Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Much is being made in some circles of President-elect Obama’s choice of Leon Panetta as CIA director. The big beef with Panetta is that he supposedly lacks relevant experience. A minor objection you hear from some is that he used to work for Bill Clinton, but I don’t take that as a serious objection. So, if we just look at the question of experience, here’s what I think:

Panetta has plenty of experience in my book. The Director of Central Intelligence -is- a political appointee. Others have served in the office without having direct experience in intelligence work (George H.W. Bush coming immediately to mind as at least one example). More to the point, Panetta’s experience as a President’s Chief Of Staff actually gives him tremendous experience. People don’t realize this, but the President’s Chief of Staff has long been viewed by many as the second most powerful position in Washington D.C. A Chief of Staff is almost certainly going to know almost everything the President does, or he won’t be able to do his job. It’s very relevant experience, in my view.

The Central Intelligence Agency is committed to protecting your privacy and will collect no personal information about you unless you choose to provide that information to us.

– Privacy notice on the CIA’s website

I think this is an idea for now, fer sure.

Garrett Smith at Smith on VOIP has started an initiative to help out those who are losing their jobs in the industry due to the economy. It is modeled after Peter Shankman’s HARO idea, and if it’s half as succesful as HARO, it will be a great boost for a lot of good people! (And good companies!)

I really like this idea. A year and a half ago, when my son was brand-new in his VOIP job, he remarked that his boss had mentioned that the Career Builder/Monster mash was as much a big pain for the employer as it was for the potential employee. Too many people blindly shoveling out resumes just because they can.

This way, you’ve got a much better signal-to-noise ratio.

Way more info is here.

I took down the post I wrote the other day in which I re-published an email from Christine Maggiore, in her own words, about a week before she died suddenly and unexpectedly at home, on December 27.

I want to contribute toward a much needed silence. Things will work themselves out, truths will emerge, whatever is, is.

I don’t want to bring anything loud or contentious to Christine’s memory, or provide a feeding ground for those few vultures whose egos remain tied up in their insatiable death wishes, not only those they projected onto Christine, but onto all HIV positive people they wish to enslave with their cult of fear, and deprive of the fundamental human right to make their own choices.

Christine lived with a (fluctuating) positive HIV status for almost 17 years, not only healthy, but as leader for those who felt voiceless and powerless. She represented, and stood for the highest ideals of truth-seeking, life, love, health, and freedom from tyranny. She represented herself in all that she wrote, said, and enacted, each day that she lived. I defy anybody to find one instance of Christine Maggiore communicating malevolence or ill-will toward any human being, no matter what they had done to her. I also defy anybody to find one example in which her attackers chose to treat her with respect, fairness, dignity, or decency. Find one.

Our actions and words define us. We all get to draw the image of our own face, slowly, into the world around us, and by the time we die, that face will be defined, and it we’re lucky, we will be loved and missed and remembered for who we really were, and wanted to be. We live on in the memory of others. I have been deeply moved by the floods of letters and emails and calls I have been getting from people all around the world who Christine inspired and touched and helped.

What did she die of, you ask?

What did she not die of?

What did she survive?

(Everything, and more.)

How hard did she struggle, how far did she travel, how much did she fight for every underdog she ever met on the dark unlit path of HIV marked people, starving for a chance, for somebody to whisper: “You have a chance, you have a life, you are alive, you are not dead yet, I do not know how or when you will die, so go ahead and live, in the time of your life, live.”

That’s what she stood for.

One day it will be known, documented, what she lived through, who she was, what she suffered, and who, exactly, did what, and why, and how. In the meantime, let each of us live with how we behaved toward a grieving mother. Those who helped assassinate her in the media and on the blogosphere are well aware of what they did, and are now alone with their guilt, which manifests in further attacks, designed to keep them from contemplating what it means to be human.

I defy anybody to find a single communique from Christine Maggiore in which she reveled in the deaths of her attackers or their friends, who have died in the hundreds of thousands, following orders, taking the drugs. There are deaths on all sides; The answers light up like fireflies, then vanish. Who among us can claim to know what is really happening? All we can know, all we can control, is who we are as human beings, how we treat others, and especially how we treat those who think or believe different things than we ourselves do.

