America requires a fearless moral inventory of herself – fearless and cleansing. No person ever uplifted his character by presuming his own perfection. A nation is not different.
As part of that American self-examination of America, I want to examine bigotry. Bigotry is mainstream – not universal, but widespread. I’ll demonstrate that, and I’ll describe how it hurts us, and what we can do about it.
This first part will briefly review recent manifestations of bigotry against African Americans and Latinos. The second part will do the same with Muslims and Roma.
All of this is in the spirit of making America a better, mightier nation. As Abraham Lincoln said, "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it."
Sources are listed at the end.
1. Bigotry and African Americans.
Bigotry against African Americans is resurgent . In its usual current form, it no longer contends that African Americans are inferior. Bigotry against African Americans has reconstituted itself as a sense of White victimhood.
a. Bigotry: the old-fashioned kind.
But old-fashioned bigotry still rises from the grime, of course, sometimes among prominent public figures. New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino emailed associates a video clip of an African indigene dancing exuberantly; he said that the dancing indigine was an "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal".
This was bigoted on two levels. First, it equated the new (African American) leader of the free world with an African indigine. Second, it assumed that an African indigene moving exuberantly is innately comical, in ways that a White American doing the same thing is not. To Paladino, it matters, apparently, whether the exuberance is filmed by an anthropologist or by Dancing With the Stars.
Paladino also forwarded an altered photograph depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as a pimp and a prostitute, an invidious stereotype of African Americans.
b. Shirly Sherrod and White victimhood.
But bigotry against African Americans has evolved. It now paints Whites as victims. A conspicuous example is the hue and cry about an out-of-context video clip of a minor Agriculture Department functionary, Shirley Sherrod, an African American. This clip was posted by a conservative blogger. The out-of-context portions posted created the impression that Sherrod was a racist. In fact, the speech was an homage to overcoming racism and reaching across racial divisions.
The publicity that this story received was grossly disproportionate to the relatively modest government position that Mrs. Sherrod occupied. But the story had wide appeal, because it nourished White America’s sense of victimhood.
c. Glenn Beck and our perfidious president.
Media star Glenn Beck also appealed to White America’s sense of victimhood. He claimed that Obama has a "deep-seated hatred of White people." He said this without apparent proof. Obama’s loving mother was White, and his adoring American grandparents were White. But that did not stop Beck.
And Beck proclaimed that Obama’s policies are driven by "Obama’s thinking on . . . reparations" and a desire to "settle old racial scores". In other words, "Be afraid, White America, be very afraid."
d. Dr. Laura and marrying out of one’s race.
Syndicated radio celebrity Dr. Laura Schlessinger stoked the sense of White victimhood. An African-American radio caller expressed her dismay to Dr. Slessinger about her husband’s White friends. Apparently, they make remarks demeaning to African Americans. Dr. Slessinger responded with offensive, racially-charged language. At one point, she chided her pained listener not to go "all NAACP" (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People – a renowned, venerable civil-rights organization). Schlessinger hung up on the caller and commented that people lacking a sense of humor should not "marry out of their race." Dr. Schlessinger remarked that African Americans use their "power" not for good, but to demonize Whites.
e. Newt Gingrich and the ghost of Obama’s father.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, proclaimed that to best understand Barack Obama, you have to consider Obama’s dead father. Obama knew his father slightly, his father having abandoned Obama and Obama’s mother before Obama could remember. Despite the virtually non-existent relationship between Obama Sr. and Obama Jr. – they met twice after the abandonment – Gingrich proclaimed that Obama had absorbed his father’s "Kenyan, anti-colonial [i.e. anti-White] world view". White victimhood is once again proclaimed over a mainstream megaphone.
f. Congressman Ford and fear of miscegenation.
African American Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee encountered White victimhood in his race for the United States Senate. He had attended a party at the Playboy mansion. His Senate-race adversary ran a television political commercial that featured a young White woman, dressed and behaving to insinuate loose morals, importuning the Congressman: "Harold, call me." This was a course appeal to White dread of African American sexuality, preying on fears of miscegenation.
2. Bigotry and Latinos.
Bigotry against Latinos usually multiplies in a fact-free petri dish.
a. Latinos, jobs, and crime.
Immigrants – legal and illegal – create as many jobs as they occupy, maybe more. But this doesn’t stop the snarling about illegal immigrants "stealing our jobs".
