“War Exception”-Assassination by Accusation
[ADDENDUM below]
Below is a post titled : “Death by Accusation.” The title probably should have been: Assassination by Accusation. The following is an addendum to that article by the same author. I’ve attached an excerpt, but the whole article is worth reading and considering.
Anyone with a clear understanding of conflict and war knows that military might with the inherent threat to annihilate the earth is no guarantee of victory. Yet America is going broke morally, ethically, legally, and financially by continuing to fight a war based upon lies and no legal, might I say legitimate constitutional
basis. War is about will. Illegitimate corruption degrades or disempowers the will. The so-called terrorists at 9/11 attacked an illegitimate government with the intent to attack this country at its weakest point — WILL.
The fact is, America’s response was and is “by the numbers.” This issue defines our destruction – the sickness from within. Here’s what Mr. Greenwald says:
On the claimed “war exception” to the Constitution
BY GLENN GREENWALD
Far beyond the specific injustices of assassinating Americans without trials, the real significance, the real danger, is that we continue to be frightened into radically altering our system of government. In Slateyesterday, Dahlia Lithwick encapsulated this problem perfectly; her whole article should be read, but this excerpt is superb:
America has slid back again into its own special brand of terrorism-derangement syndrome. Each time this condition recurs, it presents with more acute and puzzling symptoms. . . .
Moreover, each time Republicans go to their terrorism crazy-place, they go just a little bit farther than they did the last time, so that things that made us feel safe last year make us feel vulnerable today. . . . In short, what was once tough on terror is now soft on terror. And each time the Republicans move their own crazy-place goal posts, the Obama administration moves right along with them. . . .
We’re terrified when a terror attack happens, and we’re also terrified when it’s thwarted. We’re terrified when we give terrorists trials, and we’re terrified when we warehouse them at Guantanamo without trials. If a terrorist cooperates without being tortured we complain about how much more he would have cooperated if he hadn’t been read his rights. No matter how tough we’ve been on terror, we will never feel safe enough to ask for fewer safeguards. . . .
But here’s the paradox: It’s not a terrorist’s time bomb that’s ticking. It’s us. Since 9/11, we have become ever more willing to suspend basic protections and more contemptuous of American traditions and institutions. The failed Christmas bombing and its political aftermath have revealed that the terrorists have changed very little in the eight-plus years since the World Trade Center fell. What’s changing — what’s slowly ticking its way down to zero — is our own certainty that we can never be safe enough and our own confidence in the rule of law.
This descent has certainly not reversed itself — it has not really even slowed — with the election of a President who repeatedly vowed to reject this mentality. Just consider what Al Gore said in his truly excellent 2006 speech decrying the “Constitutional crisis” under the Bush presidency:
Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution?
If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?
If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can’t he do?
Here we are, almost four years later with a new party in power, and the President’s top intelligence official announces — without any real controversy — that the President claims the power to assassinate American citizens with no charges, no trials, no judicial oversight of any kind. The claimed power isn’t “inherent” — it’s based on alleged Congressional approval — but it’s safeguard-free and due-process-free just the same. As Gore asked of less severe policies in 2006, if the President can do that, “then what can’t he do?” As long as we stay petrified of the Terrorists and wholly submissive whenever the word “war” is uttered, the answer will continue to be: ”nothing.” We’ll have Presidents now and then who are marginally more restrained than others — as the current President is marginally more restrained than the prior one — but what Lithwick calls our “willingness to suspend basic protections and become more contemptuous of American traditions and institutions” will continue unabated.
In the real world, America has already lost the “war” by becoming what it is fighting.
ADDENDUM :: Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Democracy Now interviewed Rep. Dennis Kucinich and blogger and attorney Glenn Greenwald. Dennis Kucinich affirms the legal protections granted all American citizens and wants to know by what authority The President of the United States can murder an American citizen on his say-so alone. Dennis Kucinich’s most distressing comment regarding legal justification had to do with presidential declarations “declaring three states of national emergency,” “one relating to 9/11, another one relating to the war on terror, and a third one relating to Iran.”
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, Congress has the authority, under a joint resolution, to challenge any presidential directive. It’s not widely known, Amy, but there are at least three states of national emergency that we’re operating under right now by presidential declaration: one relating to 9/11, another one relating to the war on terror, and a third one relating to Iran. You know, this idea of being governed by an edict, of being locked into this war on terror, poses all kinds of challenges to our Constitution. I take an oath to defend the Constitution. And when I see in the Fifth Amendment where it says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I want to know what’s the constitutional basis for suspending this provision for anyone, even for a moment, because if this is—if this, in any sense, can be set aside, then we are on a slippery slope to anti-democracy.
