers ignore the very truths they present? Economics and business deals pretend to operate in a land of opportunity disconnected from politics or society.

Economics, politics, and the social structure are intimately intertwined. They do not exist separate from one another in a stand-alone world only occasionally touching when some rotation happens to collide with another's path. As countries, we determine the mix and hue of the composite of each of these. Which foot do we put forward first? If Muslim countries decide not to do business with the U.S. based on the outcome of this deal, we should ask whether they were ever our friends, not whether they might, now, be afraid to take the risk of friendship. What kind of a friend have we been to other countries historically aligned with us like France? The only country we can clearly claim friendship with today is Great Britain - the very country the French helped us revolt against.

As a diverse and massive country, we can not be afraid of people because of their nationality or religion. Neither can we ignore history or relationships within governments and business. Using bigotry and fear-based emotionalism to make or break a business deal smacks of partisanship and collusion. But typically, as economic players, we make choices based on our self interest. I shop at stores that promote good service, quality products, and treat their employees well. That is my choice. A similar choice was made by Dubai Ports World, when challenged by Lou Dobbs over the management deal. They tried to force CNN to silence Dobbs who was challenging the idea of foreign ownership of port management. Their choice. Just like their choice to boycott Israel.

Personally, my hackles went up when President Bush vowed to veto any legislation against the port sale to the UAE. It would be his first veto after years of exorbitant spending and corporate pandering. I distrusted the sale immediately, and I still do. My choice. I have no reason to trust this administration. I was willing to wait for the 45 day mandatory investigation of foreign ownership that was originally waved by political "friends," but obviously the country and company were not willing to undergo the scrutiny. So be it.

Just don't partronize me by pretending this was a simple economic deal politically mishandled. Economics demands discernment. Values matter.

Left and Right

No, it is not what you think. I have already explained that I won't accept any political labels. What I want to explore are words as ideas. See, I am a lefty in the physical sense and have always been, like my mother before me, my sister, my husband, and my nephew. I have lived in a left-handed family and understand the limitations and constraints built into our society: the design of desks in public schools; the pain inducing handles of scissors; the task of pushing a pencil rather than pulling it when learning to write by hand; the placement of the gear shift and gas pedal in cars; adding machines or calculators - including the one on my keyboard; the computer's mouse. Simple examples found every day; challenges to be flexible and adaptable because my natural tendencies are not the norm.

These natural tendencies hold a link to a dark history. My husband's grandmother was punished, teachers rapped her knuckles with a ruler, until she stopped using her left hand to write in school. This visible difference has been held suspect in many countries over the years. Some cultures continue to shame members naturally inclined to use their left hands. In some, the left is deemed the "unclean hand" - never to be used for eating. Which is logical, for hygiene purposes without running water, yet theoretically, each person could choose to keep one hand "clean" and the other "unclean" without demanding it to be right or left. I ran into a similar attitude when living in Germany: kindly and patiently shown how to eat "properly," with a knife and fork, my mentor wanted me to hold the knife in my right hand, like her. I refused. It made no sense to me, although socially conforming (and I sincerely respected their culture). I learned their way my way. Lefties are even associated with evil through biblical accounts and superstitions. Charged with devil worship, witchcraft, and nasty spell inducing signs, left handedness holds a checkered past. Most cultures and times view my natural characteristic with some level of suspicion.

If right is right then left is wrong. I have been told that I write with the wrong hand. But I write with the hand that works the best. I was told I must be stupid because I favor my left hand. I wondered about that one for awhile, but decided that since I did well in school, relative to other right-handed kids, I was probably not stupid. Culturally in English, we have extended the idea of a right hand to a right way or what is good, proper and just. My Webster's dictionary lists fifty definitions for right, but only nine for left. To be right: sane, accurate, appropriate. To be left: abandoned. The words are descriptive and active; they permeate ideas.

It is this history of ideas that divide our cultural discourse today. Commonly, left of center is demonized, ridiculed and patronized; right of center is celebrated, worshipped, and idolized. Or how about the idea that right is strong and left is weak - mimicking the condition of right-handed bodies. It is an old story resting on old prejudices. Likewise, there is little truth in the descriptions politically: a "left" leaning government like communism in Russia tried to control or make up jobs, but jailed and murdered its own citizens; a "right" leaning Republican flank in the U.S. today tortures prisoners, and flagrantly overspends.