Since she died, I have renewed my own vows to remain strong, and do my best, and I believe that if we do our best we will be protected. Not from death, but from the despair that has as its root cause our own cruelty.

I used to read the final passage of Thornton Wilder’s The Bridge Of San Luis Rey to Christine, when she was missing E.J. unbearably, when there was nothing left to say.

The last line will be familiar to many of you:

“There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning.”

Looks like Minnesota has a new Senator.

I’ve long criticized the Single Motherhood by Choice movement for ignoring the importance of fathers and the two-parent family. To learn more about the problems with the Single Motherhood by Choice movement, see my co-authored column Are Single Mothers the ‘New American Family?’ (World Net Daily, 9/28/06) and my debate on Fox’s nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet here.

Now we apparently have a trend towards Single Fatherhood by Choice–single men using surrogates to have children and build a family. From CNN’s Single men turning to surrogates (12/23/08):

Jeff Walker says from as far back as he can remember, he always wanted to be a father.

“It was always something I knew, from the time I was a child.” Just like his 3-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, who says she wants to be a mommy someday, Jeff says, “I knew I wanted to be a daddy.”

Walker, a Manhattan music executive, says he and his partner had talked about adopting a baby years ago. But after three emotionally draining, failed attempts at adoption, they decided to turn to surrogacy. They contacted Circle Surrogacy, a Boston agency that specializes in gay clients. Their child was conceived with a donor egg, and then the embryo implanted in the surrogate, or carrier.

After Elizabeth was born, Walker and his partner separated. He then made a critical decision — to become a dad again, single, and by choice.

“I realized my family, my two-dad family was going to look different than I thought it was going to look,” he said. Without a partner, he would face even steeper challenges raising Elizabeth and a sibling alone. Walker says he gave the decision a lot of thought.

“That was the only part that was really controversial, because I do think there are a lot of challenges that single parents face, but at the same time I felt I was capable of handling those challenges,” he said.

His second daughter, Alexandra, was born two years ago to the same surrogate, implanted with an egg from a different donor.

Walker, 45, is one of a growing number of single men — both gay and straight — who are opting to become fathers alone, with the help of gestational surrogacy.

Surrogacy experts say because the practice is not regulated, many surrogacy arrangements are handled privately by individuals. Precise figures are hard to come by, but experts say there’s no doubt the United States is experiencing a surrogacy baby boom.

Celebrities like Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken announced this year they had had babies with the help of surrogates and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, representing scores of reproductive clinics, reports that the number of gestational surrogate births in the country quadrupled between 1996 and 2006…

Walker and other men are willing to pay well over $100,000 to have a baby through surrogacy — the final cost depending on the number of IVF treatments necessary and how much is paid by insurance…

Steven Harris, a New York malpractice and personal-injury attorney, says he gave up trying to get married when he realized his primary motive was to start a family.

Harris, 54, says he knew he made the right decision after 21-month old Ben was born.

“I thought getting married was the only way to go, because I did want a family. But having Ben, I feel complete now,” Harris says.

I think the article misses the main reason why men (or straight men, anyway) want to have children through a surrogate–so they can be assured that they won’t lose the child upon divorce or separation.

A woman can have a child and know that unless the situation is exceptional or she behaves outrageously, she’ll always be a regular part of her child’s life.

For men, being a father is a roll of the dice–if mom decides she doesn’t want you around anymore, it can be hard to preserve your relationship with your child. The article doesn’t mention this, in part because some of the ‘Single Fathers by Choice’ are gay men, and in part because fathers losing their kids isn’t something the mainstream media likes to talk about.

My overall opinion? I can absolutely understand why a man would want to have a child through a surrogate, thus ensuring that he’ll always be able to be a father to his child. Still, I can’t condemn Single Motherhood by Choice and turn around and applaud Single Fatherhood by Choice.

I believe that mothers are just as important for children as fathers, and that it’s wrong to have a child as a single dad and deny the child a mother. What’s needed is not a Single Fatherhood by Choice movement but instead a powerful Shared Parenting movement to ensure that both parents’ right to their children is protected after a divorce or separation.

The CNN article cites Ricky Martin as an example. I discussed Martin in my blog post Sorry Ricky Martin, but Women Shouldn’t Create Single Parent Households–and You Shouldn’t Either

Looks like the Obama stimulus package will be largely in the form of tax cuts.