Kucinich points out why this should be important to all American citizens no matter where they live:
***** And what’s happened is that the Constitution is being vitiated here. The idea that people are—have—if their life is in jeopardy, legally have due process of law, is thrown out the window.
And, Amy, when you consider that there are people who are claiming there are many terrorist cells in the United States, it doesn’t take too much of a stretch to imagine that this policy could easily be transferred to citizens in this country. That doesn’t—that only compounds what I think is a slow and steady detachment from core constitutional principles. And once that happens, we have a country then that loses its memory and its soul, with respect to being disconnected from those core constitutional principles which are the basis of freedom in our society.
If you consider the possibility that this, the destruction of America’s soul, was the real target on 9/11, then you would have admit they’ve rather successful.
–Joe
The End
This will bring down the Obama Government:
DOJ official reportedly clears torture architects John Yoo and Jay Bybee.
Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay Bybee were two of the main architects of the Bush administration’s torture program. As Bybee’s deputy, Yoo “was the author of much of the legal rationale for using waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques.” He argued that interrogators who harm a prisoner would be protected “national and international version of the right to self-defense,” and illegal conduct must “shock the conscience.” Bybee headed the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel and signed off on the infamous 2002 torture memo. Newsweek now reports that a senior DOJ official has essentially cleared the two men of misconduct in an upcoming office of Professional Responsibility report:
While the probe is sharply critical of the legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, NEWSWEEK has learned that a senior Justice official who did the final review of the report softened an earlier OPR finding. Previously, the report concluded that two key authors — Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor — violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for anonymity discussing an internal matter. But the reviewer, career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed “poor judgment,” say the sources. (Under department rules, poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct.) The shift is significant: the original finding would have triggered a referral to state bar associations for potential disciplinary action — which, in Bybee’s case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.
A DOJ official said that Margolis “acted without input” from Attorney General Eric Holder. Emptywheel has more.
Death By Accusation
After you read this report ask yourself what is to stop the local police authorities from adopting the same legal justification for enforcing the same summary judgment – point, accuse and shoot?
The following is only an excerpt of his complete article. Click the link to read everything he reports. It’s worth your time and consideration. There is absolutely NOTHING to stop this from happening to you.
Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 06:28 ESTPresidential assassinations of U.S. citizens
Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests.” They’re entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration’s policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges — based solely on the President’s claim that they were Terrorists — produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn’t Obama’s policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind — not imprisoned, but killed — produce at least as much controversy?
Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens. That’s just the essence of war. That’s why it’s permissible to kill a combatant engaged on a real battlefield in a war zone but not, say, torture them once they’re captured and helplessly detained. But combat is not what we’re talking about here. The people on this “hit list” are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration — like the Bush administration before it — defines the “battlefield” as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. That’s quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.
A 1981 Executive Order signed by Ronald Reagan provides: ”No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Before the Geneva Conventions were first enacted, Abraham Lincoln — in the middle of the Civil War — directed Francis Lieber to articulate rules of conduct for war, and those were then incorporated into General Order 100, signed by Lincoln in April, 1863. Here is part of what it provided, in Section IX, entitled “Assassinations”:
The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.
Can anyone remotely reconcile that righteous proclamation with what the Obama administration is doing? And more generally, what legal basis exists for the President to unilaterally compile hit lists of American citizens he wants to be killed?
“There is a constitutional problem here. A person is innocent unless proven guilty,” he said. “If you go off to kill or capture them, how do you prove that they are really guilty in terms of legal process?” . . .
So we’re in Afghanistan to teach them about democracy, the rule of law, and basic precepts of Western justice. Meanwhile, Afghan officials vehemently object to the lawless, due-process-free assassination “hit list” of their citizens based on the unchecked say-so of the U.S. Government, and have to lecture us on the rule of law and Constitutional constraints. By stark contrast, our own Government, our media and our citizenry appear to find nothing wrong whatsoever with lawless assassinations aimed at our own citizens. And the most glaring question for those who criticized Bush/Cheney detention policies but want to defend this: how could anyone possibly object to imprisoning foreign nationals without charges or due process at Guantanamo while approving of the assassination of U.S. citizens without any charges or due process?
–Joe
Power To The People — RIGHT!
