FREEDOMPOST, a lawyer's commentary

Keith Olbermann On 'This Week': Former Current TV Host To Sit On Roundtable

About time there is a stirring of the pot

How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare. An Election between a Secret President and a Leader of a Secret Mormon Cult. A Mad World.

How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare

Obama has expanded and fortified many of the Bush administration's worst policies.

April 18, 2012 |

LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?

Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

When Barack Obama took office, he was the civil liberties communities’ great hope. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, pledged to shutter the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and run a transparent and open government. But he has become a civil libertarian’s nightmare: a supposedly liberal president who instead has expanded and fortified many of the Bush administration’s worst policies, lending bipartisan support for a more intrusive and authoritarian federal government.

It started with the 9/11 attacks. Within a week, Congress, including many liberals, gave the White House blanket authority to wage a war on the terrorists. A month after that, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, authorizing many anti-terrorism measure including expanded surveillance. By mid-November, the White House ordered creation of military tribunals to try terrorists who were not U.S. citizens.

Bush quickly expanded covert operations, creating a shadow arrest, interrogation and detention system based at Guantanamo that violated international law and evaded domestic oversight. While the Supreme Court eventually ruled that detainees have some rights, the precedent that the Constitution does not restrict how a president conducts an endless war against a stateless enemy was firmly planted. In response, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union proposed reforms the newly elected president could make. What few anticipated was how he would embrace, expand and institutionalize many of Bush’s war on terror excesses.

President Obama now has power that Bush never had. Foremost is he can (and has) order the killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are deemed terrorists. Like Bush, he has asked the Justice Department to draft secret memos authorizing his actions without going before a federal court or disclosing them. Obama has continued indefinite detentions at Gitmo, but also brought the policy ashore by signing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which authorizes the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of assisting terrorists, even citizens. That policy, codifying how the Bush treated Jose Padilla, a citizen who was arrested in a bomb plot after landing at a Chicago airport in 2002 and was transferred from civil to military custody,upends the 1878’s Posse Comitatus Act’s ban on domestic military deployment.

Meanwhile, more than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, Washington’s wartime posture has trickled down into many areas of domestic activity—even as some foreign policy experts say the world is a much safer place than it was 20 years ago, as measured by the growth in free-market economies and democratic governments. Domestic law enforcement has been militarized—as most visibly seen by the tactics used against the Occupy protests and also againstsuspected illegal immigrants, who are treated with brute force and have limited access to judicial review before being deported.

One of Bush’s biggest civil liberties breaches, spying on virtually all Americans via their telecommunications startingin 2003, also has been expanded. Congress authorized the effort in 2006. Two years later, it granted legal immunity to the telecom firms helping Bush—a bill Obama voted for. The National Security Agency is now building its largest data processing center ever, which Wired.com’s James Bamforth reports will go beyond the public Internet to grab data but also reach password-protected networks. The federal government continues to require that computer makers and big Web sites provide access for domestic surveillance purposes. More crucially, the NSA is increasingly relying on private firms to mine data, because, unlike the government, it does not need a search warrant. The Constitution only limits the government searches and seizures.

The government’s endless wartime footing is also seen in its war on whistleblowers. Obama has continued cases brought by Bush, such as going after the "leaker" in the warrantless wiretapping story broken by the New York Times in 2005, as well as the WikiLeaks case, prosecution of Bradley Manning, and others for allegedly mishandling classified materials related to the war on terrorism. Its suppression of war-related information given to journalists extends overseas, where the State Department this month has blocked a visa for aPakistani critic from speaking in the U.S. The White House also recentlypressured Yemen’s leader to jail the reporter who exposed U.S. drone strikes. Meanwhile, the administration has stonewalled Freedom of Information Act requests, particularly the Justice Department, which has issued the secret wartime memos.

How bad is it? Anthony Romero, the ACLU executive director, exclaimed in June 2010 that Obama “disgusted” him. Meanwhile, the most hawkish Bush administration officials have defended and praised Obama.

Last summer, liberal lawyer-journalist Glenn Greenwald tallied a list of Bush warrior endorsements. Jack Goldsmith, the former DOJ officials who approved the torture and domestic spying efforts, wrote in The New Republic in May 2009 that Obama actually was waging a more effective war on terror than Bush.

