I was surprised to read in Sunday’s Projo that the Taricani case continues.
There is still a fundamental question I have yet to see answered anywhere in public. Did Taricani waive his right to a jury trial in this case? If so, why? If not, how has Judge Torres’ managed to skirt the whole right-to-trial-by-jury detail?
Glen Peck of Barrington thinks that:
House Republicans have done something truly appalling. They’ve knocked down a Republican House ethics rule that banned House members from holding leadership positions if they’ve been indicted on felony charges. They did it on behalf of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Texas). …
This is no mere act of hypocrisy, though. Nor is it just a Beltway issue, relevant only in Washington. This is a national moral lapse that cuts to the heart of our government.
Curiously, Mr. Peck doesn’t seem interested in the question of whether the other major party at “the heart of our government” has a similar rule. (Of course, in Rhode Island, the Democrats are the head, hands, and pockets of government, too.) In trying to answer that question for myself, I didn’t come across any “appalled” liberals demanding that the Democrats institute one. The closest was a parenthetical note from the apparently liberal Bert Caradine at WatchBlog — offered without evidence or opinion — that “House Democrats are now considering one.”
News readers might suppose that Washington Post writer Charles Babington would think it a relevant factoid for his piece on the matter. But the information remains absent, even as he quotes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as saying that the rule change would “confirm yet again that [Republicans] simply do not care if their leaders are ethical.” (Pelosi, herself, didn’t seem to notice that her standard for the Republicans implies a lack of ethics as the norm.)
Bill Bowman, writing from Bruce Springsteen’s old stomping grounds in New Jersey in the Asbury Park Press, outdoes the WaPo coverage in this respect, if only because a New Jersey Republican spokesman thought to say the unspeakable:
The Republicans’ new rule is “considered tougher than the Democrats’, who have no rules whatsoever. A Democrat leader could be indicted and found guilty and still hold their post,” Sagnip said.
And the folks at Power Line join me (or at least their emailers do) in finding it curious that Democrats would fling the word “hypocrisy” on this count.
I’m not interested enough in this matter to engage in adequate research to form a definitive opinion. Still, indictment seems a rather strict measure in an innocent-’til-proven-guilty society. A rule such as the following, described in the WaPo article, seems most reasonable to me, given political circumstances:
[Open full post]Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.
With the election over, we once again turn our attention to the future. That includes preparing for a new group of government officials to take office.
Therefore it seems timely to reflect on the principles of the American Founding, as we hope these principles will guide both our lawmakers and us.
It is a common practice for some people to focus on America’s past or current failings. Some even go so far as to claim The American Project is a failure or illegitimate because of these imperfections.
Contrast that world view with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of one of the great moral endeavors of our lifetime. We all agree that slavery was a failing in the early years of the Republic. We further agree that unequal treatment under the law in a post-slavery world was another failing. Yet, when faced with the latter challenge, Dr. King successfully led a change effort by appealing to higher principles.
Consider this excerpt from his 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech:
I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
We are touched because those powerful words appeal to timeless moral principles that are grounded in both our Declaration of Independence and the great moral traditions that precede our Founding.
Roger Pilon wrote the following in a 2002 Cato Institute booklet containing the Declaration of Independence and Constitution:
Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration’s seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident.” Grounded in reason, “self-evident” truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a “higher law” of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system.
But if reason is the foundation of the Founders’ vision – the method by which we justify our political order – liberty is its aim. Thus, cardinal moral truths are these:…that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government – indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from “the Consent of the Governed.” And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish – to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights – provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract – its principles rooted in “right reason” – the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.
Dr. Pilon concluded his essay by writing:
In the end, however, no constitution can be self-enforcing. Government officials must respect their oaths to uphold the Constitution; and we the people must be vigilant in seeing that they do. The Founders drafted an extraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, but it is up to us, to each generation, to preserve and protect it for ourselves and for future generations. For the Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the American people. That, perhaps, is the most enduring lesson of our experiment in ordered liberty.
A love for life and liberty with the freedom to pursue happiness, while seeking a deeper understanding of the moral underpinnings of natural law. In this time of great challenges and conflict, may all of us live up to that vision authored by our Founders as we strive to be engaged citizens who are vigilant stewards of freedom and opportunity for all Americans.
[Open full post]I chuckled when I read Tom LeBlanc’s letter in the Projo (which Marc mentions in the previous post). The idea that the Theory of Evolution can accord with religious faith in God is only “groundbreaking” from the perspective of scientists. If the Judeo-Christian conception of God is more or less correct, then it must be the case that any science discovered to be true will accord with His existence.
This discussion brings to mind a series of six long essays that I wrote in response to physicist Frank Tipler’s The Physics of Immortality. (Here’s part one of the series.) The concepts are abstract, and the writing is rough. And I sometimes wasn’t sufficiently clear when I was speculating about “if this, then that” and when I was saying “certainly this,” but that’s mostly because I was rushing to throw the ideas into words before discontinuing my online Just Thinking column.
