Skip to content

A Good Witch

When my kids were little my wife and I read most, if not all, of the Oz books to them, both those by the original author, L. Frank Baum, and by his successor, Ruth Plumly Thompson. So I was interested when I saw Finding Oz in my local bookstore. It’s a biography of Baum by Evan I. Schwartz, which makes a more or less plausible case for the sources for the Oz stories and characters (he convincingly debunks the idea that it is a disguised attack on the gold standard). Among other things, he makes the argument that Baum’s mother-in-law was the inspiration for both the Good Witch of the South and the Wicked Witch of the West. In the book, there are two good witches; the beautiful one appears only at the end, and she’s the one Schwartz feels Baum’s mother in law inspired. This might be just a tired mother-in-law sort of joke, except that this particular mother-in-law was a remarkable woman, a relatively neglected woman’s rights advocate who was a full member of a triumvirate that included Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Her name was Matilda Joslyn Gage. You can read more about her here, at the website for the Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation. Baum was an early supporter of equal rights for women, quite likely influenced by Ms. Gage and her almost equally strong minded daughter. What I found interesting was the fact that she, alone among the then big three in the women’s movement, refused to make common cause with the temperance movement, which was dominated by religious fundamentalist women, and which, even then (if Schwartz is to be believed) Gage referred to as the “religious right”. She split with Anthony over the issue, and she turned out to be prescient, since the religious types abandoned the women’s movement as soon as it was no longer useful to them.

Gage believed that religion was an instrument of oppression, particularly against women, and had written extensively about the fact that the mass burning of witches had been essentially a war on women.

More from the website:

Unlike many of her sisters in the American suffrage movement, Gage was unwilling to compromise her position on the absolute necessity of religious freedom as a prerequisite for authentic women’s liberation. Specifically, Gage was not interested in forming alliances with organizations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union whose goals included eliminating the separation of church and state. Through her creation of the Woman’s National Liberal Union, her contributions to The Woman’s Bible, and perhaps most significantly, her publication of Woman, Church, and State, Matilda Joslyn Gage left a legacy of radical feminist analysis of the relationship between women’s oppression and organized religion. Her seminal work as a feminist, a freethinker, and proponent of a gyno-centric spirituality is striking not only because it stands so clearly in advance of the dominant thinking of her time, but because it continues to challenge sexist boundaries and assumptions in contemporary America.

While Gage’s opposition to the Church was nurtured over a lifetime, her most nationally recognized acts of defiance in this regard were accomplished in the last decade of her life. Among these was her organization of a society dedicated to the free expression of radical reform and free thought agendas which she organized after the merger of the National Woman’s Suffrage Association, of which Gage had long held both intellectual and organizational leadership roles, with the American Woman’s Suffrage Association.

Matilda Joslyn Gage was furious that the new organization, the National American Woman’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA) was openly courting the support of such conservative Christian groups as the WCTU led by the legendary Frances Willard. Gage, as a champion of the separation of church and state, was intellectually and morally repulsed by Willard’s goal that “…Christ shall be this world’s King. King of its courts, its camps, and its commerce; King of its colleges and cloisters; King of its customs and its constitutions.” When Willard declared that she wanted an amendment to the United States Constitution declaring Christ the author and head of the American government, Gage was disgusted. “This looks like a return to the Middle Ages and proscription for religious opinions, and is the great danger of the hour.” In Gage’s scholarly, feminist opinion, any move toward public reform in the name of religion was a move away from the goals of women’s true freedom.

Some things never change. We could use more like her.

By the way, according to Schwartz, the Wizard was inspired, to varying degrees, by Thomas Edison, P.T. Barnum, John D. Rockefeller and Swami Vivekananda.


The Republican Philosophy in a Nutshell

The folks at ThinkProgress have done an admirable job of exposing Karl Rove’s latest bit of hypocrisy here. Seems Karl no longer feels that the President’s choice for the Supreme Court deserves absolute deference. No surprise there, and in any event, exposing Rovian hypocrisy makes shooting fish in a barrel look like rocket science.