“The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expended some of it, and has narrowed only a bit,” Goldsmith wrote. “Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol and rhetoric.” Bush’s final CIA director, General Michael Hayden—whose confirmation Obama opposed as a senator—told CNN there was a “powerful continuity between the 43rd and 44th presidents.” And in early 2011 Vice-President Dick Cheney told NBC News, “He’s learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate.”

All of these civil liberties issues—executive authority to order assassination of citizens, unlimited detention without charges at Guantanamo, authority to deploy the military domestically to arrest and indefinitely detail terrorism suspects, a parallel "due process" that is outside the judicial branch, the expansion of the surveillance state, the increased militarization of local police and federal agencies especially ICE, the increasingly punitive treatment of protesters including strip searches, the war on whistleblowers, and others—are very complicated. The details are filled with shades of gray.

Bradley Manning’s harsh treatment, for example, is thought to be tied to the White House’s fear that the vast WikiLeaks cache contained references to the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden before his assassination—and could have alerted Al Qaeda. Better data mining and analysis could have detected the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act’s defenders past and present have repeatedly argued. But from a civil liberties perspective, Obama has more than chipped away at freedom from federal intrusion. The underlying problem is the tactics and values forged in foreign war have seeped into domestic policing.

“We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national security state,” Jack Balkin, a liberal Yale University Law School professor,told the New Yorker in a 2011 feature about a prominent NSA whistleblower. “The question is not whether we will have a surveillance state in the years to come, but what sort of state we will have,” he wrote in a prescient law review article published early in Obama’s presidency.

The larger dangers, Balkin said, was that the government is creating a “parallel track of preventative law enforcement that bypasses traditional protections in the Bill of Rights.” Moreover, he worries “traditional law enforcement and social services will increasingly resemble the parallel track.” And because the Constitution only restricts government actions, not “private parties, government has increasing incentives to rely on private enterprise to collect and generate information for it.”

“The major defining feature of the Obama administration on this issue is the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, who is an attorney representing many Occupy protesters swept up in last fall’s mass arrests. “He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals.”

Eric Holder, the Defender

The biggest difference between Bush and Obama on civil liberties and the war on terror is the Obama administration is more attuned to the optics of trying to appear reasonable as it conducts much of the same policies. To be fair, Obama has not kidnapped innocent people en masse in Afghanistan and warehoused them in Cuba, as Bush did. But he has launched drone strikes in numerous counties, where the victims include children.

In 2010, the ACLU and New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented many Guantanamo detainees, filed a suit asking a federal court to set legal standards when the government could use lethal force against a U.S. citizen who was overseas but not on an active battlefield. That suit was dismissed. But Eric Holder, perhaps giving a victory to critics who have condemned the administration’s secrecy, gave an speech this March at Chicago’s Northwestern University School of Law explaining Obama’s wartime actions and authority. The speech was exactly what Goldsmith had described a year earlier in The New Republic—nearly identical on substance to Bush administration policy, but with more attention to the packaging for the public.

“In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger,” Holder began, quoting President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural at the height of the Cold War. “But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we are also a nation of laws and values,” Holder continued, saying, “Our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the Constitution.”

Holder explained the challenge for government was what to do after someone is found who is suspected of participating in a terrorist plot against the United States. He said the federal courts have done an excellent job in dealing with suspected terrorists since 9/11—and those who claim otherwise “are simply wrong.” But then Holder built the case for using a “reformed” military commission system—granting foreign detainees a right to counsel, a right to see evidence against them, and a right to cross-examine witnesses.

Moreover, Holder defended the administration’s right to transfer a terrorism suspect from civilian courts to military custody “based on the considered judgment of the President’s senior national security team.” And he said that in a “war with a stateless enemy” that the federal government has a right an obligation “to target specific senior operational leaders of Al Qaeda and associated forces,” just as the military shot down the plane with the top Japanese Admiral who led the Pearl Harbor attacks in World War II. “It is important to explain these legal principles publicly,” Holder said. “The Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end stage of planning—when the precise time, pace and manner of an attack become clear.”

Holder then said there is no constitutional requirement that the President “get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Holder’s arguments sound reasonable until you stop and ask where it ends up. The U.S. is still involved in dubious warfare efforts overseas—particularly Afghanistan. But the full wartime powers invoked by Obama to endlessly fight stateless terrorists, which are on par to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s suspension of civil liberties in World War II, arguably are disproportionate to the scope of military actions. Moreover, people like Obama who are schooled in constitutional law know there are reasons why the foundation of American democracy is based on being a nation of laws—not arbitrary decisions by men—and are expected to respect that distinction govern with due deference and restraint.

