|
States' Rights -- Again?
By Harry T. Cook
9/13/13Law schools have produced far too many graduates who can find no better use for their education than to fuss with the Tenth Amendment* and what are known as "states' rights." That topic has become an obsession especially with right-wingers. It's part of the conservatives' intention to undo civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, e.g. the right of minorities to vote (see Amendment XV) and the right of a woman to control her own body (see Roe v. Wade). What's more, the hard right despises government aid to the poor, as well as the very idea of Social Security and, of course, the Affordable Care Act. It is of a single mind to lower taxes it cannot outright abolish. Its Neanderthals would like nothing better than to turn the nation into a voluntary association of sovereign tribes. A recent symposium in The New York Times featured commentary much of which seemed to tout the power of the several states and to warn against the encroachment of the federal system upon people who allegedly draw identity from their state flags. The prime example of the New Hampshire state flag comes to mind with its Live free or die motto waving in the breeze. A law professor from North Carolina's Elon University School of Law expressed with great relief that "fortunately, governors and state attorneys general have begin to challenge overstepping by the federal government." Why "fortunately"? Because, the professor said, the recent U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 ruling essentially eviscerated the Voting Rights Act in favor of state sovereignty in determining who can and cannot exercise suffrage. Well, there you are. Texas and North Carolina are already off and running in the making of laws that will make it more difficult for minorities and the poor to vote. Other states of the Old Confederacy are sure to follow. I concede that Texas views itself as a reluctant member of the Union and prefers to think of itself as another country. Some might say another planet. But let a citizen of Texas be unjustly arrested in another country, and he will quickly reach out to the U.S. Department of State to rescue him. I doubt that constabulary of the People's Republic of Zoltan would answer an inquiry from Gov. Rick Perry whose recent obsession was depriving women of their reproductive freedom. Missouri is now resorting to nullification of federal gun control laws that are unforgivably weak in the first place. Soon you could go to jail in Missouri for trying to enforce federal gun laws. God bless America. While states' rights enthusiasms have been on the rise since the inception of modern conservatism more than half century ago, the movement has been marked of late by a creepy kind of zeal, due no doubt to the election of the first African-American president of the United States. If it hadn't been Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, the movement would have taken him on for something else. It's not the beautiful idea that everyone should have equal access to the best health care available in America that disqualifies Obama, but that he is deemed twice unfit to govern: by his color and political identification and, because of both, should never have been elected, much less re-elected. Obama's successful 2008 campaign was the last straw for the pharisees of political conservatism. From the 2009 inauguration on, the juggernaut was underway -- as the Hon. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky memorably put it: to make Obama a one-term president. Up rose the tea party -- a viperous striking out at anything that could possibly be termed "liberal," as in the public policy that came out of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and saved the nation. "No saving the nation from itself, this time" is the essence of the tea party's unhinged-from-reality gospel. "Starve the beast," "Cut it or shut it," and other inspired poesy. The gods that did not prevail in the Confederacy's war on the Union were resurrected from their moldering graves by the disciples of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah I-Can-See-Russia-From My-Front-Porch Palin and their congressional cat's paws. Those deities were supposed to rain down hellfire and brimstone upon apostate voters who too easily succumbed to the Obama charm the first time around to make certain they did not do so again. So much for the gods and the vertical plane. Now it's horizontal Point A to Point B trench warfare with the states' rights fire-breathers arrayed against such thinking Americans as may still draw breath. The battles are largely being fought in state legislatures and courts at all levels. The Tenth Amendment proof-texters -- including much of the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives -- are determined to win by any means necessary. Under the stunningly literate motto Whatcha fer I'm agin it, they are determined to shut down the government to satisfy their deranged hatred of the Affordable Care Act and, for good measure, to besmirch President