Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays

Americans love war analogies.  It probably stems from our love of actual war, which I think is an actual collective sin we are committing.  So analogies between war and other non-war things are pretty unsettling and off-putting for me.  In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, there are over 100,000 dead civilians, tens of thousands of dead combat troops, and millions of wounded.  So when we use frequent war allusions in sports and politics and the like I think we're being rather callous and glib.  If we paid more attention to our language and how we use it we might end up making different and better political choices in America.

That was all a slight tangent I started pondering as I considered this most special time of year when we can come together and debate whether or not there is a War on Christmas.  The weapons in this war are not missiles, bombs, drone attacks, and machine guns, but phrases like "Happy Holidays," the removal of nativity scenes from government-owned public places, and "X-mas."  The casualties are not human lives lost or permanent physical or psychological injuries and disfigurement, but . . . what?  I'm not sure.  Hurt pride, I guess.

What we have are some very conservative Christians who object to the de-Christianizing of Christmas.  Which makes some intuitive sense, I guess.  After all, this is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.  Put aside for a moment that the holiday was started in part as a way to co-opt pre-Christian winter festivals, and that even before the supposed "War on Christmas" was launched by supposed atheists and statists we Christians did a pretty great job mucking it up on our own with our Santa Clauses and elves and red-nosed reindeers and general commercialism that has wrung any meaningful Christ-centered moisture from the public face of the Christmas cloth.  Put that aside and I can at least see a glimmer of what these staunchly pro-Christ-in-Christmas conservative Christians are getting at.

But as I've alluded to a couple of times so far I think this is a matter of public v. private observance, and I think the Defenders in the War on Christmas are on the wrong side of this one.  We live in a country that is multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-everything.  We Americans aspire to the ideal of tolerance and civility.  We have created this pretty rare country where ethnic and religious tensions have been historically pretty low key.  Only we're moving away from that recently.  There is a very vocal contingent of Americans that are creating tension with Hispanics.  The Christian right is continuing to gain power to push its anti-differences agenda and have swept Mormons into their net.  Muslims are have seen a steady deterioration in their public standing culminating in the embarrassingly bigoted "Ground Zero Mosque" fiasco.  And the list could continue.

The backdrop of all this, of course, is that we live in an increasingly heterogeneous society, so there is more and more bumping into each other causing the inevitable building of friction.  Whereas before you could walk down the streets of most small- to mid-sized towns in America and feel pretty certain that you were only going to pass by other white Protestants, now you're bound to encounter more diversity.  Whereas before any small- to mid-sized town in America could safely put up a nativity scene on the grounds of county courthouse because everyone that would see it was Christian and no one would care or complain, now you've got many more people of different faiths and backgrounds that might not share those Christian sensitivities.

The Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  There are two different things there.  The second part, known as the Free Exercise Clause, is not really at issue here.  Having public displays of Christianity on government property doesn't prohibit anyone from exercising their own religion differently.  It is that first part, known as the Establishment Clause, is a little more tricky.  Does having a nativity, something overtly Christian, on government property constitute an establishment of Christianity as the de facto government-sanctioned official religion?  Would we allow overtly Muslim scenes during Ramadan?  Jewish scenes for Passover?  Hindu, Sikh, atheist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Scientologist, etc. scenes at other times?  Should the government be in the business of doing anything overtly religious at all?

These are difficult legal issues that are being sorted out constantly in the courts.  But if we remove for a moment the legal issues and just focus on the human side, I think the ideas get more clear.  Christmas is a great time of year.  More volunteerism occurs, more charitable donations, more goodwill.  For Christians there is (hopefully) more of a focus on Christ, which is excellent, but for people of all faiths Christmas is becoming a time to focus on family and giving and, yes, presents and decorations and everything else.  Why would we choose to be less inclusive?  Why would we try to force only the extreme Christian view on others instead of something many more people can embrace?  What could we possibly gain by pressuring businesses and public entities to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" or something that more people can identify with?

I just don't understand when people want to force their religion on others and into the public square.  This isn't missionary work and glorifying Christ and expressing our faith, those sorts of things are done in humility and personally and one-on-one, this is about xenophobia and pride.  I think it does absolutely no good to worry about some nebulous "war" on Christmas, but it does all the good in the world to celebrate Christmas privately as a religious holiday and publicly as an all-inclusively holiday.  So, Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays, whichever suits you best.