But while he was burnishing his hypocrite’s credentials, Rove also perfectly summarized the Republican constitutional philosophy.

In fact, this is going to be one the big dividing lines. President Obama…said he wanted a judge who would uphold the Constitution, but also a judge would be empathetic. These two things are in conflict.

The word “empathetic” derives from “empathy”, which my dictionary defines as follows:

Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives.

Rove has it right here, at least from the perspective of the right. Their constitutional philosophy is bottomed in a refusal to empathize- a refusal to either attempt to understand the situation of others or accept that the law must address the real world problems of real people. The conservative legal philosophy is one that insists on cramming people into artificial legal constructs rather than crafting legal constructs to deal with realities.

A system of law that is based on a refusal or inability to see the world from another’s perspective, to walk in that person’s shoes, so to speak, is one that will in time grow increasingly rigid and prevent the society as a whole from adequately responding to new challenges. The society grows ossified. If our legal system and our law is to evolve properly, empathy is not a luxury, it’s a necessity.


Friday Night Music-Rock Me Baby

This is almost like cheating. How can you miss with BB KIng, Eric Clapton, Buddy Guy and Jim Vaughn? The sound is first rate too.


If it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Abu Zubaydah

From CNN:

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

At first blush it seems odd. These folks worship a man who was tortured and executed because he was a suspected terrorist, or at the very least an enemy of the state. One would think that his self proclaimed followers would be hesitant to inflict similar suffering on others, but that’s obviously not the case. Throughout their long history Christians of almost all denominations have been quite comfortable with the idea of inflicting pain on those with whom they disagree. Perhaps their shared delusion that we all have a chance at an eternity of bliss makes them more willing to inflict suffering here on earth.


Winston was good, but George (Washington, that is) was better

There’s a bit of speculation going around about just which article Obama recently read about Winston Churchill’s anti-torture policy, with a recent Andrew Sullivan piece being among the top contenders. Apparently, there’s also a little push back, to the effect that the British may not have always stuck to their anti-torture policy.

Well, we don’t need to go off shore for anti-torture precedent. We need only look to the one great president whose name began with George, the sometimes under appreciated George Washington. Here’s Bobby Kennedy, Jr. citing David Hackett Fisher’s Washington’s Crossing, the book from which I also learned this little factoid:

Washington decided to behave differently. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: “Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren. ….. Provide everything necessary for them on the road.”

At the time, as the introductory sentence implies, the British were behaving quite differently. They were engaging in a terror campaign against American civilians. On the battlefield, the Hessians were ordered to take no prisoners, and they followed orders. In the face of that, Washington has this to say about the way we should treat Hessian prisoners (from a letter to Robert Morris, George Clymer and George Walton):

The future and proper disposition of the Hessian Prisoners, struck me in the same light in which you view it, for which Reason I advised the Council of Safety to separate them from their Officers, and canton them in the German Counties. If proper pains are taken to convince them, how preferable the Situation of their Countrymen, the Inhabitants of those Counties is to theirs, I think they may be sent back in the Spring, so fraught with a love of Liberty and property too, that they may create a disgust to the Service among the Remainder of the foreign Troops and widen that Breach which is already opened between them and the British.

Keep in mind that the danger we face pale in immediacy to those faced in those days. Enemy troops were on our soil, brutalizing our populace. Our troops taken prisoner were kept in unspeakable conditions. Washington himself faced execution if things didn’t go so well. The danger was not hypothetical, it was happening as Washington wrote.

I don’t know whether the Hessians were sent back to their lines, but I do know that many of those prisoners stayed behind when the war was over. They were little more than slaves in their native country, whose major export at the time was mercenaries. If we had followed the good George’s example this time around, might we not have returned humanely treated prisoners back to where they came, where that humane treatment might have dampened terrorist recruiting?

So in my book, Obama should be citing George Washington, and reminding our country that in a time of much greater hazard, we stuck to our principles, which at the time were an innovation. There was no Geneva convention back then, and humane treatment of prisoners was hardly the norm.