Obama. While they're at it, why not bomb to smithereens the whole safety net system that has been in place since the New Deal of the 1930s? The tea party would count such devastation as mere collateral damage in its offensive to seize the trophy for outright anarchy. States' rights and Tenth Amendment purists constitute the base of this movement. But do they wish to abandon the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands? Pledge allegiance, say, to the flag of Mississippi? Do they wish to have Dixie sung before major league ball games in lieu of the Star-Spangled Banner? Do they wish to erase the well-known five-pointed star from military equipment and replace it with logos of those states controlled by Republican Party fanatics? That, for example, would be a mule for the "Show Me" state of Missouri. "I pledge allegiance to the mule and to the Luddism for which it stands ..." Please. States have traditionally had and used their power, for example, to create their own courts and education systems, not always with spectacularly good results. But if it is true that America is an e pluribus unum country, then the several states are common tourist destinations that wouldn't share in the collective clout of America if they were stand-alone republics of resentment and general ignorance. Maybe the best thing the United (!) States of America has going for it is its Social Security program that does its best to keep our seniors -- regardless of their state of residence -- from falling into penury. If for that reason and no other, this is no time (as if there were a time) for us to go nuts over states' rights. It was just such a movement that helped create the tragedy of Reconstruction with its unbridled persecution of African-Americans who were punished because the Confederacy lost the war and couldn't punish the Yankees. That's the juice kind of that's flowing through the system of the present fervor to destroy the nation in order to save it, thus to gain the perverted sort of freedom those of the conservative wrecking crew think is due them. Is there a psychiatrist in the house? *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
|
Copyright 2013 Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
|
 What a Friend They Had in Jesus: The Theological Visions of Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Hymn Writers
Have you ever found yourself humming a favorite childhood hymn, only to realize you could no longer embrace its message? Harry Cook explores how hymns reflect the religious beliefs of their times. He revisits the texts of popular hymns, posing such questions as: How true are they to the biblical texts that seem to have inspired them? What aspects of nineteenth- and twentieth-century piety have persisted into the twenty-first century through the singing of those hymns? And, how does one manage the conflict between the emotional appeal and the theological content of such hymns?
Available at:
* * * * *
What reviewers said:
"Important and heart-warming ... Cook's keen insights into the most familiar of old-time gospel hymns ... help you do theology like a grownup."
--Robin Meyers, author of Saving Jesus from the Church
"A compelling look at centuries of Christian theology and practice, at how particular hymns have shaped American faith and religious thought."
--Richard Webster, Director of Music and Organist at Trinity Church, Boston
"A call to integrity in worship ... This exciting, penetrating and provocative study explores the theology we sing, which re-enforces the dated and pre-modern theology from which the Christian faith seeks to escape."
--John Shelby Spong, author of Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World
|
Readers Write
Special Essay 9/10/13: Syria: Red Lines, Sarin and Zyklon B
Gloria Holzman, Southfield, MI: Surely this gangster/killer Assad should be punished for the acts he perpetrated on his own citizens. But first, let's get the weapons he used out of his sight, his control and his country and destroy them. This should be done while cameras roll and inspectors from all nations are present. The world should be shown that it is happening so that the world is assured this maniacal act will not be tolerated. There should then be a trial, like the Nuremberg trials, in which evidence is presented that lays the proof of the perpetrator and his henchmen are responsible. Since "no good deed goes unpunished," neither should heinous deeds be ignored. The world will rest better when tyrants are held accountable.
Jo Davis, Shawnee, OK:
I think our president has worked a miracle with his hard line rhetoric on chemical weapons. The compromise offered by Syria and supposedly brokered by Russia comes right after the G20 and Obama's visit with Putin. Obama spoke softly brandishing a big stick and it looks like it may have worked. I know the wonderful survivors of the holocaust you met understand ethics enough to realize that if Syria gives up its chemicals, it will save thousands now and millions in the future. I feel confident that they would prefer that rather than revenge.