Awkward Introduction Time

So it's high time that I make my first post here. It's been a while since I was added to be a contributor, yet I have been silent. At least I have a good reason, I'm about 70% done with a Masters degree in Computer Engineering, and seeing as how it will have taken me about 15 years since my high school graduation when I complete this thing I don't let too many distractions get in the way of my progress.

As you can probably derive from my above paragraph, I generally view things in terms of science or math, basically I try to over simplify any problem into some sort of equation that I can manipulate to confirm my preconceptions. The fact that I use math makes me feel both elitist and confident in my correctness, so it's a win-win. Doesn't qualify for the Michael Scott conflict resolution status of win-win-win, but two out of three ain't bad.

Here's the problem I've run into when I've attempted to write this first post in the past: I don't know what I should write about. With the title of the blog being Mormon Left, I find myself only half qualified. I've got the Mormon part down, but the left? Not so much. So let me introduce myself in the form of attempting to pigeon hole my political leanings. I don't really lean right or left, it's more down than anything. In fact, I once took a political test online and since it was on the Internet it was very accurate, that divided people's political leanings into a standard Cartesian Plane. I guess blogging etiquette would be for me to link that to Wikipedia, but sorry, not happening right now because I'm currently in a race against my laptop battery. So, for those that don't remember high school math and are too lazy to Google the Cartesian Plane is the standard four quadrant graphing system. Back to the quiz, my quiz results left me in quadrant four, the lower right as you look at it, with esteemed company as people like Milton Friedman. If you don't recognize the name, once again, Google it.

Now that you've Google'd his name, you probably think that I think economics is pretty important politically. You're right. In fact, in terms of the Federal Government, I don't believe they should be serving much purpose apart from national defense and economic development. I'm a Jeffersonian. I believe strongly in a limited Federal government, and strong, centralized local governments. I believe the closer you can keep the money to the people, the more honest the politicians will remain. Ironically, I don't live too far from D.C., which is a local government rife with corruption, embezzlement and outright fraud. Don't judge me.

Politically I'm old school. When I think in terms of conservative and progressive, I think about it in terms of government size and reach, not in social terms. I realize that I'm in the minority, but it's one of my biggest pet peeves on the planet that the term "conservative" has become synonymous with "social conservative". Pedantic? Yes. Irrational? Maybe. Impactful? Most definitely. Turns out when you make social conservative and conservative synonymous terms, people start to lose all grip on reality and believe things like "Mitt Romney is too liberal to be President." and "Sarah Palin would be a great leader for our country." I apologize to all the potential readers that may have pre-ordered their Palin 2012 bumper stickers, but I think she's one of the least relevant people in our country in terms of Presidential abilities and I find it amazing that there's anyone with an IQ north of the average temperature of Hawaii that believes she would be a solid executive. She does have her own reality show though, and I suppose she's probably more qualified than Snookie or that lady that got a show because she and her husband don't understand how to use a prophylactic and had 30 kids.

Okay, end of rant.

I thought of something left I can post about!

I'm in full support of Dennis Kucinich's NEED_ACT. Apart from ending the largest theft, embezzlement and fraud scheme of the last century (fractional reserve banking), it implements some really smart changes to our banking system.

That's the largest thing that our country has gotten wrong in the last 2-5 years. They believed the swindlers that told us we need specific banks in the form of bailouts. We don't need banks. We need a strong banking system. What makes a stronger banking system than forcing those banks to stop using depositor's savings accounts for financial speculation? Thus forcing any high-risk investments out in the open where the depositor knows that if they put their money into a certain investment vehicle that there's a chance they could lose their shirt?

If you haven't checked it out, don't worry about doing that. Just take my word for it, it's good legislation for our country's long term economic health. Call your congressman before it's too late and get them supporting it. After all, with the gerrymandering that's sure to happen after the census data, Kucinich may not be around much longer.

Let's make this his swan song. Thanks for the time, next time there will be more links, less rant, and more political stuff.

Bomb Repeat Bomb

I had a post all ready to go about the procrastination around ratifying the New Start Treaty between the US and Russia. I've been blown away (pun intended) by the wavering Republicans that wanted to amend the treaty. The New Start Treaty is based on a previous treaty with Russia that is set to expire this month. As such, any amendment would require both countries to go back to negotiations.

I was going to write about Russia's response to the proposed amendments, "I can only underscore that the strategic nuclear arms treaty, worked out on the strict basis of parity, in our view fully answers to the national interests of Russia and the United States,” (Sergey V. Lavrov - Russian foreign minister) “It cannot be opened up and become the subject of new negotiations.”