Of course, they’re not going to be able to do this and throw trillions at industries and states; Obama may already be looking at a $2 trillion deficit in 2009, by far the largest in both absolute terms and as a % of GDP in modern history, as expected tax revenues from corporate  profits and capital gains evaporate. 

A 5% of GDP deficit was a manageable problem, but a federal budget deficit that approaches a fifth of the nation’s entire economic output could be catastrophic.

And we see little sign as of yet that politicians understand that spending must be cut.  It may take a catastrophe before that happens.

Since the Illinois State Legislature is taking their time impeaching Governor Blagojevich, he’s stuck around long enough to make an appointment to Obama’s vacant Senate seat. So now we’ve got a Senator appointed by a Governor who’s under indictment for soliciting bribes for that very appointment. So now what?

Senate Democrats appear to be planning to rule Burris’s appointment invalid under the Article I Section 5 clause that permits each house of Congress to judge the elections and qualification of their members. There’s no grounds for questioning Burris’s constitutional qualifications (he’s 30, he’s been a citizen for far more than 9 years, he’s an inhabitant of Illinois, and he’s never engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the United States after taking an oath to the Constitution), but the argument is that his appointment (equivilent an election, as the argument goes) was tainted by corruption and thus can be judged invalid by the Senate. That strikes me as a bit of a stretch. I’d be inclined to support it if there were specific evidence that Burris paid a bribe for his seat, or if the elections and qualifications clause were the only mechanism to deny Burris a seat. But there’s no such evidence so far as I know, and there’s an alternative constitutional method to deny Burris’s seat. The Constitution also gives the Senate the power to expel a member by a 2/3 vote. This power hasn’t been formally used since the Civil War, although several Senators have resigned rather than face a formal expulsion vote. No grounds are specified for expulsion, so it’s entirely at the discretion of the Senate.

The difference is that expulsion requires a 2/3 majority, while judging the appointment only requires a simple majority. I don’t want a precedent set that a simple majority can deny a Senator his seat on highly subjective grounds, no matter how strong those grounds are, for fear that less solid grounds will be used as justification in future crises. If those subjective grounds are really strong enough to justify overturning a constitutional election or appointment of a Senator, there should be no trouble arranging a 2/3 majority for an expulsion. And indeed in this case, I’d be surprised if Burris got a single vote (apart from his own) against expulsion.

Oh, and can the Illinois State Legislature hurry up and impeach Blagojevich?

I want to write a book.  I was inspired by an interview I heard recently with Vince Flynn by Dennis Miller.  In it Flynn recalled Tom Clancy’s beginnings and said to himself, “I can do that!”  The rest is history.  Well, I want to take a crack at it, do a book in the same vein as Clancy and Flynn (though leaning more toward Flynn).

But I realize my woeful lack of any significant military/special forces/covert ops knowledge.  Heck, I’m not even all that clear on what agencies would be involved in responding to, say, a dirty bomb threat.  FBI?  Probably, but in what capacity?  CIA?  NSA?  Homeland Security?  What would be going on at the White House?

So, I need to research this stuff but I don’t know where to go.  In fact, I’m not even sure what are the right questions to ask.  That’s why I’m here.  What can you tell me?  Can any of you suggest books to look at, agencies to talk to (that won’t get me put on a list…), resources to mine?  I know the information is out there, I’m just not sure where to begin looking.

Pandora’s Box has been opened.

Now the states want a bailout.  All they’re asking for is an even trillion dollars. 

This can’t end well for any of us.

Obama promised hope, and that may be all that’s left of capitalism by the time this box of horrors is closed again.

We rolled in, at 11:40, bearing cheap champagne and decent cheese, to toast at midnight with my father and his new bride, Sara, at his apartment. All my friends love my father and always want to pop in to see him, when we can. My friend Jadd Cheng, whose parents are Taiwanese, engaged him in a conversation about Taiwanese separatism, and we discussed the booming economy and “as good as Denmark” democracy that is Taiwan. Jadd told us a moving story about a Chinese sailor who was badly injured on a ship that docked in Hawaii. The Chinese had no interest in saving his life, due to the prohibitive cost, but the Americans who saw him immediately called for a helicopter, no questions asked. It was Jadd’s father who patched him up, then took him home, fed him, gave him some money, and took a picture of him–the first one ever taken in his life. For a few days, his life had value.

