Zen Sense and War

Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense, wrote “a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT.” James Madison (1793) stated the “power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . .the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." With few exceptions, our current members of Congress willingly ignored their constitutional duty and gave this power to President Bush. One exception was Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia who argued (unsuccessfully) "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution.” President Bush now admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. With respect to the weapons of mass destruction, the CIA's chief weapons inspector, David Kay, has now stated “I don’t think they existed.” Why then are dedicated American Service Men and Women continuing to risk their lives in Iraq? Why is our government spending about one billion dollars a day pursuing the war in Iraq during a time of unprecedented deficits, tax cuts for the idle rich and massive jobs losses? Could it have something to do with twenty seven trillion dollars in oil reserves known to exist in Iraq? Executive Order 13303 issued by President Bush should dispel any doubt about whether or not the Iraqi War was about oil. This order effectively removes any legal obstacles for the commercial exploitation of “all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products” by the same crony capitalists that contributed millions of dollars to Bush’s election campaign. It is time for voters to exercise some common sense!

Where do our "rights" come from?

The letter below was sent to the editor of our local newspaper but was not published. It deals with my concern about the continuing erosion of our unalienable liberties.

Letter to the editor: Tennessee Senate Bill 1117 introduced by Republicans is intended to grant students a “Bill of Rights”, among which is the right not to be introduced to “controversial” material. The language of this bill is revealing because it suggests that the Tennessee legislature, by a vote, can grant (or revoke) our fundamental liberties. Evidently, these republican legislatures do not understand that our fundamental liberties are not “given” or “granted” by any branch of our government. These are unalienable rights and the role of government is to protect (not give or grant) these rights. “One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections” (Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). Fortunately, the Constitution of the State of Tennessee also makes this clear “no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience” (Section 3). The rights of conscience, when exercised, are often labeled “controversial.” The rights of both instructors and students do not stop in the classroom and are not suspended when “controversial” issues are discussed. This bill pretends to support a “posture of neutrality” yet is remarkably similar to legislation proposed in at least 20 states is based on the ideals of neoconservative activist David Horowitz.