Those who understand Obama’s civil liberties failing best include lawyers serving in the military, like David Frakt, a lawyer in the Air Force and Barry University School of Law professor. He recently wrote on Jurist.org that Obama’s targeted assassinations—a word Holder rejected in the speech—was the foreign policy equivalent of the domestic "Stand Your Ground" laws that led to Trayvon Martin's killing.

“During the Bush administration, we developed the rule of ‘we can kill you, but you can’t kill us,’” Frakt wrote. “Now, under the Obama administration, we have added a corollary… namely, ‘you can’t kill us, only we can kill us,’” referring to killing U.S. citizens abroad where “capture is not feasible.” The Stand Your Ground laws “are the logical domestic criminal counterpart to our nation’s aggressive pre-emptive self defense doctrine, under which we have gone to war on the same flimsy suspicions that George Zimmerman acted upon.”

The problem—as seen with more than 600 innocent people taken to Guantanamo—is that the White House can make mistakes. Cheney famouslycalled them “the worst of the worst,” but by 2009 only one in seven were seen as being enemy combatants. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, responding to Holder’s talk, said that, “Based on what I’ve heard so far, I can’t tell whether or not the Justice Department’s legal arguments would allow the president to order intelligence agents to kill an American inside the United States.”

Domestic civil liberties are fragile. They are not the same as a World War II battlefield where a grunt shoots first and asks questions later. Civil liberties take years to create and accrue, whereas a domestic terrorist attack can occur in a flash and then unwind those protections quickly and for many years. What started under Bush and has continued under Obama are battlefield values that have been conflated with domestic policing.

Just as Stand Your Ground laws turn every American going about their lives into a threat that needs to be measured, so too does a growing surveillance state encroach on privacy and specific constitutional rights, such as freedom from warrantless searches, judicial review and other constitutional checks and balances.

The question, as Balkan noted at the start of the Obama presidency, is not whether we will have a growing surveillance and police state, but what that state will be like. Obama has begun to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he hasn’t begun to roll back the most extreme civil liberties abuses tied to the earliest phases of that war. Liberals expected otherwise from a former constitutional law professor and candidate who campaigned against the excesses of the Bush administration.

 

MORMONS ARE WRONG FOR AMERICA

Ways to Prove Mormonism Wrong

1. Bible's One God vs. Mormon Polytheism

2. The fraud of the Book of Abraham (See Proverbs 14:5)

3. Joseph's Smith famous boast

4. Brigham Young and the worship of Adam

5. Brigham Young and 10 ft tall men on the moon.

6. New World Archaeology: Zarahemla will never be found.

7. False prophecies in Doctrines and Covenants

8. Joseph Smith III prophecy

9. The Bible's salvation by grace through faith

10. 1,000's of changes in Mormon scripture: Why?

11. Changes in Mormon doctrine: Adam, polygamy, blacks,

12. Complete testimony of the three and eight witnesses

 

What most Mormons Misunderstand

1. The basis for the Christian claim for the true Church

2. Why we worship Jesus (the blind man, angels, and the multitudes do it.)

3. The doctrines of the Trinity

4. What it means to have Christ inside us.

5. That Eph 2:8-10 and James 2:14-26 fit together and how.

 

What Christians Should Ask Mormons

1. If Christians, Mormons, JW's, People's Temple people, and other groups all have a conviction that theirs is the truth, how Mormons think these could be objectively tested that could verify or falsify? Remember Jeremiah 17:9.

2. Why they want to worship a lesser, local god instead of the highest god?

3. Exactly what Mormons think Brigham meant by "Adam is our God and Father."

4. Why having a relationship with Christ is such a terrible thing as McConkie said?

5. How good Mormons think Joseph Smith's Egyptian was?

6. How many years of Mormons looking for Zarahemla would it take before Mormons conclude that it cannot be found?

7. Does God hear your prayers? If your limited God has only two ears, and millions pray to him every minute, how does he hear everything at once, and how does He think of all the prayers before the next minute?