We need new words. We need words that don't divide but lead us together to the mountain in the scene above. Truth does not reside in the right or the left; nor is truth in the frequently substituted labels of conservative or liberal either. One can be conservative fiscally, but liberal socially and vice versa; the variables and combinations are endless. Culturally and politically labels serve as dividers rather than explanations. What is the basic idea of human nature? What is the idea of government? Let go of left and right. If you demonize, malign, mock, or diminish the other, left or right, because of their difference, you are ridiculing the foundation of our country. Beware of unwarranted superstition and suspicion; use the facts before you. If the facts contradict a previously accepted illusion or constructed social conformity, honor reality. Don't follow someone else's idea of who you are, or who someone else is, or what you should be.

We naturally come with two hands, even though one is usually stronger or more capable. Take it from a life-long lefty: I need my right hand. They both serve me well.

Abortions: Females and God

Recently the State of South Dakota passed a law making abortion illegal - again. We have walked this path before when birth control (and the information about it) was also illegal, and women could not vote or own property. Women were the property - not unlike slaves (black women took a double hit). So were the children born of the women - property. In our contemporary ownership society, we forget that our history is a long, tumultuous road of inclusion. Through various laws, by 1900 every state consented to some form of married female's property control. Until those laws passed, females were not allowed control over their inheritances, or property of any kind. Their lands were managed by their husbands, fathers or some male appointee. To make a long story short: before a female married, she was under the control of her father. After she married, she was under the control of her mate. Legally.

We don't have to look far to see similar female ideas played out in our world. When the United States invaded Afghanistan, much ado was made of the plight of women: denied education, swathed in layers of fabric (male visual stimulation considered their fault), hidden from society. Or how about Pakistan where a woman who is raped may be stoned to death for adultery. She needs four witnesses to prove rape and other women or non-Muslim eye-witness testimonies don't count. Got that? The account of a woman is worthless, not just the woman who was raped, but any others who saw it occur.

Here is the crux of our problem. This isn't an issue of pro-choice versus pro-life as the spin doctors would have us believe. The issue is our collective ideas of femaleness. Womanhood. We forget that underneath the divisive talk we are resting on ancient attitudes about gender. Attitudes that claim females are without the ability to think, the strength to persevere, or even without souls. We are manipulative seducers unable to reason; our emotions lead us astray. Thus, we must be protected, guided, led, beaten, and most of all controlled. Sure we have laws today granting us freedoms previously denied, but look what happens to laws. They change.

One day in South Dakota, a woman can make a choice about her body and her life; the next day, after the law is enacted, the state makes the choice for her. The account of the woman is worthless. Which laws are next? What other "rights" previously granted are up for grabs? Perhaps it is community property rights in marriage. Perhaps it is legal rights to children. After all, we are getting pretty close to it: what difference is there between a state telling a woman she must give birth and a state determining who should be sterilized? Is that the ultimate goal?

This country has been down that road before too - sterilizing the unfortunate or undesirable. The United States was the first country to adopt compulsory sterilization at the beginning of the twentieth century. It wasn't female specific then: mentally retarded, mentally ill, deformed and orphaned topped the list. From the sterilization link above:

"After World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany, though sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used. In the end, over 64,000 individuals were sterilized under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States, with California leading the pack, itself responsible for over a third of all sterilization operations. Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists E.S. Gosney and Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible. In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their past programs. None have offered to compensate those sterilized, however, citing that few are likely still living (and by definition would have no affected offspring) and that inadequate records remain by which to verify them."

The legal goal was prevention of undesirables reproducing. Who gets to decide what kind of person is undesirable? Obviously, the state.

Now anti-abortion enthusiasts would have us believe that their goal is more live births in our country. They don't want to prevent reproducing, but encourage it. I don't believe them. What they want is control over women's lives - again. We are not living, breathing, God-sponsored beings. We have no right to determine the best course of action in our worlds. Our innate sexuality and power to give birth necessitate control by others. The witness of a woman is worthless.

Religious mockery of the female is ancient. Today's version claims that life begins with conception in the womb. How fraudulent! Today's science also reveals that life resides in our eggs; life resides in sperm; life resides in petry dishes. Do we outlaw masturbation next? Or menstruation? Or invitro-fertilization ?

The energy of life is in all things. Potential is constant. The unspoken premise is the lack of trust in the female's connection to life - or the female's connection to God. The state must intervene on her behalf because her choice will be flawed if abortion is considered. Her relationship to the potential of life must be controlled. Once impregnated, by any means - violence included - she must carry the fetus to birth. The state must speak for God. Just like the state demanded sterilization of "undesirables." Just like the state denied female property ownership. Just like withholding voting rights for women.

Some people still believe their state, government, or religion has the obligation to determine the outcome of life for females - disguised as concern for life. Instead, it is disrespect clothed in finery. Whatever our views on abortion, we have no right to impose them on others. Females are individuals with life paths known only to them. Let them walk with God. Let them live with the consequences of their actions. Trust in God, not the state.