revelations
Published by Mike Stark March 30th, 2007 in UncategorizedHere at U. Va., the Law Christian Fellowship Society hosted an event that wasn’t really publicized that much. They had a Justice Department lawyer come speak to their group. I got wind of it about 1/2 an hour before it was to kick off when I saw a guy in a suit carrying a leather folder with the seal of the US on it. I figured he was here to speak to one group or another, so I asked him what he was up to. When I found out he was from the Justice Department and here to give a presentation, well, I just couldn’t not attend.I left surprised. At every turn, this man was kind, conscientious, and decent. His entire speech was an exhortation to the assembled to not follow the money, but rather follow their consciences. He related how he first started doing environmental law, but for Monsanto… How he came to grow disillusioned, so found a way to segue into religious first amendment work. How he feels richer in spirit, even if he isn’t richer in bank account terms. And how he ended up blessed in the end, with a wonderful wife and two kids that grew up to attend U. Va. law school.
By the end of the presentation, I just didn’t have any desire to savage this guy. He didn’t deserve it.
But the experience wasn’t a completely valueless from a partisan’s standpoint. First of all, I was happy to learn that we have at least some decent political appointees working in the Justice Department. With so much of my life focused on partisan politics and the ugliness of the Bush Administration, it’s pretty easy to fall into a trap of thinking all the people involved are morally suspect. It’s not a bad thing to learn otherwise. So I’m glad it turned out this way.
That said, an insight came to me last night when I was thinking about the experience. This lawyer told the story of what he considered to be a truly mysterious sequence of events.
You see, he explained, if there was one group that gave nothing to Bill Clinton in the ‘96 election, it was evangelical Christians. So he was shocked, bewildered and dumbfounded - in awe of God’s mysterious ways - when he was granted a White House West Wing meeting with George Stephenopoulis to talk about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires federal government offices (non-military) to make allowances for the free practice of one’s faith. He was even more shocked when Clinton promulgated the executive order a few months later.
He just couldn’t understand how Bill Clinton - who got nothing but abuse from evangelicals - could possibly do anything that promoted the interests of Christians. this lawyer chalked it up to the greatness of God’s work.
He told another story that was very similar to the first. A Church was being sued for tithes it received from some guy that later went bankrupt. (Tithes are a religious tradition - commandment in some cases - that require the faithful to give 10% of their pre-tax earnings to the Church.) The Clinton Justice Department took the position that this bankrupt guy shouldn’t have been able to funnel so much money to the Church knowing he was going bankrupt. If I remember correctly, Justice had prepared an amicus brief for the Bankruptcy Court explaining that the funds should be recoverable.
Well, this lawyer got wind of it and hit the phones. Eventually he landed another West Wing meeting, this time with Joel Klein, who worked as Asst. White House counsel. President Clinton himself dropped in on the meeting.
Within days, Justice had reversed its position.
Once again, this lawyer didn’t credit the Clinton’s. Instead, it was God’s work.
So I was just thinking about that dynamic, because the gulf between our sides is so vast. Maybe I’m totally misunderstanding, but it seems that by giving all the credit to God, and not speaking up at all in praise of Clinton’s professionalism, staffing choices or decision-making… well, it allows these guys to do what they’ve done since they’ve attained the reins of power: govern by partisanship, ideology and loyalties rather than competence, merit of ideas and, well, realities.
Not only did Cheney refuse to meet with any environmental groups when he developed his energy policy… not only has Bush fired people like Bunnatine Greenhouse for doing her jobs when it conflicted with rewarding his cronies… not only has Alberto Gonzalez fired republican US Attorney’s when they weren’t republican enough… but this entire administration has at every turn acted in their own naked partisan interest.
I think it’s become obvious to even the most casual (non-wingnut) observer that the right wing, and certainly this administration, lacks the ability to set aside the bloodsport aspect of politics in furtherance of the common good. The entire government has been Rovianized. Instead of “What’s good for GM is good for America” we have “What’s good for Republicans is good for America” - even if it’s bad for America.