Margaret Perakek, Ann Arbor, MI:
Thank you for your essay. I have been eagerly awaiting something from you on this issue. This question of whether to bomb Syria in a limited fashion is getting attention on the political/strategic and personal fronts. However, I think it is question with significant moral dimensions. We have an opportunity to base our response to this terrible act on what we have learned from Hitler and WW II, the Gulf War and Saddam Hussein. In considering this decision, we and the president should hear from religious and ethical leaders. While bombing is military, strategic action and takes place in the political realm, the moral universe provides enduring context for these decisions. Above all, this is a moral decision. Strategically, we need to take care with a dictator like Assad. Would he move busloads of Syrian children onto the airport grounds as hostages against bombs? What then would we do? There is no way to prevent absolutely any "collateral" damage in military actions like this, no way to prevent human injury or death, whether it is Syrians or our troops who would be in the way of bombs or missiles. What path the President chooses will have an impact on the people of Syria, of course, and it will have an impact on our young men and women in the military. But it will have an effect on all of us, on the world community. I would urge the use of maximum pressure, the assertion of personal accountability and the complete exhaustion of diplomatic action before undertaking any military action against Syria.
Karl Gregory, Southfield, MI:
Great essay and extremely timely in connection with current events in Syria. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." Nearly enough said. Even a "limited" attack on Syria by the U.S., particularly unilaterally, could unleash a host of uncontrollable circumstances in the arguably most sensitive and combustible part of the world. For example, Russia is sending warships to the Mideast. Israel is very insecure, is not benign, and has a nuclear potential. Persons in other neighboring countries have various motivations that may be inconsistent with peace. One does not light a match with gasoline fumes in the air. Yet, chemical warfare should not go unpunished. There are less volatile ways to exert punishment.
Kenyan Bixby, Novi, MI:
My view at the moment: All Presidents lie and this one is no different. Why should I believe that the stories are true, as to who is responsible? Or has the defense community warned that we need to sell more weapons and this is the excuse the politicians will use to keep the dollars flowing to their pockets. At the moment, I'm [angry] at the President, all politicians and you, just on general principles. I see you've joined the crowd in using the latest fear catch phrase. Question at the White House? "What two- or three-word catchy term can we use to instill fear and is so simple that the idiots (American people) will rally to write stupid country songs and shout, kill--kill--kill. How about 'red line'? Yes, sir, that will do it." Our allies and others seem to have more sense than we do. Don't come back at me asking if I ignore/approve of what happened in Syria. That would be insulting. If someone, anyone, can broker a non-violent solution to the Syrian "problem," I'm all for it. Recent times suggest that any action we take will have result, sooner or later, in significant loss of innocent lives, including young Americans (and yes I have 7 grandchildren at or soon to be of draft age). As for the U.S. politicos, my feeling this morning is "---- 'em all!"
Cheryl Olejar, Rochester Hills, MI:
Like most Americans, I abhor the idea of the United States assuming the role of The World's Police Force. And of more American boots on the ground in the Middle East. And of more U.S. tax dollars being spent on bombs and missiles. (After all, our own infrastructure is crumbling, our own schools are failing, our own people are unemployed, and our own national debt is at a level that is mind numbing.) So why get ourselves involved with problems that don't directly affect our own National Security? (I don't recall our Constitution directing us to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, our posterity, and to everyone else in the world too weak to protect themselves.) Perhaps having Assad cede Syria's entire cache of chemical weapons to the international community is enough. ... Because history has, after all, shown us that concessions given to people capable of perpetrating such unspeakable acts of evil so often turns out well.) Perhaps it is best if our country's leaders join other world leaders and simply turn a blind eye to the current goings on in Syria. Perhaps acknowledging the truth is too inconvenient, and deciding to do what is right is too hard. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, someone should stop this madman dead in his tracks. Now. Before thousands turns into six million. For years, world leaders turned a blind eye to evidence smuggled out of Europe of death camps and mass killings of Jews during WWII. These horrific, inconvenient truths could no longer be ignored once Allied Troops reached these awful camps and witnessed first hand the incomprehensible horrors a madman unleashed on first his own people (the German Jews), and then upon anyone else he considered inferior. I wonder: Would the world feel differently if Syrian thugs first beat, starved, and tortured their victims, then rounded them up in the middle of the night, loaded them into boxcars, swept them away to a concentration camp, and then gassed them? Of course, this madman must be stopped. He cannot simply be appeased by ceding his chemical weapons. Why? Because "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." It is not simply enough to zakhar. We must also take action in the present so as not to repeat history. If the United States is the only nation capable and/or willing to act, so be it. At least we will know that in a time of great moral crisis, we did not maintain our neutrality, and that no space in the hottest part of Hell awaits us.