Problem Oriented Policing
The following Editorial, however well intentioned, is really an condemnatory indictment of the Eureka Police Department. The fact that the EPD had to institute the Problem Oriented Policing program speaks for itself. It’s purpose, apparently defined below, was to get the people calling on the police to respond. Apparently the general public “did NOT have a sense of buy-in.” They’d call in and get the run-around. My personal experience was, not only did I get the run-around, their failure to do their job made the matter worse. That would make me a prime candidate for some new empowering police program, right?
”This is effective policing”? If we didn’t have “effective policing” BEFORE, why do we need a new “empowering program” now when all the police need to do is the job they are paid to do?
So, what’s the real message this program is sending? Unless the police get the powers they want, we the people, the one’s that they are here to supposedly protect and serve, divest us of everything, including our tax dollars, until they get their way. You can read how this all works here.
While the POP program in and of itself may be a useful tool and even an asset to the community, it’s very existance, as justified in the following Editorial, definitely “sends” the wrong message.
This is the Sunday, January 17, 2010 Times-Standard Editorial copied here verbatim:
Empowering the people
The Times-Standard
Posted: 01/17/2010 01:30:15 AM PSTLaw enforcement in this and any community works best when residents have a sense of buy-in. If Eurekans feel like their concerns and observations are noted by police, and that action is taken when crimes are committed and reported, then they are much more likely to take umbrage at crimes committed on their doorstep, and report them.
In two recent cases at least, the Eureka Police Department’s Problem Oriented Policing program has yielded investigations and arrests. These were allegedly problem properties that had attracted the attention of neighbors, and their efforts to see these problems addressed led to concrete action on the part of law enforcement officials.
This success only serves to reinforce the program — as more and more residents realize that their calls actually result in action and enforcement, you can bet more and more calls will be made. This is effective policing. [Emphasis mine.]
Neither of the two recent busts led to major arrests. But that is not the point. The program is working quickly to give Eureka residents confidence that its police department is working to address the problems that affect their lives.
At the same time, it’s sending signals to criminals within city limits that their actions will have consequences. Their activity will not be tolerated, and their neighbors, for so long simply passive witnesses to crime that went on all around them, are suddenly empowered. When people are invested, and feel like they can make a difference by policing their own communities, that’s when positive change can really occur.
A good explanation of Problem Oriented Policing — POP — is here.
–Joe
Tell Me Words Don’t Matter!
A longstanding argument of this Report is that “words are important,” that ”words mean what they say.” That is how the intentions of the speaker or writer are communicated or expressed. Today we hear that it is unacceptable to use the word “negro” in normal day-to-day language. Use the evil “N” word and you commit suicide. Reason? It offends some “…” people. Well, the use of the term “African-American” offended me! That term means “African” first, “American” second. As an American “white,” with roots that go back to the beginning of this country, I find such usage and it’s overt acceptance is a direct implication of my second-class status.
Keeping and protecting their African heritage at the cost of their American reality has dominated their movement toward individuality and their maturity as a race within the American context is self-evident. Simple-minded, knee jerk reactions, however well intended, because someone’s sensitivities are tweaked, can lead to some rather undesirable and unintended consequences. But then, that’s usually the undisclosed plan, especially one with an ulterior motive, isn’t it?
Today we see an effort to actually recognize the value and meaning of words expressed in law. In the state of Washington –
Decades ago, poor children became known as “disadvantaged” to soften the stigma of poverty. Then they were “at-risk.” Now, a Washington lawmaker wants to replace those euphemisms with a new one, “at hope.”
Lovely word “euphemisms.” It means: “the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.”
Democratic State Sen. Rosa Franklin says negative labels are hurting kids’ chances for success and she’s not a bit concerned that people will be confused by her proposed rewrite of the 54 places in state law where words like “at risk” and “disadvantaged” are used.
You can read the rest of the story here:
Wash. lawmaker wants to banish negative language
Of course there’s the expected standard simple-minded Republican response:
“It’s not the label, it’s the people who show up to help (children) that make the difference,” he says. “What helps is a smart, well structured program, that has funding and credibility.”
You can read Robert Preidt report on HealthDay News published at MedicineNet.com, “Negative Words Register Faster” and see why I say “simple-minded.” Class stigmatisms are subliminally contained in the attitude expressed by the words used to tag, classify and identify people. It is a “truth” nearly impossible to overcome.