Not surprisingly, given that I’m a Catholic Christian convert, the underlying idea is that even the most out-there of scientific ideas, to the extent that they are truly compatible with the world in which we live, are compatible with God, generally, and Christian revelation, specifically. I don’t think the topic necessarily accords with the specific mission of Anchor Rising, but it’s certainly one to which I intend to return when circumstances allow.
ADDENDUM:
I should note that the topic that I don’t think accords with the mission of Anchor Rising is the tracing of religion into out-there science — not the level of discussion in which Marc has engaged. That’s clearly apropos to our goals, here.
Last week I noticed a story about a school district in Georgia placing a disclaimer on its high school biology books that stated that “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.” The local tie-in was that the author of the textbook, Kenneth Miller, is a Brown University professor. The ACLU and others have filed to remove the sticker and “the judge must determine whether the sticker promotes religion or is merely an advisory action by a government entity.” Apparently we have another secular/religion argument, right? Not necessarily.
Yesterday brought a letter to the editors of the ProJo from Tom LeBlanc, a former student of Miller’s, who wrote that the story neglected to mention Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, a work, according to LeBlanc, that
demonstrates how belief in God is not necessarily contrary to belief in evolutionary theory. This is indeed a quite groundbreaking notion, contrary to the partisanship typical of most evolutionary debates, in which “creationism” and evolution are passionately presented as diametrically opposed.
Indeed, it seems that Miller believes that evolution and creation go hand-and-hand and are not mutually exclusive concepts. Science and Religion both offer creation theories, after all, and in that acknowledged common ground Miller seeks to sow the seeds of compatibility.
The conflict between these two versions of our history is real, and I do not doubt for a second that it needs to be addressed. What I do not believe is that the conflict is unresolvable….As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve. [source (Scientific American review of the book)]
Miller takes atheistic evolutionists to task for too-cavalierly disregarding religious theories and he criticizes creationists (more specifically, instantaneous creationists) for attempting to raise reasonable doubt towards evolutionary theory instead of offering a theory of their own. Miller himself seems to follow a third way, often called either developmental creation or theistic evolution.
As a Catholic, Miller is following in the footsteps of other Catholic scientists who recognized that science and religion are not necessarily antagonistic. For example, with regards to just creation theory, Catholic sholars have long believed that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not required as proof of belief in God. Augustine (and others) believed that each of the seven days of creation as outlined in Genesis were not necessarily defined by the same 24 hour period as was contemporarily understood. In his The Literal Interpretation of Genesis [A.D. 408], Augustine observed that
Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 4:27).
This echoed the earlier and more succinct ruminations of Cyprian, who stated in his Treatises [A.D. 250] that, “The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 ). Though Cyprian’s estimate was off, the writings of both he and Augustine have shown that religious men were perfectly willing to grant that a literal interpretation of the Bible was not necessary to be religious. (
Overall, the Catholic Church has some well-reasoned postions on this subject and a good, short summary is here).
Historically, religion and reason have often been at loggerheads, but some of the most important progress in human understanding (philosophy) has been made by religious scholars (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Copernicus and Johnathan Edwards, to name a few). In our Red/Blue, religious/secular world, we who consider ourselves conservative, on the Red/Religious side if you will, should take care not to negatively conflate rabid secularism with accepted scientific theory. I understand the motivation behind the biology textbook stickers. In a world where God is constantly under assault, some see an opportunity to bring God into our schools via the side door. The goal is admirable, however placing a “parental warning” on textbooks is a misquided method. These stickers imply to our school children that a sort of scientific conspiracy exists and that the real “truth” of science and nature is unknowable. Ironically, such implications of scientific uncertainty lead to the same a sort of relativism often derided by religious conservatives when applied in the moral realm. Just as it is disengenuous to state that there are no universally accepted moral codes, it is likewise to imply that scientific truth is also unattainable, or at least highly speculative.
As I’ve detailed, there are various evolutional theories, and God has a place in them. Simply because atheistic proponents discount the possibility that God has any place in their specific theory of evolution does not mean that all evolution theories have no place for God. Similarly, simply because some creationists believe that God created the world in six, 24 hour days does not mean that all religious people discount the fossil record or Darwin’s observations. I would guess that for most people the truth lay somewhere in between the two extremes. Religion and Science do not have to be assigned opposite poles from which mutually exclusive belief systems are derived. Let’s not let political ideology cloud our reason, or our faith.