It made me think of a Russian artist I once knew who painted a portrait of a subway token clerk, and rode the subway for free thereafter. The subway clerk said that nobody had ever seen him before, and it made him so proud.

We watched the dreadful gyrating dancers on TV, drank our champagne, and felt good about that ephemeral X factor that is American decency, found in people, not government. We talked about materialism, capitalism, China, oil prices, and the Chinese government’s hope that material improvements can supplant freedom, and of course we talked about whether material improvements are freedom. I described the Swedish Experiment, where all material needs were met, and all spiritual needs were ignored. The one thing the Social Democrats did not factor in to their master plan was the vital role that struggle plays in the human experience. Then again, I said, in today’s world, this is all very airy fairy stuff. I know that. Food, shelter, medicine come before spiritual details. But after food, shelter, medicine has been solved–spiritual matters wreak great havoc. People want to be free to fail, free to invent, free to fall, rise, succeed, make it. I told the group that when I lived in Sweden in the late 70s and early 80s, it was against the law to print in a Swedish newspaper that any Swedish citizen had committed suicide.

At the time the suicide rate was among the highest in the world, despite the fact that the country was like a giant comfort resort, with every material need anticipated and tended to. In eight years of living there, I knew eight people who committed suicide. My first boyfriend was a Finnish gypsy who kept attempting suicide by way of ceasing to eat food and only drinking vodka, in his bleak apartment. When he keeled over late at night after hours of preaching, I put a blanket over him, turned off the Pink Floyd record, and walked home, in the crunching snow. I was 14, he was 21. No, no, no, he wasn’t a “real” boyfriend, just a spiritual, platonic one. He wanted to prove that you could starve to death in the greatest welfare state in the world. He never made it, he lived.

We sat quietly for a while. Then the talk turned back to China, and the outbreaks of protests, and the corner that the Chinese government finds itself in, trying constantly to sell an antiquated model of materially improved repression, which my father called, “like spraying perfume on a very healthy skunk.”

My father argued that if China permitted any freedoms, the country would explode “like the Hungarian revolution times five thousand.” We became glum again, but my father, an eternal optimist, promised they would eventually succeed, as long as none of us do the math. For years, as a form of private protest, he would traverse the Upper West Side trying to purchase underwear not made in China, which eventually became impossible.

He sat up straight, got a faraway look in his eyes, and said: “I’m 78. If I continue to work out every day, and stay healthy, I believe I will live to see a free China.”

He burst out laughing, as if he were watching it then and there, on TV.

We all raised our glasses, smiled broadly, and said, “Let’s drink to that.”

And we did.

If you are truly interested in discussing the idea of “totalitarianism,” I think you could do nothing better than to set aside 1 hour and 45 minutes of your life and watch this:

I’m serious: if you really want to discuss this, you need to bloc off about 2 hours and watch this thing in its entirety. Free from other major distractions. I know it’s a big investment, but I think you’ll find it’s worth it. Bonus: you can actually watch it and discuss it with your kids.

Slowly but surely, province after province after province, the Coalition forces in Iraq are turning control over to the Iraqis themselves. Today, that now includes Baghdad itself.

The astonishing success story that is Iraq continues. And just think, we only have to wait until Barack Obama is sworn in for most of the press to acknowledge the amazing turnaround. Just so long as President Obama can get most of the credit, the press will finally be on freedom’s side.

Here on the west coast, all the networks show at midnight on New Years is a three-hour delayed feed of the ball dropping in Times Square. We’ve tried doing rituals of our own (in 2000, they lit up the Hollywood sign at midnight) but it never seems to have taken root.

If you’re staying home and being lame tonight (like me and Mom), why not chatter away the night here? What are you up to? I’m doing a little light cooking and planning to go to bed early. I may not even make it ’til Midnight. How ’bout you guys?

Open thread!

A natural merger between two messianic movements with an unfortunate history of abusing heretics.  The only surprise is no one thought of it before.  Imagine the efficiencies of scale and opportunities to trade best practices!