Robert Halsey, Bibra Lake, Western Australia:
Can America presume to be the conscience of the world? The US of A doesn't really have clean hands in its military adventures around the world, really. So now it's Syria. Tomorrow? What if you take out just a single Sarin plant and leave the rest intact? Are you guys really prepared to see American cities being hit and innocent men and women killed? Then you up the ante. You suddenly find you have to punish their shedding of innocent blood even if the dying were always against the initial strike. Does USA have the support of all those wounded servicemen who today live shattered lives? Have they been fairly treated and are being well looked after? Are their voices not worth listening to after all they have paid a bigger price than Obama and the warlords will ever personally be asked to pay comparably. It is so easy from the comfort of your middleclass and affluent homes to sit back and help make decisions that will never achieve anything but merely make the death of your cities somehow worth it all over some misplaced idealism. Do you hear the mandate for all this as a fiat from your God? Do you keep bombing Syria wave after wave till someone thinks they have finally taken out all the chemical weapons. And could they be sure? Your real enemy isn't Assad but al Qaida and you will only end up helping the really baddest of them all to destroy their worst enemy, Assad who can deal with them more effectively than America ever could. You tried unsuccessfully to eradicate them in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq and have you been successful? So many American families have been plunged into destitution playing policeman of the world. You have been almost beggared in the bargain. I would have thought that the enemy of my worst enemy is really my friend.
Nicholas Molinari, Brick, NJ:
Thank you for another thought-provoking essay. With Syria, the contrasts are rather stark. President George W. Bush wanted a war in Iraq. President Obama does not want a war in Syria. President Bush made up lame excuses for attacking Iraq. President Obama is trying to choose among bad options, including doing nothing. Ironic, that some Republicans after voting "No" on every issue (saving the auto industry; providing health insurance; financial reform; even the Food Stamp program) are now supporting the Kenyan President on war-making! The Republican Party is to war what the N.R.A. is to guns! They love it! But, President Clinton came to regret his failure to act in the face of obvious genocide in Rwanda by "conventional weapons" like machetes, mind you. Just don't call it "genocide" and we don't have to do anything. Just don't call chemical weapons "weapons of mass destruction" and we're off the hook again! Shame on us, and shame on humanity for regressing after significant intellectual and moral evolution from our Homo erectus status! My view is unpopular, I know; but, if advanced societies as ours is alleged to be: Sit back and watch passively while Assad gasses his own people, what makes us so confident Assad won't gas his mortal enemy, Israel?
Alistair Loving, Juneau, AK:
A bleeding-heart liberal is what you are. Your comparison of Assad to Hitler cannot be taken seriously. What matter is it how he allegedly killed those rebels? They were rebels, certainly not model citizens. Rebels against civil order have no case and no excuse. The fewer the rebels, the less the violence there will be that so tears at your precious heart.
Joel Pugh, Dallas, TX:
You have taken the moral high ground again. I applaud you for that. Somebody must speak from that ground. This past weekend, I asked my Iranian born friends (citizens of USA for 20 years now) for their advice on "what to do." Surprisingly, they said USA should do some form of retaliation, or Iran would "grow some balls" and become aggressive and escalate the proxy war. They added that [Iran's] new leader might be able to soften things as his stated policy was to "get along" with the international community (adding that "If Ahmadinejad was still there, real trouble would be on the way if we did not do something"). I wanted to take the high ground, and now this messy information returns me to a dilemma.
