Through my eye

A sometimes caustic view of things.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

What Joe Wilson said?!

Representative Joe Wilson, of South Carolina, who shouted out in a joint meeting with the president, "You lie!" has been criticized for violating some code of conduct. Critics are asking that he be held to the same standards as the military, who fall under the president through the chain of command.

I'm a veteran, husband of a military retiree and father of two veterans. My own father was a soldier for 30 years. Consequently, I understand what some people are trying to say about the required respect for the president under the Code of Military Justice. Every military person learns that, regardless of personal feeling or political philosophy, the only proper response to what any president says is a salute and a prompt "Yes, Sir" or a polite objection under extreme circumstances--illegal orders, for example.

However, the rules by which soldiers must live hold no authority over civilians or their elected representatives. The function of the Congress of the United States is derived from parliamentary procedure and anyone who has ever seen any parliament in action will understand why dueling was outlawed. By the world's standards, we have one of the most polite legislative bodies ever known. This was not always the case, just read your history books. In our earlier history members of the government and the congress fought duels over comments made in the heat of the moment.

Unlike military members, senators and congress persons are elected to represent the states and districts where they live. Their job is not to blindly follow any president, but to be an equal partner, with certain rights and restrictions, in establishing our government. The founders intended that no person would become a king and no government would speak with one voice. Even when we are most unified in wartime conditions, there have always been some opposition to the leadership of the country.

In the previous eight years, president Bush was booed and hissed while speaking before congress--in the midst of those boos and hisses were shouts and pejoratives that were often difficult to separate from the overall noise. The only difference between now and then is that Congressman Joe Wilson shouted alone, "You lie!"

The party in power and the press may take exception to what he said. Congress has certainly rebuked him, with nearly all Democrats voting so--forgetting their behavior from the previous year. The fact remains that there is no restriction over speech, under the constitution, not for any citizen nor for any elected representative of the people. Witness the after-speech remarks by opposition members to any presidential initiative in the last few years. In so many words, presidents have been accused of lying and worse. The difference here is that Wilson stood alone to say it directly to the president--even if he later apologized for his rudeness.

What critics don't understand is that Joe Wilson thought he was doing what his district expected him to do--and doing it within the framework of what the constitution allows and the founders intended--because there is no "lese majesty" in American government, for it was never intended that any president presume to be a majesty.

Joe Wilson's real judgment will come when he stands for reelection. Did he speak for the people of his district, or not?

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

A comment on Jeremy Levitt

Actually, I have to feel sorry for Jeremy Levitt. He is inflicted with a version of the Sixth Sense, in that he sees racists and racism wherever he looks. I also feel sorry for him because he obviously went through the American educational system, even became a part of the system himself, without learning how to properly apply adjectives to subjects or to research the meanings of words before he uses them.

Here is where to find the original column by Levitt:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edporl-jeremy-levitt-09xx09091509sep15,0,1528050.column

"It is no secret that the far right and its institutions have an unjust guttural dislike for President Obama. After allowing George W. Bush to destroy our economy and international standing without challenge for eight years, the far right's central strategy for helping America is to attempt to delegitimize Obama with trailer-park prowess."

American presidents are almost always demonized by their political opponents, few more so than George W. Bush during the last eight years, I refer your readers to the web site

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

for a comprehensive look at how disrespectful and "unpatriotic" by Levitt's standard the far left has been.

As a lover of language, the use of "guttural" in the quote above bothers me. Does Levitt intend to repeat in a different way the meaning of the word "visceral" as he used it in a previous sentence, or does he mean the least used definition of the adjective, guttural: being or marked by utterance that is strange, unpleasant, or disagreeable.

"This was a symbolically threatening parity of Thomas Jefferson's celebrated call for vigilance: 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.' Regrettably, this dangerously insolent and unpatriotic message was aimed at the leader of the Free World."

In the use of "parity" did Levitt mean the definitions of that word:

1. Equality, as in amount, status, or value.
2. Functional equivalence, as in the weaponry or military strength of adversaries.

Or was he thinking of parody, which offers this least-used definition: a poor or feeble imitation or semblance; travesty.

All this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Levitt suffers from the lack of a good editor, or someone to question his intent. He writes in the same vein that Jesse Jackson talks: A bit of Bible verse, a lot of misapplied adjectives and malformed logic. His idea of patriotism is diametrically opposed to that expressed in the fuller context of the quote above:

"What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "

Finally, I've done an extensive internet search for Jeremy I. Levitt's writings and affiliations. The man has been, according to various bios in publications, in 22 to 27 African countries, was appointed to many positions within many organizations, has a B.A from Arizona State University, J.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a PhD from the University of Cambridge, has been associated with or employed by four or five different US universities, associated with two colleges of the University of Cambridge, Managing Editor of the Cambridge Review of International Affairs (but one can only find one article listed under his name) and he has some published works as either author or editor.

What I can't find is his birth year or what state or community he spent his formative years. Why did he not complete his training with the State Department?

And reading some of his scholastic works, I find a lack of academic impartiality-- a bias, if you will-- against European influences on Africa and a willingness to make unverifiable statements such as the following from http://www.ialsnet.org/meetings/enriching/levitt.pdf :

"The principle of a democratic rule of law can be traced back to Black Egypt in the First Dynasty (3100-2890 BC) beginning with the reign of King Menes as documented by Manetho, an Egyptian scholar and priest that lived in the 3rd Century BC, in his famous work Aegyptiaca (also referred to as Aigyptiaka), the "History of Egypt", and confirmed by Herodotus who claims that Menes, politically united Upper and Lower Egypt. It was not until the Twenty Sixth Dynasty (664 BC) that the Greeks came into contact with the highly civilized political and legal tradition of Egypt and acquired the ideas of liberty and democratic equality later espoused and further developed by Aristotle and Cicero. Greek and Roman conceptions of law greatly influenced its development in Europe, particularly in England. The common law system that forms the basis of the American legal system derives directly from England and was later embraced by the newly independent American states after the American Revolution."

There is no evidence that can support the idea that Menes was one person, much less whether he was Black or Semite. Any student of history would have to scoff at the idea that Egypt was the fount of democracy--lawyers, perhaps, but not democratic ideas of equality. The whole paragraph asserts an implication that our legal system derives from a Black ruler 5000 years back in the mists of time. Bias. or not? You judge.

Myself, I can only think of the disaster the journalistic world suffered because of the uncritical acceptance of works by Janice Cook at the Washington Post and Jason Blair at the new York Times. Could the academic world be due for a similar revelation?