And remember Jan Brewer, candidate for Governor in Arizona, claiming that illegal immigrants are drug mules, and that they leave decapitated corpses in the Arizona desert? And John McCain claiming that Phoenix is the number-two kidnaping capitol of the world, behind Mexico City? Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Brewer, McCain, and other Arizona politicians are alarmist and wrong about immigrant crime.
They resemble popular Los Angeles radio-show hosts John Korbylt and Ken Chaimpou, who waive a bloody shirt when an illegal immigrant commits a heinous crime, as if that behavior were typical of illegal immigrants. This incites hatred.
Yet these falsehoods masquerading as fact are the foundation of Arizona’s enacted law SB1070. SB1070 compels police to inquire about a person’s immigration status if the officer "reasonably" suspects that they are in the country illegally. And to seize him if he cannot prove that he is legally in the country.
To be clear, Arizona police officers were given the right to roust illegal-immigranty-looking persons (Latinos) based on unsubstantiated assumptions about immigrants and crime – maybe jobs, too. In this rush to persecute Latinos, the Arizona Legislature and its governor did not pause to determine the truth. The truth was not the point. Bigoted beliefs about Latinos were the point.
Would the Arizona politicians do a thoroughgoing and painstaking investigation of their presumptions about crime and immigrants before opening their mouths about it? And certainly before empowering police officers to demand papers from a person apparently guilty of strolling-while-Latino? Apparently not.
The lazy legislative investigation that failed to deflate disinformation about immigrants, crime, and jobs is disturbing. Equally disturbing is the political appeal of this disinformation. This disinformation crossed the finish line ahead of the facts, because condemnation of Latinos has a cultural head start.
That’s the point. AB1070, and proposed legislation like it in other states, is a manifestation of hostility toward Latinos. In a word, bigotry.
I speak of hostility toward illegal immigrants and hostility toward Latinos as the same phenomenon. This is because the hostility toward illegal immigrants is so un-tethered to fact that I perceive beneath it a racial hostility.
b. Puzzling contradiction.
Opposition to illegal immigrants is based on inherently opposite reasons. The anti-illegal-immigrant agitators claim that two negative characteristics typify illegal immigrants: they steal our jobs, and they commit atrocious crimes. But people who work hard typically don't commit crimes. And hardened criminals – the kind who carry drugs into the country and leave decapitated corpses in the desert – typically don’t hold jobs. The anti-immigrant agitators should make up their minds.
c. "Anchor babies".
"Anchor babies" is an urban legend that illegal immigrants give birth in America to manipulate immigration rules, clearing an easy avenue for the parent to remain here. The manufactured horror of this invented ploy has led to talk among leading politicians (Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham look up) about amending the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship.
But the path to citizenship cleared by an American-born child is lengthy and uncertain, so it undermines belief in this supposed anchor-baby scheme. No child may sponsor his or her parents until he or she is 21. And then the parents must return to their native country for 10 years before realizing any immigration benefit. Those who claim that this far-fetched scheme is widespread provide no proof.
d. Bigotry and the mask of policy.
These myths, about crime, jobs, and anchor babies, demonstrate antagonism toward Latinos. The transformation of this misinformed antagonism into policy-talk demonstrates the ability of bigotry to disguise itself as serious policy.
Sources
Carl Paladino’s racist emails: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Carl-Paladino-Distances-Himself-from-Racist-Sexist-Email-Forwards-90684749.html
Recap of the accusations against, and vindication of, Shirley Sherrod: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-07-21-usda-racism-resignation_N.htm
Glenn Beck on Obama and reparations, settling racial scores, and "deep-seated hatred of White people". http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magazine/03beck-t.html?_r=1&hp
Laura Schlessinger, bigotry, and African Americans supposedly demonizing Whites (transcript and recording): http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008120045
Gingrich and Obama’s "Kenyan, anti-colonial world view" http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/246302/gingrich-obama-s-kenyan-anti-colonial-worldview-robert-costa
Harold Ford, Jr. and the "Harold, call me" political advertisement. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/26adbox.html
Immigrants create as many jobs as they occupy, maybe more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=737
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/14/why-americans-think-wrongly-that-illegal-immigrants-hurt-the-economy.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/column_the_payoff_from_immigra.html
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/09_immigration_greenstone_looney/09_immigration.pdf
Jan Brewer and other Arizona politicians are alarmist and wrong about immigrant crime in Arizona. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html
Reason behind Arizona’s SB1979 anti-immigrant law: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1984432,00.html
Analysis of the anchor-baby controversy: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The Prisoner and the Politician, Part 3
(Parts 1 & 2 below)
7. Introduction, Part 3.
Part 1 compared two lives: a composite life-prisoner, and Newt Gingrich. Part 2 began to scrutinize the comparative virtues and vices of these men. Both have lied: Gingrich certainly, my client probably/maybe. Part 2 examined why.