This is nowhere expressed more succinctly than in this statement by a Federal Judge at the Sentencing Hearing of Richard Reid: “And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.“
Yes, words matter. Words of truth do not make anyone a bigot, a racist, or a monster. But then, Jesus Christ spoke words of truth defending and empowering the “disadvantaged” and “at risk” and look what happened to him!
–Joe
Propagandizing American Belief’s
The flim flam of the American people is explained never better by the following interview conducted with Glenn Greewald by Amy Goodwyn on Democracy Now, December 30, 2009. 2009 in Perspective: Glenn Greenwald on the Five Wars US Is Fighting in Muslim Countries. Here are some excerpts I think important.
AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, talk about the media coverage of the wars. And also, you wrote an interesting piece about the New York Times coverage of Sami al-Hajj, the Al Jazeera reporter who was held at Guantanamo for about six years and then released without charge.
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, this is what I find actually most interesting and most—and the most significant aspect of all of this, is it’s generally assumed that there is a significant disparity between how we, as Americans or Westerners, perceive of all of these events and how the Muslim world perceives of these events. And that is true. There is a very great disparity. But generally, what we assume is that the reason there’s this great disparity is because we are rational and informed and educated and advanced and, most of all, free, and therefore we know the truth about what’s going on, whereas Muslims live in oppressive and primitive and backwards countries, they are consumed not by rationality but by religious fanaticism, and therefore they have very distorted and partial and propagandized views of the world, and that’s what accounts for this disparity.
Now the reality is exactly the opposite, because all of the things that we were just discussing about the effects of our air strikes in all of these Muslim countries, the fact that we are constantly waging war in an increasing number of their nations, and the fact that we routinely slaughter innocent men, women and children who are the victims of our air strikes, the Muslim—people in the Muslim world in those countries are very well aware of what we do, because the images are reported constantly. They’re informed about what we’re doing. And yet, if you look at American media coverage, it’s virtually never the case that the victims of our actions, of our air strikes and our military assaults, are discussed. Those things are kept from us.
And so, they perceive that we are the aggressors because we are killing civilians, which we’re doing, but Americans are propagandized, that information is basically kept away from their sight, and so they’re unaware of what the actions are. And so, when there’s anger and hostility and hatred in the Muslim world towards the United States, they understand why, but we are confused and bewildered, because the facts about why that is are generally kept from us.
And you mentioned the story of Sami al-Hajj, who was an Al Jazeera reporter, a reporter, a cameraman, who was covering the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States in late 2001, when he was abducted by the United States and shipped to Guantanamo, where he was kept for seven years, obviously without charges of any kind. He was interrogated almost exclusively, not about Osama bin Laden or about terrorism, but about the operations of Al Jazeera. He was clearly a prisoner because he was a journalist that worked for an outlet that the Bush administration perceived as being critical or hostile to its interests. So here was a journalist, a foreign journalist, that we imprisoned for seven years.
And if you go and research on Nexis or other media databases what the discussions were in the mainstream media about that incident, you can find almost nothing. So Americans were not informed that we, as a government, imprisoned journalists without charges. And there are lots of other foreign journalists who have been imprisoned the same way in Iraq and other places. And yet, when you have the case of, say, Roxana Saberi, the Iranian American journalist who was imprisoned in Iran for three months—not for seven years, but for three months—or the two journalists who were just in prison in North Korea, what you have is a media bonanza. And so, it makes it—it gives the appearance that only foreign governments, but not our own, imprison journalists without charges. And this is what accounts for the disparity in perception. It’s that we are being propagandized by our own media. [Emphasis mine]
Dave Silverbrand
Dave Silverbrand & Cleats for Kids
Who can not like Dave Silverbrand?
He’s personable, witty and down to earth. Compare him with others the Times Standard publishes and he’s head and shoulders obove them all. Ever wonder I why? I did. – Do.
For one thing, he’s not always overtly trying to tell everyone how to think or what to believe in. Life is an experience and Dave Silverbrand is an “experience.” He talkes about things we all think about, even if we don’t want to and he seems to make it all right.
Personally, I am an old logger. I never left my driveway without one last kiss and as I went down the street before going out of sight giving one last wave good-bye. My job was dangerous and I never knew from one day to the next that I might not drive back down the street to my home and those that meant more to me than life. While we never talked about it, we all knew it was a sacrifice “I” believed necessary. I loved what I did and made good money. On retrospect, as I look back on these few times I barely survived and grant God’s protection — for I must have been crazy to put myself in that position. That is why I spend every day trying to make it up — make my time as valuable as life itself to the one’s I love.