Deb Godden, Charlottesville, VA:
Yes, Assad must pay the price for his actions. But what price, and how? Any military strike by us would bring punishment to innocents, not directly and specifically to Assad. More collateral damage, and to what real purpose? I have hopes for the suggestion by the Russians that Assad turn over control of those horrific weapons to the international community and that they ultimately be destroyed. I have more hope when France announces that they will launch a UN Security Council resolution to force Assad to make public his weapons program and then to dismantle it. I have even more hope when President Obama says that this would be his choice over any military strike. Somehow, the actions of Assad have at last begun to sink into the minds of the international community to work together to solve this problem without going to war. It's too bad that this sort of thing couldn't have happened back in the late 1930s and early 1940s, when Hitler's forces were gassing and burning so many, but now, in remembrance of them we can feel some realization that perhaps we've learned something. As for the signs of peaceful cooperation within the international community, I wish our US Congress would learn to do the same.
Larry Chevalier, Dearborn, MI:
I am sick and tired of war. I now want to be an isolationist nation and maintain an advanced, high-tech military as opposed to a large military. ... I think many Americans are like me: war weary. Sen. McCain scares me.
Tracey Martin, Southfield, MI:
Punishment or prevention. You and I find ourselves on differing sides of a delicate dilemma. Morality may be on your side and that of the Mames, but my focus remains on consequences. There are no good ones for us to advocate or promise, no matter what we do. Prevention has so far been the announced intent of Obama. There is promise that that is now finally possible. If it proves to be illusory, and Assad remains in control of his WMDs, that'll mean he intends to resort again to atrocity and that should be militarily prevented. Not to say that the whole damn civil war is not atrocious. But it begs the application of reasoned patience.
Bill Cushman, Chattanooga, TN:
My question emerges from your essay of September 10: What if the Germans had used machine guns to kill the six million? Thank you for your thoughtful and important work.
Michael Howard, Palm Springs, CA:
I read that some news sources indicate questions about whether the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Regardless, the evidence of history, and particularly recent history, is that military action is the least effective and most damaging solution to human conflict. War begets war. In the inevitable "collateral damage" of bombing far more innocent civilians will be injured or killed than in the alleged chemical weapons assault.
|
Readers Write
Essay 9/6/13: Autumn Incense
Sandy Selby, Akron, OH: Italia est peninsula longa et mira! I laughed aloud at the conjugation of damnifino! Thanks for bringing back memories of Miss Jaffe's Latin I class. This is a lovely reflection. Danny Belrose, Independence, MO: POIGNANT, POETIC, PERSONAL, POWERFUL! Words are often anemic. Yours aren't! Carol Garza, Farmington, MI: I've known you for some years now, and I know what an incisive writer you are, but this essay was so moving, and yet laugh-out-loud funny. Delphine Moore, St. Charles, IL: Whoever Rhonda was, she should know that she could have had a poet for a life-mate. Milt Stetkiw, Rochester, MI: Your essay is the most poetic, heartwarming, intimate, gripping, teenage love story I have ever, and probably will ever read. You are our favorite wordsmith, poet, historian, philosopher and friend. John Bennison, Walnut Creek, CA: Touching to know there was once a balm in Gaylord (was it? Or some such place). With or without Rhonda, Veni, Vedi, Vici. Brian McHugh, Silver City, NM: Charming Sir, charming! Blayney Colmore, Jacksonville, VT:
How wonderful that you were willing to take that huge risk of yourself right after your mother died. Yes, the heart has its ways. That early lesson in the cost of having your longings exposed could have left you unwilling to listen to your heart, ever. Lucky for you and lots of others, it didn't. Not to mention the psychiatrists' childrens' tuitions it supplemented.
Iris Schmidt, Walker, MI:
I know who "Rhonda" was, and she was crazy about you for a long time. You should've stuck around. Anyway, you were afraid she'd break up with you if you went together. I hope those psychiatrists straightened you out. |
|