8. The prisoner and the politician: comparison, continued.
Let’s examine the comparative consequences of these character flaws, and other revelations.
d. The scope of their failings.
If my client lied about his knowledge of the murder of the house sitter, or his own participation in that crime, at least his lie had no scope. The commissioners and I were his audience, and we are few.
But Gingrich doesn’t lie to the few. He lies to a national audience. And he aspires to speak to the world as President of the United States with his unclean lips.
The scope of my client’s lies is minuscule. The scope of Gingrich’s lies is epic.
e. The effect of their failings.
When Gingrich lies, in addition to insulting the dignity of those he lies to, he deflects his audience from reality and molests their judgment. Based upon what Gingrich says, his credulous followers form opinions. Based on those opinions, they will choose candidates. And they will perpetuate his falsehoods among their friends and relations.
But almost worse than what Gingrich does to his credulous followers is what he does to his followers who penetrate his distortions. Because he is a hero to them, when they see him lie and rise, they are tempted to walk in his ways. This harms their integrity, and that potentially injures their personal and professional lives.
But Gingrich offends against more than his followers. He offends against the nation. Lies are toxic to our national lifeblood. On an individual level, any time we make an important decision – like whom to marry, where to invest our money – we crave accurate information. Who would marry if they knew that their would-be spouse was not kind, but cruel behind a mask of kindness? Who would invest their savings in a company, if they knew that the impressive company profits were only an accounting mirage? That's politics, too. America cannot sail itself to a safe and prosperous future under a delusion-based helm.
f. The burden of their failings.
Except in an eternal sense, Gingrich does not bear the burden of his recent failings; his followers and his country do. As Gingrich rises, we (potentially) fall.
g. Hypocrisy.
Gingrich savages Democrats from his position of moral impoverishment. And as Speaker of the House, he famously made the case against Bill Clinton because of Monica Lewinsky. This, while he himself violated his vows to his second wife.
h. Goodwill.
Gingrich possesses contempt for his followers. Contempt is the cause and effect of his falsehoods. Only contempt for his followers permits him to insult their dignity by lying to them instead of telling them the truth. And he necessarily must have contempt for people who cannot penetrate his transparent lies.
i. Humility and hubris.
Gingrich has wealth and power, and he seeks the highest power in politics. He considers his political rise more important than truth, and that is to say more important than God. Gingrich holds a bastard sense of entitlement to power – a sense of entitlement that overwhelms his fidelity to facts.
j. Future.
But it is hard to see a path to Gingrich’s rehabilitation. He has risen high in the world. He has the acclaim of millions. He has power, fame, and riches. And the consequence is pride. I see no catalyst that might alter the practices by which he has risen.
9. Conclusion.
7. Introduction, Part 3.
Part 1 compared two lives: a composite life-prisoner, and Newt Gingrich. Part 2 began to scrutinize the comparative virtues and vices of these men. Both have lied: Gingrich certainly, my client probably/maybe. Part 2 examined why.
8. The prisoner and the politician: comparison, continued.
Let’s examine the comparative consequences of these character flaws, and other revelations.
If my client lied about his knowledge of the murder of the house sitter, or his own participation in that crime, at least his lie had no scope. The commissioners and I were his audience, and we are few.
But Gingrich doesn’t lie to the few. He lies to a national audience. And he aspires to speak to the world as President of the United States with his unclean lips.
The scope of my client’s lies is minuscule. The scope of Gingrich’s lies is epic.
When Gingrich lies, in addition to insulting the dignity of those he lies to, he deflects his audience from reality and molests their judgment. Based upon what Gingrich says, his credulous followers form opinions. Based on those opinions, they will choose candidates. And they will perpetuate his falsehoods among their friends and relations.
