When I was in high school, Mr. Chadwick the gym teacher once sentenced me to 50 push-ups saying, “I never heard President Ford use that word.” I don’t know if Mr. Chadwick is still teaching, but if he is, he’ll have to look beyond the highest level of the executive branch for examples oratory decorum. It’s come to this. Vice President Dick Cheney last week used the foulest of language to encourage Senator Patrick Leahy to perform an act widely held to be physically impossible and if it were possible, the Republicans would try to outlaw it. Two days later, Mr. Cheney went on Fox tee vee to brag about how good cursing makes him feel.
As one ages, it’s wise to get a checkup around one’s birthday and 228-year-old American democracy is in terrible shape. In Washington, DeForest “Buster” Soaries, head of the recently-created federal Elections Assistance Commission has been wondering out loud to the Associated Press about whether he should find a way to cancel the national election if there’s another terrorist attack.
September 11, 2001 was a primary election day for New York’s mayoral election and the vote had to be postponed. Rudy Giuliani, who was then mayor but was not seeking another term, suggested that perhaps he should just remain in office.
By seeking the means for the federal government to cancel or postpone national elections, Mr. Soaries – a Bush appointee – continues the Bush tradition of attempting to expand the power of the executive branch. The Constitution grants the power to hold elections to the states, not the federal government. That power suffered a serious injury in Bush v. Gore, when the Supreme Court set a precedent for federal interference in elections and now Buster Soaries is attempting to build on that precedent, using fear of terrorist attacks to gain compliance in undermining the Constitution. Sound familiar?
On a more heartening note, the court did affirm at least the minimal rights of due process for the prisoners of George Bush’s wars. In a ruling on the detainment of foreigners at Guantanamo Bay, the court ruled that it does not matter that Guantanamo Bay is outside the territorial boundaries of the U.S. The prisoners are held by the Defense Department and the Defense Department is a branch of the U.S. government and should conduct itself in compliance with U.S. laws. Not exactly rocket science. Although the court did not say so explicitly, this ruling should also apply to the American gulags in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Investigations continue into who in the administration authorized torture in America’s foreign prisons and into which White House officials leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative as an act of political vindictiveness.
As the Fourth is upon us, so are the symbols of our national religion. The Supreme Court recently rejected an atheist’s attempt to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, although the justices hid behind a procedural fig leaf and ducked the substantive argument. In Congress, the usual anti-flag burning amendment moves through the committees again.
As a token of hope for the holiday, let’s turn to some words from an essay by Charlotte Aldebron of Presque Isle, Maine written two years ago, when she was in sixth grade:
“The American flag stands for the fact that cloth can be very important. It is against the law to let the flag touch the ground or leave the flag flying when the weather is bad. The flag has to be treated with respect. You can tell how important this cloth is because when you compare it to people, it gets much better treatment. Nobody cares if a homeless person touches the ground. A homeless person can lie all over the ground all night long without anyone picking him up, folding him neatly and sheltering him from the rain.
“School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning. No one has to pledge loyalty to justice and equality and human decency. No one has to promise people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals.”
Cloth Can Be Very Important
When I was in high school, Mr. Chadwick the gym teacher once sentenced me to 50 push-ups saying, “I never heard President Ford use that word.” I don’t know if Mr. Chadwick is still teaching, but if he is, he’ll have to look beyond the highest level of the executive branch for examples oratory decorum. It’s come to this. Vice President Dick Cheney last week used the foulest of language to encourage Senator Patrick Leahy to perform an act widely held to be physically impossible and if it were possible, the Republicans would try to outlaw it. Two days later, Mr. Cheney went on Fox tee vee to brag about how good cursing makes him feel.
As one ages, it’s wise to get a checkup around one’s birthday and 228-year-old American democracy is in terrible shape. In Washington, DeForest “Buster” Soaries, head of the recently-created federal Elections Assistance Commission has been wondering out loud to the Associated Press about whether he should find a way to cancel the national election if there’s another terrorist attack.
September 11, 2001 was a primary election day for New York’s mayoral election and the vote had to be postponed. Rudy Giuliani, who was then mayor but was not seeking another term, suggested that perhaps he should just remain in office.
By seeking the means for the federal government to cancel or postpone national elections, Mr. Soaries – a Bush appointee – continues the Bush tradition of attempting to expand the power of the executive branch. The Constitution grants the power to hold elections to the states, not the federal government. That power suffered a serious injury in Bush v. Gore, when the Supreme Court set a precedent for federal interference in elections and now Buster Soaries is attempting to build on that precedent, using fear of terrorist attacks to gain compliance in undermining the Constitution. Sound familiar?
On a more heartening note, the court did affirm at least the minimal rights of due process for the prisoners of George Bush’s wars. In a ruling on the detainment of foreigners at Guantanamo Bay, the court ruled that it does not matter that Guantanamo Bay is outside the territorial boundaries of the U.S. The prisoners are held by the Defense Department and the Defense Department is a branch of the U.S. government and should conduct itself in compliance with U.S. laws. Not exactly rocket science. Although the court did not say so explicitly, this ruling should also apply to the American gulags in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Investigations continue into who in the administration authorized torture in America’s foreign prisons and into which White House officials leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative as an act of political vindictiveness.
As the Fourth is upon us, so are the symbols of our national religion. The Supreme Court recently rejected an atheist’s attempt to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, although the justices hid behind a procedural fig leaf and ducked the substantive argument. In Congress, the usual anti-flag burning amendment moves through the committees again.
As a token of hope for the holiday, let’s turn to some words from an essay by Charlotte Aldebron of Presque Isle, Maine written two years ago, when she was in sixth grade:
“The American flag stands for the fact that cloth can be very important. It is against the law to let the flag touch the ground or leave the flag flying when the weather is bad. The flag has to be treated with respect. You can tell how important this cloth is because when you compare it to people, it gets much better treatment. Nobody cares if a homeless person touches the ground. A homeless person can lie all over the ground all night long without anyone picking him up, folding him neatly and sheltering him from the rain.
“School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning. No one has to pledge loyalty to justice and equality and human decency. No one has to promise people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals.”
(c) Mark Floegel, 2004