When I read Dave’s “Home for the holidays” in the Thursday, December 24, 2009, Times-Standard I was reminded how timely he is in what he says about something so irrelevant and obscure as how people live in a barrio in the Dominican Republic. Timely? Yes, just take a good look at what’s happened in America since Barack Obama became President. The looting of American and the working class in unprecidented in all times. Our futer is the reality of the Gomez family — make no mistake.
Until you’ve walked the length of a favela or it’s equivelant as Dave did, you have no idea what the so-called religious, culteral and “red-neck” ELITE will do to their fellow man. Absolutely nothing is sacred to them. They’ll shoot you dead in front of your family, rape your wife and daughters and cut all your children’s throats in a heart beat all, in the name of “freedom.”
I remembered the first time I came home for the holidays after years of being away — living in the same conditions Dave wrote about. A lifetime ago I had traveled to a South American country to live and to teach. The first thing my contemporaries did was introduce me to the “real” people. I spent a week living with a family in their favela home. One of those nights there was a rains storm and I remember waking up to the rain pouring down on me right through the tile roof. No one got any sleep that night. That was the beginning of my respect for those people – the mulatto. That was the begininning of a people that took me in and accepted me as their equal.
I didn’t appreciate that gift until much later. I was reminded of my efforts to secure a permanent visa. From where I lived to the government offices required an hours bus ride. We’re not talking about a bus where everyone sat and enjoyed the ride. We’re talking about a bus that was a sardine can, so cramned full of people there was no room to actually breath in tropical temperatures. I did everything I was legally supposed to do until I reached the desk of the one administrator that was to sign and issue me my permanent visa. I was only in country a month or so and spoke nothing of the native language and this government official spoke absolutely no english. He would write down what he wanted me to do and promptly dismiss me. When I got his instructions translated I was directed to do something extreme, but for very little value. It took me nearly six months to complete everything he wanted, but to no avail. I could not get his signature.
Finally, in desparation I went to a man I knew that was an attorney. Only I didn’t know he was an attorney. By this time I was beginning to speak the native language. He looked at what I showed him and laughed. He then asked me if I had a certain monetary note, the equivilent of about $20.00. He then told me to include that note in the paperwork and submit it to the officer on my next appointment. To my amazement, the government official in perfect English said: “Welcome to “***” Mr. “***.” You will do well here.” He then handed me my signed and stamped Permanent Visa. Inside that Permanent Visa, I found later, was the monetary note I had given him.
He could have given me my Permanent Visa at any time. Instead he first wanted to see if I would learn and appreciate his customs and try to fit in. He wanted to see if giving me the right to live permanently in his country was justified. In due course I left that country and found a mate in my country that justified my existence. I thought to return many times, but could never deny my own heritage.
For that gift, I thank those at the Times-Standard for offering “Dave’s People.” In that, I thank Dave for helping me remember the gift given me a lifetime ago.
–Joe
Leash Law! –Huh?
What good are leash laws when they’re not enforced. What’s that dog doing running loose in the public park anyway?
“He’s a regular there,” Graunitz said . . .
If Jason Graunitz, an employee with the city Parks and Recreation Department, was doing his job the first thing he’d do is call the police to get the dog under control. This is why the leash law isn’t worth it’s weight in dog crap.
Graunitz says, ”It’s just a matter of time before it happens to a kid on the playground.” “All I could think of was my kid getting attacked by that dog.” This is just MORE dog crap!
Just listen to this guy, “Absent finding the animal, Graunitz said, he’ll have to undergo a rabies vaccination, which would be uncomfortable and paid for by the taxpayers.” I hear the shots are more than just “uncomfortable.” Maybe he’ll do more than try to justify letting a “fully grown pit bull” run loose in a public park.
Besides, what’s the difference between that teenager letting his dog bite someone (he established “eye contact”) or that teenager walking up behind Graunitz and whacking him with a stick with nails in it? You think this guy learned anything about dogs and kids?
Here’s the newspaper account:
City employee attacked by pit bull
The Times-Standard
Posted: 11/18/2009 01:15:16 AM PST
–Joe
Don’t Rake Those Leaves
Improve your soil by raking less
by Terry Ettinger
If you dread the annual fall leaf-raking marathon, we have good news for you: Raking and collecting leaves every autumn is a tradition without scientific basis. Read More…
This article came along just at the right time. I was planning on using the grass-catcher to pick up all those leave the neighbor’s tree deposits all over my lawn the next time I mowed, but now I’m just going to mulch. GREAT!