But almost worse than what Gingrich does to his credulous followers is what he does to his followers who penetrate his distortions. Because he is a hero to them, when they see him lie and rise, they are tempted to walk in his ways. This harms their integrity, and that potentially injures their personal and professional lives.
But Gingrich offends against more than his followers. He offends against the nation. Lies are toxic to our national lifeblood. On an individual level, any time we make an important decision – like whom to marry, where to invest our money – we crave accurate information. Who would marry if they knew that their would-be spouse was not kind, but cruel behind a mask of kindness? Who would invest their savings in a company, if they knew that the impressive company profits were only an accounting mirage? That's politics, too. America cannot sail itself to a safe and prosperous future under a delusion-based helm.
Except in an eternal sense, Gingrich does not bear the burden of his recent failings; his followers and his country do. As Gingrich rises, we (potentially) fall.
Gingrich savages Democrats from his position of moral impoverishment. And as Speaker of the House, he famously made the case against Bill Clinton because of Monica Lewinsky. This, while he himself violated his vows to his second wife.
Gingrich possesses contempt for his followers. Contempt is the cause and effect of his falsehoods. Only contempt for his followers permits him to insult their dignity by lying to them instead of telling them the truth. And he necessarily must have contempt for people who cannot penetrate his transparent lies.
Gingrich has wealth and power, and he seeks the highest power in politics. He considers his political rise more important than truth, and that is to say more important than God. Gingrich holds a bastard sense of entitlement to power – a sense of entitlement that overwhelms his fidelity to facts.
But it is hard to see a path to Gingrich’s rehabilitation. He has risen high in the world. He has the acclaim of millions. He has power, fame, and riches. And the consequence is pride. I see no catalyst that might alter the practices by which he has risen.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Prisoner and the Politician, Part 2
(Part 1 below.)
4. Introduction, Part 2.
Part 1 juxtaposed two lives: a composite life-prisoner, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The lifer committed a revolting murder. His undeserving victim paid the penultimate price, and her family suffers to this day. Gingrich is a prominent Republican leader, a hero to many, and he aspires to be President of the United States.
5. The prisoner and the politician: comparison.
Here’s the first three of a 10-point moral comparison of Gingrich and the lifer.
a. Upbringing.
I feel sorrow for someone who grew up in cruel circumstances. A child should be loved and nurtured, not beaten and ignored. Clearly, my client’s upbringing doesn’t mitigate his crime. People who grow up under cruel circumstances can lead upright lives. Few murder. But you have to have some sympathy for someone with such an unhappy early life.
By comparison, Gingrich enjoyed an advantaged upbringing. He had an intact home, regular contact with his natural father, and a step-father who did things like take him to the World War I battlefield of Verdun (where Gingrich had an early political epiphany). Gingrich enjoyed access to higher education.
Gingrich’s natural abilities enabled him to take advantage of these gifts. But they were gifts, and these early advantages make Gingrich unsympathetic in his moral failings -- his serial divorces and his flogging of truth in pursuit of political power. True, Gingrich has risen to impressive political heights. But, unlike my client, he did not have to construct a life on the loose soil of a deprived and afflicted childhood.
b. Trajectory.
The trajectory of my client’s moral life contrasts with Gingrich’s.
My client was a thief and a murder, and that will always be an element of his life story. But over years, my client has reshaped his soul. This is not a modest improvement like new paint on the wall. This is major: some walls going down; others going up; and ceiling windows to let in a lot more light. At some point, my client chose to lift himself out of depravity.
Maybe this was because of his encounter with religion; or his encounter with self-help courses; or his encounter with vocational training; or his stark recognition of the futility of the life of confinement that his crime brought him. The morally focusing effect of prison cannot be assumed, but it cannot be disregarded. But for whatever reason, or whatever combination of reasons, my client is a far better man today than he was when he committed his life crime.
Gingrich was once a brilliant man of ideas. Now he is a demagogue and a liar. He smears. His soul sinks even as his star rises.
c. Temptation.
My client is no saint. To my ear, he falls short of the complete truth when he describes his role in the murder that sent him to prison with a life sentence.
This is a blotch on his rehabilitation. But the temptation before him is freedom – the ability to leave a miserable life of confinement. He wants the simple things that we take for granted. He wants to be able to leave his home in the early evening to walk to a convenience store and buy twelve ounces of chilled orange juice. He wants to be able to eat at Burger King if he feels like Burger King, or Del Taco if he feels like Del Taco. He wants to be able to wade into the Pacific, or fish in a mountain lake.