How else do we explain the crony appointments, the self-dealing Abramoff/Cunningham scandals, the parallel email system being run out of the RNC, the abandonment of New Orleans, the cold-hearted treatment of Californians during the black-outs caused by Enron fraud in 2001, and the word put out, through the EPA but from the White House, that the (factually toxic) air was clean and safe in southern Manhattan days after 9/11?
I’m going to follow up with the lawyer that spoke here. I’m not using his name for now because I really treasured his message. But the truth is, I am extraordinarily perplexed with regards to how a person who seemed so morally enlightened can justify associating himself with this kind of administration.
I’ll get back to you later.
16 Responses to “revelations”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Mike, you seem to be blinded by your own left-wing partisanship.
“I am extraordinarily perplexed with regards to how a person who seemed so morally enlightened can justify associating himself with this kind of administration.”
What kind of BS is that?
I have not checked in since Christmas and have not read the blogs, however if you non-wingnuts are honest you will call out the Botox bitch, Speaker of the House, for not having the Kahunas to stop funding the Iraq War. It’s time to put up or shut up. The left can no longer blame Bush for everything and they seem to have a problem passing any law w/o pork.
As for Katrina, why don’t you lefties ever hold the chickenshit coward mayor, Ray Nagin who hid in Dallas for three days after the storm hit, responsible for anything? I have twenty or so relatives there. That has been a corrupt Democratically ran town for the last 100 years. Why in the fuck did the local politicians not shore up the levies? Because they were too busy lining their own pockets! The dumb MF’ers in New Orleans re-elected Nagin, therefore they get the government they deserve.
In addition, if you get another bend-over do-nothing (to fight terrorism) president, like Bill Clinton, Iran will get Nukes and continue to fund terrorism. Oh that’s right, some on the left claim that global warming is a greater threat.
Also, there is no such word as “MACACA”.
GEORGE ALLEN can kick Jim Webb’s butt in a fistfight.
GEORGE ALLEN can kick Jim Webb’s butt in a fistfight.
And Ol’ George sure can blow an election
andrew wilkow 2008 andrew wilkow 2008 andrew wilkow 2008 andrew wilkow 2008 andrew wilkow 2008 andrew wilkow 2008 andrew wilkow 2008 andrew wilkow 2008 andrew wilkow 2008
Also, there is no such word as “MACACA”.
Except that there is. In less than 15 seconds, I found this
Man, it’s easy debunking these rightwingers some times.
Also, there is no such word as “MACACA”
Except that there is. In less than 15 seconds, I found this
Man, it’s easy debunking these rightwingers some times.
Also, there is no such word as “MACACA”
Except that there is. In less than 15 seconds, I found this
Man, it’s easy debunking these rightwingers some times.
smass Mar 31st, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Also, there is no such word as “MACACA”
Except that there is. In less than 15 seconds, I found this
Man, it’s easy debunking these rightwingers some times.
HEY JUNIOR, maybe you are S.R. Siddarth undercover, there is no such word as “MACACA” in Webster’s english dictionary. Are you using some Tunisian online dictionary?
In America we speak english whether you like it or not.
Jes plain bull headedness…no sech werd like macaca in english….
Mr. Dixie Dude is correct on that point, but Allen didn’t learn the word from the Webster Dictionary! He learned the word from his French Tunisian mother who used it as she would have used it back in Tunisia when talking about the dark skinned lower class residents.
But Mr. Dixie Dude knows that. He’s just blowin his horn of hatred as loud as he can hoping to drown out anything of relevance.
interesting post , Mike.
Personally, t think that our friends on the right have demonized the government for so long, and worked so hard to weaken our government that the whole idea of the commonwealth has become foreign to them.
We have the GOP, whose political philosophy is based primarily on selfishness and preserving the status quo. For them, strong effective govt has for so long been a frightening prospect that they have associated the common good with communism. They simply can’t understand that Americans might have common cause with each other, or that some people here really want what’s best for the country and put their country before party. In this guy’s case, it sounds to me like he did not see Clinton as a fellow American, but always as the adversary, and that’s standard GOP behavior.
For most in the GOP, anyone’s motives that are not selfish are suspect. Unfortunately, that’s become so ingrained, that I’m afraid it extends to the otherwise-thoughtful religious Republicans as well.
interesting post , Mike.