Meanwhile, it may be time to worry.  Really.

This is ridiculous.  Does anyone really think that the NYT has $27M left?  Be realistic, people.

Anyways, let me just add the obligatory “they wouldn’t have run a story on crazy sleazy unsubstantiated Obama rumors, such as him being a Muslim, except to debunk them” complaint.

This week’s eDrash (a spin on the midrash) from First Fruits of Zion (a Hebraic Roots organization) talks about Pharaoh reaction to the news that Joseph’s bothers had come to Egypt in Genesis 45:16.  Long story short - Joseph’s brothers sold him.  But clearly Pharaoh had never heard of it because he very much rolls out the welcome wagon for them.  Why hadn’t Joseph said something?  More importantly, what can we learn from this?  To quote the article (the site requires registration to view it):

Joseph loved his brothers and his family so much that he could not bear the thought of having them defamed… Instead of emulating Joseph, who was concerned about protecting the dignity of his loved ones, it seems we do just the opposite. A husband and wife are eating out at a restaurant when the husband drops his cup, spilling his beverage on the table. Embarrassed, the wife rolls her eyes and says to the stranger sitting at the next table, “He is such a klutz.” A man is out with his friends when they begin discussing the foils of marriage. All in good fun, the man complains to the guys about his wife’s bad habits. Everyone laughs. Why would we sell out the people we love like this?

It goes on to talk about a woman having problems with individuals in her church and vents to a friend.  Later, the situation at the church is resolved and she invites the friend to attend.  The friend balks recalling the problems in the past.

This latter bit is what bothers me the most because I’ve seen it done time and time again - even by thoughtful people thinking they’re doing a good.  In reality they’re airing the Church’s “dirty laundry” for all to see.

Joseph never told the Egyptians about the incident with his brothers because it was none of their business. By maintaining discretion, he was protecting the name and reputation of God in Egypt. Had he told his sad story to everyone, the Egyptians would have had cause to say, “If that’s how the followers of your God behave, I want nothing to do with Him or your religion.”

It feels good to vent or make snide comments.  We’ve all done it.  Often, we do so without ever thinking we’re hurting anyone.  But we are.  We’re subtly massaging the views and opinions of those around us.  Our every word, our every deed, in not just a reflection on us, but also those we’re talking about and even the very God we worship.

And, frankly, there are just some things people don’t need to know.  Especially when it comes to Church business.  Indeed, even believers must be cautious when it comes to civil debate in public.  You don’t know who is listening, you don’t know how it will be taken.  A small theological disagreement (and God knows we get into those here) in public can be enough to keep someone away from salvation because it doesn’t seem so small to them.

So, the message, I think, is this:  If you love someone you’ll keep your pie hole shut.  And we believers, as we’re supposed to love everyone, need to be even more vigilant.

I got the devastating news yesterday that my very good friend Christine Maggiore died at home on December 27th, from a bout of bilateral bronchial pneumonia, that afflicted her in recent weeks, and which she was unable to overcome.

The news has been shattering to all who loved her around the world. Speaking for myself, I can say that Christine Maggiore was one of the strongest, most ethical, compassionate, intelligent, brave, funny, and decent human beings I have ever had the honor to know. I spoke to her in great depth about all aspects of life, death, love, and this battle we both found ourselves mired in, and I will be writing about her and about those conversations here, in the future. No matter what she was going through, and it was always, frankly, sheer hell–every day of her life, since 2005, she faced, acute grief, sadistic persecution, wild injustice, relentless battle, and deep betrayal–she was always there for her friends, and she never descended to human ugliness. She always tried to take the high road. She always tried to be stronger than any human being could ever be asked to be. I feared for her life, always. I feared the battle would kill her, as I have felt it could kill me, if I couldn’t find enough beauty to offset the malevolence. This is a deeply occult battle, and Christine got caught in its darkest shadows.

Here below is the letter that Christine’s husband Robin Scovill sent out:

Dear Friends,

It is with deep sorrow that I tell you my wife, Christine Maggiore died unexpectedly on December 27th. She leaves behind our son, Charlie and the memory of our daughter, Eliza Jane.