The desire for freedom is a simple but powerful. If my client portrays himself as better than he was, it is because he addresses commissioners who will decide whether he stays confined or goes free. And he hopes that his minimizing will induce them to judge his past less harshly, so that he may walk as a free man among free people.
As to the recent cell-phone violation, my client suffered loneliness for his son. The cell phone was an instrument of reunion.
Gingrich’s wish is that, to the power and wealth that he already has, more may be added. He lies to weaken his opponents, so that he may rise above them.
6. Conclusion to Part 2.
The last part will discuss who pays for the failings of my client and Gingrich, and what those consequences are.
4. Introduction, Part 2.
Part 1 juxtaposed two lives: a composite life-prisoner, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The lifer committed a revolting murder. His undeserving victim paid the penultimate price, and her family suffers to this day. Gingrich is a prominent Republican leader, a hero to many, and he aspires to be President of the United States.
5. The prisoner and the politician: comparison.
Here’s the first three of a 10-point moral comparison of Gingrich and the lifer.
a. Upbringing.
I feel sorrow for someone who grew up in cruel circumstances. A child should be loved and nurtured, not beaten and ignored. Clearly, my client’s upbringing doesn’t mitigate his crime. People who grow up under cruel circumstances can lead upright lives. Few murder. But you have to have some sympathy for someone with such an unhappy early life.
By comparison, Gingrich enjoyed an advantaged upbringing. He had an intact home, regular contact with his natural father, and a step-father who did things like take him to the World War I battlefield of Verdun (where Gingrich had an early political epiphany). Gingrich enjoyed access to higher education.
Gingrich’s natural abilities enabled him to take advantage of these gifts. But they were gifts, and these early advantages make Gingrich unsympathetic in his moral failings -- his serial divorces and his flogging of truth in pursuit of political power. True, Gingrich has risen to impressive political heights. But, unlike my client, he did not have to construct a life on the loose soil of a deprived and afflicted childhood.
b. Trajectory.
The trajectory of my client’s moral life contrasts with Gingrich’s.
My client was a thief and a murder, and that will always be an element of his life story. But over years, my client has reshaped his soul. This is not a modest improvement like new paint on the wall. This is major: some walls going down; others going up; and ceiling windows to let in a lot more light. At some point, my client chose to lift himself out of depravity.
Maybe this was because of his encounter with religion; or his encounter with self-help courses; or his encounter with vocational training; or his stark recognition of the futility of the life of confinement that his crime brought him. The morally focusing effect of prison cannot be assumed, but it cannot be disregarded. But for whatever reason, or whatever combination of reasons, my client is a far better man today than he was when he committed his life crime.
Gingrich was once a brilliant man of ideas. Now he is a demagogue and a liar. He smears. His soul sinks even as his star rises.
c. Temptation.
My client is no saint. To my ear, he falls short of the complete truth when he describes his role in the murder that sent him to prison with a life sentence.
This is a blotch on his rehabilitation. But the temptation before him is freedom – the ability to leave a miserable life of confinement. He wants the simple things that we take for granted. He wants to be able to leave his home in the early evening to walk to a convenience store and buy twelve ounces of chilled orange juice. He wants to be able to eat at Burger King if he feels like Burger King, or Del Taco if he feels like Del Taco. He wants to be able to wade into the Pacific, or fish in a mountain lake.
The desire for freedom is a simple but powerful. If my client portrays himself as better than he was, it is because he addresses commissioners who will decide whether he stays confined or goes free. And he hopes that his minimizing will induce them to judge his past less harshly, so that he may walk as a free man among free people.
As to the recent cell-phone violation, my client suffered loneliness for his son. The cell phone was an instrument of reunion.
Gingrich’s wish is that, to the power and wealth that he already has, more may be added. He lies to weaken his opponents, so that he may rise above them.
6. Conclusion to Part 2.
The last part will discuss who pays for the failings of my client and Gingrich, and what those consequences are.
The Prisoner and the Politician, Part 1
1. Introduction: life sentences.
I might prefer a prisoner to a politician.