Personally, t think that our friends on the right have demonized the government for so long, and worked so hard to weaken our government that the whole idea of the commonwealth has become foreign to them.
The GOP’s political philosophy is based primarily on selfishness and preserving the status quo. For them, strong effective govt has for so long been a frightening prospect that they have associated the common good with communism. They simply can’t understand that Americans might have common cause with each other, or that some people here really want what’s best for the country and put their country before party. In this guy’s case, it sounds to me like he did not see Clinton as a fellow American, but always as the adversary, and that’s standard GOP behavior.
For most in the GOP, anyone’s motives that are not selfish are suspect. Unfortunately, that’s become so ingrained, that I’m afraid it extends to the otherwise-thoughtful religious Republicans as well.
Mike, my dear man, (and all posters)
PLEASE state clearly somewhere that you only need to hit “Submit” once!!!!
It is confusing I confess, but you get a little preview at the bottom as you type it so no need for a dupe, just hit Submit and be patient!!!
Now I’m going to break some balls to prove my point! Where’s Jeff???
As one who grew up an evangelical, going to an evangelical private school for 10 yrs, I think I can shed a small bit of light here…
The truth is, there are a lot of normal, decent, fully moral conservatives in this country who truly care about doing what’s right. I’ve seen a lot of backlash from my “dyed in the wool” conservative friends who are finally starting to get disgusted w/ everything that’s going on. The more they learn about the prosecutor purge (& then begin to rethink all the other scandals), the more pissed they get, b/c, for the most part, they do all believe in one important thing - the rule of law.
This admin will eventually choke itself on its own lies, b/c most of them are too big of cowards to come clean from the get go. Once the perjury charges start racking up, it won’t matter (to the majority of repubs, or at least a large chunk) what Rush says about any of it. It will be obvious; they lied, and that’s all there is to it.
dixie dude Apr 1st, 2007 at 12:40 am
HEY JUNIOR, maybe you are S.R. Siddarth undercover, there is no such word as “MACACA” in Webster’s english dictionary. Are you using some Tunisian online dictionary?
In America we speak english whether you like it or not.
No, I’m not Mr Siddarth, but thanks for asking. If you had even bothered to follow the link I provided, the definitions, referencing a genus of monkey, were from medical dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster. Quite frankly, I think I trust them more than I trust you.
But of course, you never bother addressing any of the facts that Mike posted. Instead, you post your own misinformation (Bill Clinton did more to combat terrorism than Bush has done, and you can look that up).
Perhaps it’s true what Stephen Colbert says: The truth has a well-known liberal bias.
to dixie dude.
macaca is a word….
and why is it that during the election season, dems were attacked for not having a plan for iraq, and now that they have a plan, they are attacked for having a plan and trying to take away power from the president?
you guys want it on both sides….and you cant have it, cuz you fucked it all up
take a look around…the world is a fucking mess…and not because of lib policies…because of the neocon agenda
it is you….not us, who hates america
Mike,
Your post took a step forward in finally appreciating the diversity of speakers groups bring to the law school and then blow it with your article in the Law Weekly.
You live and study in a world that begins and ends with “it depends.” If you can’t afford dignity to people with different viewpoints, even if they are being paid to express those viewpoints, you have picked the wrong profession. If you really want to have a primetime tv news/radio show, go into a journalism.
Take your scare/hate tactics and rhetoric to Columbia and UNC where they might be considered novel or even maybe interesting. However, if you want to stick around UVA Law and the legal profession, you need to change your tune.
If you want to see how discourse should proceed at this law school pay attention to Ulrick Casseus’s article in today’s Law Weekly. It was civil, powerful and presented a clear rebuke.
Mike–excellent post. Way too much demonizing on all sides (many more than two, I think). There are many good religious people who honestly believe that all good is from God, that individual good works are are the result of God’s grace, and the praise properly belongs to God (praising men can lead to the sin of pride in the do-gooder). Others, not so good, have a truly warped idea of what ‘good’ is. Some are good because they perceive God’s love and wish to participate; some simply are fearful of God’s wrath. I call myself a secular humanist and at least try to be good because it is right, and because common goodness is what holds our society together. Perhaps the DOJ lawyer you write about simply has never questioned whether there can be more than one reason for the doing of good works.