UPDATE: How odd that a commenter who adopts the sobriquet “Notostalin” writes in to support torture.


Boiling Mad

It’s not easy being a member of a minority group. It’s bad enough being marginalized, but it’s even worse to be smeared. Look at this quote from Talking Points Memo:

But don’t mistake DeMint for a crank. He’s actually a consummate optimist. He says “Pat Toomey, who is running in Pennsylvania, is one of the most mainstream Americans I know.” And surely all those diaspora northerners will repatriate Pennsylvania when they realize that the “mainstream” is on the rise and “forced unionization” will no longer beleaguer the tea-loving masses.

As a tea-lover, I feel degraded and humiliated by being stereotyped, particularly this stereotype. What did we tea-lovers ever do to be lumped together with Jim DeMint and Pat Toomey, not to mention Republicans in general? It’s bad enough that when I go to a restaurant the coffee drinkers get a decent brew while I get a bag full of some substance that used to be part of a tea plant. But to have it insinuated that I share the mindset (if mindless people can have a mindset) of these cretins is beyond the pale.

This sort of thing has gone on oolong enough. Just because we tea lovers are a minority group in a nation of coffee drinkers does not mean we can be associated with a justly despised splinter group of doubtful sanity. If this keeps up we tea lovers will come to a rolling boil, after which we will steep in our righteous anger until the full flavor of our fury blossoms forth. Our vengeance shall be terrible, yet surprisingly convivial.


Not to be trusted

Arlen Specter is becoming a Democrat. Having concluded that he cannot win the Republican primary, he has done the “principled” thing and once again become a Democrat. This is a man who only recently opined that investigating torture is something they do only in banana republics and who, also recently, did a 180 turn on Employee Free Choice. Of course, that was when he still was trying to appease his right flank. Having concluded that it is impossible for him to do so, and perhaps feeling a bit of security as the result of who knows what secret deal, he is opting to compete in the Democratic primary.

What can we expect from this new Democrat. Not much. Will he (when Franken finally gets seated) make 60 to stop the filibusters? Not according to Spector:

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

If the Democrats have cut a deal and promised him a clear path to the nomination, they have cut their own throats. The only thing that will keep him in line is a threat from the left that will give him the incentive to behave himself. We don’t necessarily need his vote on Employee Free Choice. It’s probably asking too much to expect him to make yet another about face on that issue. But there’s no reason why he can’t take the “principled” stand that though he’s against it, he believes it should come to a vote. That’s the kind of thing Joe Lieberman is good at, and Arlen will be nothing if not another Lieberman.

The optimal outcome would be that he has to tack to the left to win the nomination, loses anyway, and a real Democrat trounces Pat Toomey. That is, by the way, not an unlikely outcome.


Myth and Reality

This has been a busy weekend for us, so we just got around to watching Thursday’s Daily Show (I record it every night on my computer). Stewart’s guest was Professor Richard Beeman, who just wrote a book about the Constitutional Convention called Plain, Honest Men. You can watch it below if you like.

Stewart marveled at the fact that these guys could write the entire Constitution (less the Bill of Rights) in 4 months, when, according to him, it takes our present day Congress four months not to pass anything. Far be it from me to argue that the general run of Congressfolks today measures up to the Founders, but it always seems odd to me that we can (and we all do it) at one and the same time glorify the founders while disparaging the way in which the government they designed works. If they had done the crackerjack job we all claim they did, the government would work well and respond effectively to our needs. It doesn’t.

The sad fact is that many of the compromises embedded in the document are serving us very poorly. Whether intended or not, we now have a government in which one house of Congress is disproportionately influenced by sparsely populated states. That situation is made even worse by the operation of the filibuster, but even if there were no filibuster the fact is that the Senate would still be overly influenced by a relative sliver of the population. This affects national policy, which has become badly skewed precisely because the Senate is not responsive to the settled will of the majority.