In my law practice, many of my clients are lifers. A lifer has been sentenced to prison for life. In California, a life sentence can be irrevocable, or it can come with the possibility of release – a.k.a. parole. All of my lifer clients have the possibility of parole. My duty is go with my clients before commissioners of the parole board and advocate for them. It is hard job, because parole is hard to obtain. It is harder for my clients than for me.
Most of my lifers are murderers. Some have killed multiple victims. One client killed a man, got released on parole, and then killed another man. Some of my clients committed lesser-but-still-grave offenses, such as kidnaping or intentional mayhem.
My friends wonder what it is like to interact with murderers. It feels very normal. Maybe that’s because they are on best behavior with me, but I don’t think so. Almost all of them have, at least to some degree, reformed. You can usually see this in their prison records: indifferent or hostile to prison rules coming in; increasing conformity to the rules as time goes by.
Recently, I watched a famous politician on the internet. I reacted to him in the way that my friends expect me to react to my clients. I was disgusted. On reflection, I discovered that I feared my clients less, and respected them more, than this politician.
2. The prisoner and the politician: biographies.
That might sound hyperbolic. Let me justify my opinion by drawing a comparison between the prisoners and the politician. I’ll start by talking about their biographies.
a. The prisoner.
My client did not know his biological father. He was physically abused by his step-father. His mother did not protect him, in part because she was often drunk. He did poorly in school.
Because my client got along poorly with his mother and his step-father, during high school he moved in with a man he worked for. That man molested him.
In his late teens, my client burglarized a relative’s home. A house-sitter interrupted the burglary, and my client’s accomplice beat her to death. My client claims that he did not witness the beating, nor know about it until it was almost over. But perhaps he deliberately minimizes his knowledge of the crime or his involvement in it, or both.
My client has labored to rehabilitate himself during his decades in prison. He has taken many courses about anger and violence. He has regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous and knows his 12-steps. He has acquired vocations in prison.
His early prison career was marked by many 115's – serious rules violations. Now, not so much. But he did within months of his parole hearing pick up a 115 for possession of contraband – a smuggled cell phone.
He had the cell phone because wanted to be able to talk unrestrictedly with his son. A correctional officer explained to me that cell phones are a security risk because any un-monitored prisoner contact with the outside is perilous; but that most prisoners who possess this contraband do so because they miss their families.
b. The politician.
As for his upbringing, his parents were divorced when he was little, but his mother’s second husband, an Army officer, adopted him when he was five. He had regular contact with his natural father, a Navy officer.
After he graduated from high school, he followed his high school math teacher to Atlanta. While he studied at Emory University, he married her. After he graduated from Emory, he obtained a Ph.D. from Tulane University. His first job after finishing school was teaching.
After unsuccessful races for Congress, Gingrich was elected to his first term in 1978. During his first term, he divorced his cancer-stricken wife and married his second of three wives.
Gingrich at one time was considered a model for even Democrats for emulate – a man who percolated with brilliance. Presently, a new tactic eclipses his enunciation of brilliant ideas. His new public persona is less glittery with fresh ideas and more focused on scathing attacks, denunciations untethered to truth.
In typical fashion, Gingrich recently warned newly-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan away from deciding cases by examining sharia. (Sharia is the law code that derives from the Qur’an.) He threatened that she would not remain in office if she did. The imagined source of Kagan’s attraction to sharia apparently is that, as dean of Harvard Law, she accepted an endowment on behalf of the university. It came from a wealthy Saudi, and its purpose was to create four professorships at Harvard Law to study and teach Islamic finance.
Gingrich knows better. My own law professor taught comparative criminal law; this included study of the Soviet criminal-justice system. But that did not make him a communist. And I studied Greek mythology as a teenager. But I never sacrificed so much as an aphid to Zeus. You can study something – and Islamic finance is important in the world – without wanting it.
This is pure Gingrich in his present incarnation.
3. Part 1 conclusion.
In Part 2, I will begin to construct a 10-point comparison between my client and Gingrich, to say who is more admirable, or less dangerous.
Links
A Gingrich biography: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/boyernewt2.html
A report on a typical scathing speech by Gingrich, including his remarks about Kagel and sharia: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/newt-gingrich-kathleen-sebelius-behaving-in-the-spirit-of-soviet-tyranny.html
Kagel and sharia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/aug/05/usa-islam-elena-kagan-sharia-nonsense:
I might prefer a prisoner to a politician.