[Open full post]I only caught a few minutes of his radio show while I rushed around, but Dan Yorke seems to think it’s obvious that Jim Taricani tried to give Bevilacqua up in his “by chance” meeting with FBI agent Dennis Aiken… without actually giving him up. If that’s the case, I agree with Yorke that Taricani’s freedom-of-the-press-martyr schtick is nauseating. Still, the problem with that argument is that Taricani gave his source away just a couple of hours before his criminal contempt trial. Yorke attributes that to poor planning; I’m not so sure:
Accordingly, immediately prior to the commencement of the criminal contempt trial, this information was provided to Mr. Taricani and his lawyers by the Special Prosecutor. Once again, the Special Prosecutor requested that Mr. Taricani comply with the Court Order and identify how and from whom he obtained the Corrente Videotape; in particular, to confirm that Mr. Bevilacqua was indeed his source. At Mr. Taricani’s request, there was a short delay in the start of the criminal contempt trial in order for Mr. Taricani to review this development with his attorneys. Despite this new information, Mr. Taricani decided to continue to refuse to comply with the Court Order compelling him to identify his source and the criminal contempt trial proceeded as scheduled.
That’s from Special Prosecutor DeSisto’s description of events (PDF). So, Yorke’s explanation must be that Taricani tried to pull a last minute escape through the eye of his legal and social needle, only to push his luck to the utmost when given an opportunity to seal the deal. That’s absolutely plausible, I should note, and Yorke has followed this ordeal much more thoroughly and for much longer than I have. But it still seems to me that there’s some other element at play.
[Open full post]It might surprise North Providence social worker Don Jackson and his ilk that I take seriously my duty to follow President Kennedy’s famous imploration and ask what I can do for my country, and for all of humanity. It might surprise the entire field of professional social workers to hear that I don’t believe myself to be unique in that attribute among conservatives. Writes Mr. Jackson:
The great conservative wave that swept into this country with the presidency of Ronald Reagan changed the sensibility of the populace from “Ask not what your country can do for you. . . .” to “He who has the most toys wins.” One is not going to acquire many “toys” with a degree in the low-paid world of social work. So the field tends to attract us liberals.
One wonders how Mr. Jackson’s explanation from economics handles conservatives’ disproportionate enlistment in the armed services. Or what about conservatives who pursue religious missionary work? Or punditry?
Truth be told, I find it a peculiar notion that those who would state as plain fact that there “aren’t enough ‘do-gooders’ and charities to make a dent in the social problems in this country (much less the world) without aid from the government” deserve the moral inheritance of “ask not what your country can do for you.” For the desert to be just, socialist social workers would have to be correct in their apparent belief that their vocation is above all others in the good that it has accomplished. As much as they may do, and as much of a blessing as they may be to individuals in need, that just isn’t the case.
Jackson believes that “without broad social change and government intervention, poverty, illiteracy, discrimination, etc., will continue to increase,” but that’s more an article of faith than a fact-driven assessment, in terms of both trends and solutions. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the illiteracy rate dropped from 20% of the population in 1870 to 0.6% in 1979. Poor people, in our times, enjoy capabilities and services that even emperors of old could only dream of. Of course, arguments could be made that government intervention played a role in such advances, but did its influence equal that of technological advancement or that of economic freedom? Has federal affirmative action done more to diminish discrimination than, say, television?
We all face decisions about how best to spend our time, and while there’s much to admire in those for whom the answer is social work, others may be better suited elsewhere. I wish I were able to become more individually involved in charitable work, but family and financial demands give me a limited opening; are those hours better spent ladling soup or advocating for cultural change that I really do (believe it or not) think will benefit everybody?
In the article that sparked Jackson’s letter to the editor, Rhode Island College social work professor Jim Ryczek is reported as believing “that a comprehensive welfare state is the optimal form of government.” Somehow Prof. Ryczek doesn’t find that view in conflict with social workers’ commitment “to helping poor and oppressed communities become empowered to make positive changes.” In its history, socialism has done quite a bit to the poor and oppressed; empowering them hasn’t been a prominent feature.
For all my protestation, though, social workers with graduate degrees and their professors may be correct that their field isn’t for conservatives. A certain mindset is required for choosing that route rather than maximally furthering the country’s economy professionally, while working for change and charity personally. It also requires a certain approach to problems, which conservatives may be too inclined to address at their source, rather than through a safety net.
On Sunday, Bob Kerr wrote about Rhode Island native Molly Little’s experience with airport security. Here’s the one sentence summary: Kerr believes she was hassled at the airport because she is a “peace” activist (quotes are mine).
Let me begin with the slight note of hypocrisy that Kerr ends with. Kerr writes
It might never be officially confirmed, but when an 18-year-old from Rhode Island with a mind of her own can be detained at an airport without explanation it’s difficult to escape the feeling that somebody’s out there taking names.Why is the fact that Little is an 18-year old “her” relevant to this discussion? Is Kerr implying that Little should not have been searched because she is an 18-year old female? If demographic factors were used in deciding whom to apply extra scrutiny to, Kerr would be among the first to write about the evils of profiling. To maintain some intellectual honesty, and not just express generic liberal outrage, the above sentence should have been written about “a person with a mind of his or her own”.