The fault, of course, is neither in our stars nor (at least wholly) in the framers, but in ourselves. They were well aware their handiwork was not perfect, and fully expected that improvements would be made. We haven’t done that. Right now we have 40 senators who can stop just about anything from being done to address a truly serious national crisis. They probably represent 20% of the people in the country. There’s something wrong with that setup. Sure, the people in Congress today are a particularly squalid bunch, but the Framers expected that too. The government they designed no longer works, but we are blind to that fact. If you want to know why we don’t have a decent health care system you need look no further than the United States Senate. The same holds true on a host of issues. If we stopped thinking of them as demi-gods, and acknowledged that they were human beings who created a flawed product that is badly in need of updating, we’d all be better off.


Susan Collins shows what a moderate can do

Sometimes things just don’t break your way. Susan Collins, intellectually challenged Maine “moderate” Senator, must be wanting to share a drink with Bobby Jindal these days. Why it seems like only yesterday (because it was) that her website proudly reprinted an article from the Wall Street Journal, in which she trashed the idea of using stimulus money to plan for and respond to a flu pandemic. The article’s been scrubbed from her website, but you can see it, in all it’s glory, right here. And you can see right here that she went out of her way to take credit for protecting us from being protected against a pandemic.

Of course, Collins allowed that we should in fact plan for pandemics, only the money didn’t belong in the stimulus package. Only she forgot to say where it did belong, so the money is nowhere. We can only hope that the Democrats up in Maine will make sure her constituents know that she was more interested in pleasing Karl Rove than representing them.

I suspect that as a major event, the swine flu pandemic will fizzle. We must surely hope that it does. But the fact is that we can assure the fizzle if we engage in planning, which takes money. In this case, about the amount of money we are wasting on bonuses for just some of those AIG folks.

UPDATE: I was in error in stating that the money for this is presently nowhere. It did, in fact, get into the regular appropriation bill. I don’t know what role, if any, Collins played in putting it there.


Topsy Turvy

David Broder has rightly been subjected to more withering blogger scorn than I am capable of expressing, but that doesn’t mean I can’t add my mite. His recent column (Stop Scapegoating) advising against prosecuting torturers has been deconstructed here and here as well as elswhere, but there are many levels of absurdity in the column, so I will concentrate on a point I have not yet seen made.

As digby points out, Broder exemplifies the the beltway philosophy that holds that people in power should suffer no consequences for either mistakes or criminality. But he has gone even further in this piece.

Let’s start with his his injunction that Obama “stop the retroactive search for scapegoats”.

A scapegoat, as we all should know, was an innocent goat upon whom the Jewish people ritually transferred their own sins. The goat was then forced into the desert, where it died in expiation for the sins it had not committed. Jesus Christ, according to the Christian tradition, was the ultimate scapegoat.

Broder turns the meaning of the word inside-out. He argues that we should transfer the actual guilt of the goat to us the people:

Again, [Obama was right to release the torture memos], because these policies were carried out in the name of the American people, and it is only just that we the people confront what we did. Squeamishness is not justified in this case. (Emphasis added)

We, the people are the guilty parties because these people made the decision to torture in our names. That being the case, those who actually committed the crime should not be punished.

It’s an odd sort of logic. Now that Nazi comparisons have been legitimized by the right, we are free to point out that it’s a bit like arguing that the German people were primarily responsible for the holocaust, so it was inappropriate to punish Hermann Göring, et. al. And, as Broder demonstrates, God forbid we should have punished Hitler had we caught him alive:

Suppose that Obama backs down and Holder or someone else starts hauling Bush administration lawyers and operatives into hearings and courtrooms.

Suppose the investigators decide that the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.

Is that where we want to go? I don’t think so. Obama can prevent it by sticking to his guns.

No, we wouldn’t want to put George Bush in the dock. Look how well it worked out when we gave Nixon a pass on Watergate and Reagan a pass on Iran-Contra.

But there’s something more profoundly repellent about Broder’s thinking here. To return to the Nazi comparison, the German people did accept their share of responsibility for the crimes committed in their names, and they are a better people for it. But Broder is not really looking for that. His reference to these crimes as “policy disagreements” gives him away. What he is really saying is that since we are all guilty, none of us are guilty.