Might as well put a plug in for the Fine Gardening website. It’s been a great source of “how to” information for me.
How to Reduce Maintenance
Some time-saving tactics can make your garden easier to care for
by Sydney Eddison
This is a great article for older gardeners — lots of help and great ideas here.
–Joe
Why the Joe Blow Report — REALLY.
Everything Is About Something Different
“This report is about fair and honest observations and not about opinions
When you read this blog Report Number 2 and our flagship Joe Blow Report, is that what you really come away with? That we are dedicated to stimulating thought over belief? Joe recently said the following:
“In that regard, the Joe Blow Report, aside from the stated reasons (above), and we’re sure to those that read his observations here and elsewhere realize that the Report is dedicated to the “intelligent,” the “thinking” and the “reasoning” reasonable person.”
“That is why the moronic, stupid, imbecilic assaults and attacks against the object are dealt with and defined for what they are.”
On this Blog (upper right-hand corner) Joe says,
“Joe Blow’s self-evident observations on Truth, God’s gift of Equality, unalienable Rights and Justice before Peace.”
The Joe Blow Report is about stimulating those “little grey cells.” The “Third Option.”
So, when I read this by the Reverand Jeri Gray-Reneberg,
“Let’s continue to effect the changes we are committed to, but never forget that our own thinking and feelings are not the final authority and represent only one version of truth. They are far too easily influenced by pride, fear, hate and isolation. Why don’t we interact today with one person who has a different viewpoint, a different type of life? It might help to keep us humble.”
we just had to reprint her article here.
Here is her, “NORTH COAST PATHWAYS: How can we remain humble? The Rev. Jeri Gray-Reneberg/For the Times-Standard Posted: 10/17/2009“:
There are about 6.8 billion people living in the world today, yet many of us have an unprecedented ability to avoid interacting with people who disagree with us.
I can date my acquaintance with the Internet from about 1999, when we were living in a small town in southeast Nebraska. It has since changed my life absolutely. It is a very rare day when I am not on the Internet for some reason — to check e-mail, check the weather, read news headlines or to chat with my daughter who attends school over 700 miles away. Since my daughters cajoled me into using Facebook about two years ago, I have become reacquainted with friends I haven’t seen, or talked to, in 35 years. Some have changed; many seem just as I remember them. What is different now is that we have the ability to seek each other out. And each Internet site I visit, each friendship I maintain via Facebook, each version of the news I read online, help to keep me safely in the world I find the most comfortable.
As I was growing up in a small town outside Denver, we had six TV channels. (My husband, who grew up in rural Kansas, had even fewer!) Americans watched one of three network news channels. Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and other anchors/reporters were familiar to all of us. We trusted the non-biased news reporting the networks and anchors attempted to provide. Now, as subscribers to satellite or cable TV, we have access to more than 200 channels — but most of us probably watch about a dozen regularly, the ones we prefer to watch. We can watch news programs that are slanted any way we like — but many of us still think we are getting unbiased reporting.
The effect of all these choices is that we are able to create a kind of shell around us. We can make judgments about people (and often do, based on highly partisan reporting) and have largely lost the ability to discern propaganda, or hate-speech, presented as news. Our own opinions become reinforced by the information we self-select. Many years ago, we heard about the boy whose immune system was so compromised, he lived in a bubble to isolate him from bacteria or viruses that would threaten his life. Are our lives today much different?Even loved friends can contaminate us with their views. The fact that we trust them, that they know the same people, watch the same news and circulate the same e-mails from the same perspective, only concentrates their impact on us. And the more serious we are, or the more fearful we are, the more we lose the ability to engage in childlike laughter — to remain humble in the face of all our encounters in life.
The word “humble,” from the Latin word “humus,” which means earth, should help guide us. Every winter, on Ash Wednesday, Christians all over the world have ashes imposed on their foreheads, hearing the words, “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” It is one moment in the year, but a significant one. It reminds us not to take ourselves too seriously — even our own all-too-human thinking and fears.
Let’s continue to effect the changes we are committed to, but never forget that our own thinking and feelings are not the final authority and represent only one version of truth. They are far too easily influenced by pride, fear, hate and isolation. Why don’t we interact today with one person who has a different viewpoint, a different type of life? It might help to keep us humble.
——
The Rev. Jeri Gray-Reneberg is pastor of Grace Lutheran Church in Redway. She is a member of Clergy for Choice and has several years’ experience in the domestic violence field. She and her family live in Arcata.
So, what’s the “Third Option”?