8. Why if wives are to be faithful to their husbands, and Temple marriages are for time and all eternity, women can remarry for an earthly marriage after their Temple marriage husband dies. Why can't all adultery among Mormons just be called a temporary marriage then?

9. Since father-daughter incest is bad, why did the Mormon God do it with his spirit daughter Mary?

 

 

In Conclusion

 

Joseph Smith took some Egyptian scrolls and created a fraudulent scripture. Is that "just a little mistake" or do you really care about what is God's Truth? Many Mormons are content to look over such inconsistencies in their rush to be their own God rather than worshipping and serving the highest God.

 

LDS Tricks for Naive Christians:

 

How can you trust the Bible today. Do you know there are over 200,000 known changes in it?

That figure includes even one-letter changes in over 20,000 manuscripts. That is roughly 10 per manuscript, which is amazingly good. That compares to over 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon and many in the Doctrines and Covenants. As one Mormon said, Joseph Smith wrote it, and Joseph Smith had the write to change it. That is the point: Joseph Smith wrote it and not God.

 

Two examples of trivial contradictions in the Bible are Ezra 2 vs. Neh 7 and Matt 27:9. With corrupt scripture and a corrupt Medieval Church, true Christianity was not on the earth as John Wesley, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others said. That is why God needed to refound the Church with Joseph Smith, and that is why the Mormon church is the only one with the true authority.

God gave His word without error, and He preserved His word without significant error. Ps 119:89-91, Isa 55:11, and Mark 13:31 promise, and archaeology confirms, that God preserves His word. Though many have fulfilled 2 Pet 2:1-3 and 1 Tim 4:1-3, every age had believers (such as the Waldenses in the Middle Ages). Our authority comes straight from Christ dwelling within us, and not indirectly through a convicted occult practitioner and proved counterfeit. The issue is not authority and organization, but following the right Jesus and the right God.

 

If you are a member of a Christian church, then which one is the true one? There are over 2,000 different churches making that claim.

That's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. In 2,000 years, those 2,000 supposedly Christian churches include over 200 "Mormon" churches that started within 160 years ago. True Christians are in many Christian denominations, because the true Church is not an organization unified in mere men, but all Christians who believe and obey God's Truth.

 

In Ezek 37:16-17, are the two pieces of wood the Bible and the Book of Mormon, as Mormons claim?

No, because Ezek 37:18b-28 says it tells already us what these two sticks mean. It means the two peoples (not scriptures) will be joined as one. At that time there was great animosity between Israel and Judah, but they prophecy says they were to be gathered from among the nations where they were scattered, David will reign over them (Ezek 37:24), and they will live in the land where their ancestors lived (Ezek 37:25).

 

I can't relate to a remote God -- "without body, parts, or passions". Certainly God loves.

Of course. In that phrase passions mean fleshly passions, and the real God never had sex with His creatures – unlike the Mormon god and Mary.

 

In Gen 1:26-27 God says let us make man in our image. So of course God looks like a man.

Even in Mormon belief, neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit had a physical body at that time. So "image" cannot be physical body here.

 

Many passages talk of God's right arm and hands, so God has a body like a man.

Ps 91:4 KJV says God cover's us with his pinions --mother hen's breast feathers. That expression of God's love does not make God look like a bird! Isaiah 44:13 say men worship images in the form of man. If God's body was like man, it should say in God's form.

 

Both Jesus in John 10:35 and Paul in 1 Cor 8:5 said there were many gods.

1 Cor 8:5 refers to all the idols many believed in. I worship the "only wise God" 1 Tim 1:17 KJV), not a god of this world (2 Cor 4:4, 1 John 5:19).

 

James 1:3 says if anyone lacks wisdom, he should ask God, and God will give it. Was it wrong for Joseph Smith to go in the woods to pray to God which religion was correct?

Which first vision? There are at least three conflicting first visions, and the most popular one was made up in part after his death. I do not believe he even had a first vision.

 

Will you pray with me right know to ask God if Joseph Smith is a true prophet?

Unless you can answer all the objections in The Changing World of Mormonism, why should I pray about a convicted occult worker and proved counterfeiter.

 

Why do you reject the Biblical practice of baptisms for dead people as 1 Cor 15:29 teaches?