In my law practice, many of my clients are lifers. A lifer has been sentenced to prison for life. In California, a life sentence can be irrevocable, or it can come with the possibility of release – a.k.a. parole. All of my lifer clients have the possibility of parole. My duty is go with my clients before commissioners of the parole board and advocate for them. It is hard job, because parole is hard to obtain. It is harder for my clients than for me.
Most of my lifers are murderers. Some have killed multiple victims. One client killed a man, got released on parole, and then killed another man. Some of my clients committed lesser-but-still-grave offenses, such as kidnaping or intentional mayhem.
My friends wonder what it is like to interact with murderers. It feels very normal. Maybe that’s because they are on best behavior with me, but I don’t think so. Almost all of them have, at least to some degree, reformed. You can usually see this in their prison records: indifferent or hostile to prison rules coming in; increasing conformity to the rules as time goes by.
Recently, I watched a famous politician on the internet. I reacted to him in the way that my friends expect me to react to my clients. I was disgusted. On reflection, I discovered that I feared my clients less, and respected them more, than this politician.
2. The prisoner and the politician: biographies.
That might sound hyperbolic. Let me justify my opinion by drawing a comparison between the prisoners and the politician. I’ll start by talking about their biographies.
My client did not know his biological father. He was physically abused by his step-father. His mother did not protect him, in part because she was often drunk. He did poorly in school.
Because my client got along poorly with his mother and his step-father, during high school he moved in with a man he worked for. That man molested him.
In his late teens, my client burglarized a relative’s home. A house-sitter interrupted the burglary, and my client’s accomplice beat her to death. My client claims that he did not witness the beating, nor know about it until it was almost over. But perhaps he deliberately minimizes his knowledge of the crime or his involvement in it, or both.
My client has labored to rehabilitate himself during his decades in prison. He has taken many courses about anger and violence. He has regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous and knows his 12-steps. He has acquired vocations in prison.
His early prison career was marked by many 115's – serious rules violations. Now, not so much. But he did within months of his parole hearing pick up a 115 for possession of contraband – a smuggled cell phone.
He had the cell phone because wanted to be able to talk unrestrictedly with his son. A correctional officer explained to me that cell phones are a security risk because any un-monitored prisoner contact with the outside is perilous; but that most prisoners who possess this contraband do so because they miss their families.
As for his upbringing, his parents were divorced when he was little, but his mother’s second husband, an Army officer, adopted him when he was five. He had regular contact with his natural father, a Navy officer.
After he graduated from high school, he followed his high school math teacher to Atlanta. While he studied at Emory University, he married her. After he graduated from Emory, he obtained a Ph.D. from Tulane University. His first job after finishing school was teaching.
After unsuccessful races for Congress, Gingrich was elected to his first term in 1978. During his first term, he divorced his cancer-stricken wife and married his second of three wives.
Gingrich at one time was considered a model for even Democrats for emulate – a man who percolated with brilliance. Presently, a new tactic eclipses his enunciation of brilliant ideas. His new public persona is less glittery with fresh ideas and more focused on scathing attacks, denunciations untethered to truth.
In typical fashion, Gingrich recently warned newly-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan away from deciding cases by examining sharia. (Sharia is the law code that derives from the Qur’an.) He threatened that she would not remain in office if she did. The imagined source of Kagan’s attraction to sharia apparently is that, as dean of Harvard Law, she accepted an endowment on behalf of the university. It came from a wealthy Saudi, and its purpose was to create four professorships at Harvard Law to study and teach Islamic finance.
Gingrich knows better. My own law professor taught comparative criminal law; this included study of the Soviet criminal-justice system. But that did not make him a communist. And I studied Greek mythology as a teenager. But I never sacrificed so much as an aphid to Zeus. You can study something – and Islamic finance is important in the world – without wanting it.
This is pure Gingrich in his present incarnation.
3. Part 1 conclusion.
In Part 2, I will begin to construct a 10-point comparison between my client and Gingrich, to say who is more admirable, or less dangerous.
Links
A Gingrich biography: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/boyernewt2.html
A report on a typical scathing speech by Gingrich, including his remarks about Kagel and sharia: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/newt-gingrich-kathleen-sebelius-behaving-in-the-spirit-of-soviet-tyranny.html
Kagel and sharia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/aug/05/usa-islam-elena-kagan-sharia-nonsense:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)