Christine was a beacon of hope for many people whose lives, like her own, had been turned upside down by an HIV positive diagnosis. When she received this devastating label in 1992, Christine—in spite of predictions that she had five years to live—did not give up, but devoted her life to helping others. For several years she was a public speaker for AIDS Project Los Angeles, LA Shanti Foundation and was a founding board member of Women At Risk. It was in the process of trying to find a doctor that she felt comfortable dying with that Christine starting getting conflicting information from AIDS experts, particularly troubling in the search to save her own life. One doctor in particular suggested that Christine retest and she finally did, testing HIV negative, positive and indeterminate over a dozen times in subsequent months. She was shocked. Christine took her questions and confusion to the very AIDS organizations that she was helping to build and their unanimous dismissal of her inquiries forced Christine to look outward. This series of events profoundly shook her faith in mainstream AIDS beliefs and sent her down a rabbit hole of exploration that would challenge everything that she had been lead to believe.

Over the subsequent years, Christine’s research put her in touch with people all over the world whose work and commitment to open dialog and debate caused her to rethink everything she had been taught to teach others about HIV and AIDS. Most importantly, it led her to question the absolute assertion that an HIV positive diagnosis meant she had to die.

In 1995, Christine set out to assemble a three-fold brochure outlining a series of facts that had been most compelling in her search for truth. That brochure turned into the first incarnation of her seminal book, What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong? It took Christine years to unearth the many studies, writings and facts that began to alleviate the shame and terror of her HIV diagnosis. Her desire was to create something concise and informative and empowering that she could give to others who had received a similar diagnosis and who were ashamed and terrified and alone.

Christine’s book—now in it’s 4th edition— has been translated into seven languages; her monumental work with her non-profit organization, Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives, has redefined what we think about AIDS; and her tireless communications, writings and pod casts have touched thousands of lives around the world and continue to provide a beacon of hope for anyone who lives in fear of AIDS.

In spite of Christine’s strength, she was also under tremendous pressure and scrutiny. She often felt that she wasn’t allowed to get sick like other people. After her daughter died in 2005 of an allergic reaction to an antibiotic for an ear infection, the LA County Coroner—ignoring evidence to the contrary—declared it a death from AIDS and Christine’s suffering increased horribly. She was vilified in the world media and harassed by outspoken opponents of her work who openly gloated that this was her just comeuppance. She and her family endured a yearlong criminal investigation that not only terrorized them, but also robbed them of an opportunity to mourn the loss of their daughter. That loss was twisted into sensationalized and mean spirited television episodes that portrayed Christine as a quack and a murderer and ultimately as dead. Christine never fully recovered from the unjust treatment that she received around the loss of Eliza Jane and that treatment ultimately exhausted her.

A week and a half ago, Christine was diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia and did not conjure the strength to overcome it. She died unexpectedly in her home with her husband and a dear friend. Christine Maggiore’s death is a shock and devastating blow to her family and to the thousands of people around the world who loved and respected her.

For anyone who lives in fear of an HIV or AIDS diagnosis, Christine’s legacy will live on. She was committed to sharing vital facts and essential dialog that would give HIV positive people everywhere the chance to consider a destiny that differs from the one of death and despair that they are taught to expect. For that she was loved.

Christine will be deeply missed.

A memorial will be planned within the next couple of weeks but please join us at our home tonight (Tuesday Dec. 30) for an informal gathering of friends and family. Please bring your musical instruments.

We are gathering from 1pm today well into the night.

In a recent thread here on Dean’s World, my brother Bill challenged me on the question of whether Hitler was universally beloved by the German people in the 1930s and 1940s. Here’s my response:

Why do you believe Nazi propaganda?

The Nazis controlled all education, and all print, radio, and video broadcasts. They were the original totalitarians, and they produced many many films and newspaper articles to back up their notion that they had total control, their declaration being that they represented “the will of the German people.”

You undoubtedly recognize that they had complete control over all education and all media, but you still suggest that Hitler was universally beloved? Based on what, things like this?

The Nazis were the original totalitarians. They imprisoned or killed all dissenters. Every dissenter to the Nazis in 1930s and 1940s Germany was murdered or imprisoned by Hitler. People who liked the regime were free to speak; anyone who didn’t was terrified into silence–or imprisoned or killed into silence.

This is what happened. What is the point of denying it?