I had a bunch written about how Senator McCain was pushing for a clause to be inserted that would maintain the US's ability to stockpile missiles in Germany and other European countries. As I wrote, I kept thinking about how completely asinine the GOP's arguments were, and how ridiculous the comment from Mr McConnell was accusing Obama of trying to force the treaty forward for political gain, "Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician’s desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the end of the year."

Then, just before clicking on the "Publish Post" button, this news was released. I can't express how delighted (and surprised) I am that congress has managed to approve a little bit of common sense. I'm glad that an the publishing of an explosive post was averted. Oh, and I'm pretty happy that congress came to their senses before we had to face the possibility of heating up a Cold War.

Judicial Activism at Work

Another example of an activist conservative judge legislating from the bench:

Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

I fully expect Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch and the gang to rebuke this affront to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.

You Are the Government: Wikileaks and Transparency

So Julian Assange of Wikileaks recently released about 250,000 secret documents from the State Department.  The very best thing you could possibly read about Wikileaks is Glenn Greenwald.  Here is a smattering, the tip o' the iceberg, of new information that we learned about our government's illegal and immoral activity from these documents that Greenwald  put together:

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

And there are many others.  In response, Newt Gingrich joined other conservatives in calling for Assange to be considered an enemy combatant.  There is a swelling chorus of conservatives and political insiders calling for Assange to be killed and physical, military force to be used to stop Wikileaks, endorsed by Sarah Palin.

I support Wikileaks.  Wholeheartedly.  If we are going to live in a healthy democracy, if we are going to protect our individual rights against powerful institutions, if we are going to exist in a peaceful world, we have to -- have to -- have transparency.  There is no other way.  And I don't care if some short term U.S. interests are hurt.  We are only safe and empowered over the long term as a citizenry if we have access to full information and we can make decisions based on complete transparency.

We at the Mormon Left have spend a lot of time arguing for increasing the role of government in providing a safety net for Americans.  We've supported public welfare, single payer health insurance and the public option, progressive taxation, Social Security, aggressive regulation of the market, and the like.  So I can imagine a person thinking that supporting Wikileaks as a check against government and supporting government programs as intellectually dissonant.  But it's not.

A government that is transparent, accountable, and honest with its citizens can be incredibly effective at ameliorating social injustices.  What other organization has the resources and power to make sure that affordable health care is available to all Americans, or that all the elderly are taken care of?  None.  But that desire to allow government into our lives is based on the assumption that the government is being honest and accountable and not hiding material information from us.  If we find government unresponsive we have two major choices.  We can either demand that government stop providing those services that millions rely on in difficult times, or we can keep the services and make government more transparent and open.  I choose the latter, and that's why Wikileaks is to be applauded.

I've beaten this drum a few times, but there are certain fairly simple things we can do to improve our government and make it a useful tool in our hands instead of cutting off the social safety net and harming millions of everyday Americans.  We can reform campaign finance laws to limit the sway of special interests, enact term limits on all elected politicians, dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives, reform the broken Senate and its anti-democratic rules, and the like.  Now lets add to the list "increase transparency."  I want full information in all but the most sensitive situations because when government, or any other institution, becomes secretive it means it is or will soon be doing something wrong.  And the Wikileaks documents prove conclusively that the American government, cloaked in secrecy, has been immoral and breaking every law it can get its hands on.  The proper response is to reform the way our government works in making it commit to more transparency.

I am so appalled and angered by the violent reaction to Wikileaks, such as those that want to use the military to forcefully destroy their organization and even kill them.  I think it could not reflect more poorly on those that want to combat transparency with violence and more secrecy.  Ultraconservatives rail against Pres. Obama and his radical and dangerous anti-American ideology, but they recoil in disgust when someone sheds light on how the American government actually works.  The tea party shrieks in horror when the government passes a stimulus bill to inject life into the economy as an unconstitutional intrusion into our private lives but whistles nonchalantly and turns the other way when someone reveals the extent to which our government breaks laws and acts immorally and then hides it from its people.  That is intellectual dissonance, and it is dangerous for the fate of our country.

Bad Religion has a song called You Are the Government:



That is exactly spot on.  We the People.  We are the government.  The government doesn't have a right to keep its actions hidden because we are the government.  We empower the government to do all sorts of good for us, the very least we should receive in return is true transparency and accountability.  Wikileaks helps us achieve that.  If you don't agree perhaps you'd feel more at home politically in China.