Still, the question of why Molly Little was stopped is a valid one. The government doesn’t tell us the exact criteria that its airport screening systems use. There is a reasonable justification for this. If the exact criteria are known, the system is easier to beat. (If you want to sound tech-macho when describing this, say that “the system can be gamed”.) Not knowing the exact criteria, what follows is pure speculation on my part.
Start with this article by Michael Pastore, dated August 30, 2004.
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will begin testing a new airport passenger-prescreening program to identify potential terrorists before the end of the year, and will also conduct a limited test to determine whether or not comparing passenger information to commercially available data can help to more accurately verify the identity of individuals.
The key here is the use of “commercially available data can help to more accurately verify the identity of individuals”. Note the stated goal is not to determine if a person is a good guy or a bad guy, but to determine if they are who they say they are. This could conceivably create a problem in the case of Molly Little. Molly Little also writes under the name of Margaree Little. Is Molly a commonly used diminutive of Margaree? If not, an automated system comparing records from different sources might reach the conclusion that the same person was using two names, i.e. a real name and an alias.
Any risk factors that were flagged were probably enhanced by the fact that Portland is considered a high-risk point of travel. You don’t think of Portland as high-risk? Mohammed Atta entered the US through Portland on September 11, 2001 AND was selected by the automated screeing program in place at the time.
Again, I am (for the purposes of this post) remaining neutral on whether this combination of checks, if they exist, are good things or bad things. I am pointing out that it is a little premature to jump to the conclusion that lists of peace protesters are being compiled.
Finally, there is one point in Little’s story I don’t understand at all. Little says the agent at the ticket counter said that members of the military are sometimes flagged by the screening system. This doesn’t make sense. Why would our government want to use it scarce screening resources on members of its own military? There is still a missing piece to this puzzle. [Open full post]
Eugene Volokh, a blogger himself, has a piece in today’s New York Times in which he mentions the Taricani case. However, of more importance is the larger question he seeks to address
Because of the Internet, anyone can be a journalist. Some so-called Weblogs – Internet-based opinion columns published by ordinary people – have hundreds of thousands of readers….The First Amendment can’t give special rights to the established news media and not to upstart outlets like ours. Freedom of the press should apply to people equally, regardless of who they are, why they write or how popular they are.
Volokh does point out the problem with this everybody-is-a-journalist atmosphere, namely, that anyone can leak anything to anyone who runs a blog and the blogger can cite the First Amendment for protection. Volokh concludes that this can lead to widespread violation of privacy and the like. I’m not sure where we are headed in these interesting times, but it seems as if technology will force us to expand our definition of exactly who is part of the Free Press.
[Open full post]Frankly, I just don’t know what to make of this:
… special prosecutor Marc DeSisto says in court papers filed this morning that Bevilacqua never asked Taricani to keep his identity confidential and that the defense lawyer urged the reporter more than 2 1/2 years ago to tell DeSisto that he was his source. …
DeSisto says that last Wednesday, after he subpoenaed Bevilacqua, the defense lawyer admitted under oath that he was the source for the secret FBI videotape that Channel 10 aired on Feb. 1, 2001. He had previously denied to DeSisto, also under oath on Feb. 6, 2002, that he was the source.
So now that DeSisto has found the criminal for whom he’d been searching — a man who has in the interim added perjury to his offenses — the prosecutor takes the law-breaking lawyer entirely at his word on the matter of Jim Taricani’s involvement? Odd.
DeSisto argues in the court papers that “any obligation that Mr. Taricani felt to keep his source private should have dissolved upon presentation of the waiver of confidentiality” in the spring of 2002. But “more egregiously,” DeSisto contends, instead of complying with his source’s wishes…Mr. Taricani specifically asked Mr. Bevilacqua not to reveal his identity.”
Note that “more egregiously.” Reading DeSisto’s full statement (PDF), it is clearly presented in opposition to the request for leniency filed by Taricani’s lawyers. Taricani, in his DeSisto’s narrative, becomes more of an obscurantist than the guy facing charges. It’s also interesting to note, in the full reply, that Bevilacqua didn’t come forward out of the blue; rather, he confessed only after he’d been made aware that Taricani had given too much away in private conversation with another interested party (FBI agent Dennis Aiken).
It’s difficult to know whose side to take in a court v. lawyer v. reporter battle — even more so in a state with as much mutual back scratching as Rhode Island. But I can’t shake the feeling that there’s something more to this than the simple explanation of either a martyrdom-seeking journalist or a defense-preparing lawyer. I’ll be very curious to see what the future holds for Mr. Bevilacqua, especially with regards to DeSisto’s involvement in it.