If baptizing for the dead is one of the most important things we can do, like Mormonism teaches, then why are we not once commanded to do this in scripture? Paul said others (they) in 1 Cor 15:29. A cult in Paul’s time in Greece, called Serinthians, baptized for the dead, but nobody ever said Christians were to.

 

Other points: If someone is worshipping the wrong god, has another Christ (2 Cor 11:4), and has a different salvation, then whether he is right or wrong on other issues does not really matter.

From Mormonism's Founder, Joseph Smith, Jr.

 

As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become

 

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form…like ourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man… He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on earth." History of the Church vol.6 p.305.

 

"In the beginning, the head of Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it…. In all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." History of the Church vol.6 p.308.374

 

"Here then is eternal life… to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you… To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of God." History of the Church vol.6 p.306.

 

Joseph Did Not Suffer from Low Self-Esteem

 

Imagine someone saying the following in your church. Would you continue to go to that church?

 

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I." History of the Church vol.6 p.408,409.

 

Joseph's Uncertainty(?) Over Christian Denominations

 

After Joseph Smith prayed to his god about which church denomination he should join, he wrote in 1820 the following in the Mormon Scripture Pearl of Great Price Joseph Smith 2:19: "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; and those professors were all corrupt."

 

However, his mother and brothers were still active members of the Presbyterian Church from 1820 to 1828, according to vol. 2 of The Sessions Records for the Western Presbyterian Church of Palmyra, New York)

 

Moreover, Joseph Smith, Jr. himself sought membership in the Methodist Church in 1828 where he was welcomed. The Amboy Journal 4/30/1879 and 6/11/1879, also History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, 1851 p.214

 

"We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense… and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." John Taylor in J. of D. v.6 p.167. 1/17/1858. Today Mormon missionaries tell people that they are Christians too. They can't have it both ways!

 

Joseph's Once Secret Marriage

 

Oliver Cowdery, one of the "three witnesses" of the Book of Mormon, in 1838 confronted Joseph Smith with adultery with Fanny Alger, lying and teaching false doctrines. (letter to brother Warren Cowdery, 1/21/1838)

 

The Mormon Historical Record, 1886 vol.5 p.233 now shows that Fanny Alger was Smith's first "spiritual wife".

 

Joseph Smith, Jr. in the Mormon scripture Doctrines and Covenants section 69, v.1 said that Oliver Cowdery was not trustworthy.

 

The Three and Five Witnesses

 

When a Mormon missionary shows people the Book of Mormon, he usually explains that the gold plates were taken back and no longer exist today. However, we know they really existed, because at the front of the Book of Mormon is the testimony of three witnesses, as well as a second testimony of five witnesses.

 

What they almost always fail to tell people is that five of these 8 witnesses later left the Mormon Church. Joseph Smith, Jr. called David Whitmer "an ass to bray out cursings instead of blessings".

 

Joseph Smith, Jr. said of Martin Harris, "so far beneath contempt that to notice him would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make. The Church exerted some restraint on him, but now he has given loose to all kinds of abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, and all kinds of debauchery."

God and Man

 

1. Can God do anything, or is there something that is impossible for God to do? Answer first, then check your answer by reading Heb 6:18.

 

2. Read Num 23:19. What is the context? Was Balaam was always an obedient prophet? Was what God spoke through him still true or not? See Num 23:26, 24:13.

 

 

3. Why do you think the "God is not a man" phrase is there? What is meant by "nor a son of man"?

5. Read 1 Sam 15:29. What is the context of in chapter 15?

 

 

6. Who is the glory of Israel? What does "for he is not a man" mean?

 

 

7. Read Hosea 11:9. What does this say about God being man in any way?

 

 

8. What do you think about the many verses (Acts 7:55, Ps 110:1, Heb 1:3, etc.) that speak of God's right hand. Do you think God has a right hand?

 

 

9. Psalm 90:4 talks of God covering us with his "pinions". Pinions are the breast feathers of a hen. Hens pluck some of their own breast feathers to make a warmer nest for their chicks. Why does Psalm 90:4 mention God and pinions?

 

 

10. How can you tell what is meant to be taken an expression vs. what is a physical attribute?

 

 

11. Believers are called Sons of God in Gal 3:26 and many other places. In the future, could there be any other true Gods or Creators? Read Isaiah 43:10

 

 

12. Yet, the Bible clearly says believers are heirs in Gal 4:7. What are we to be heirs of? Read Eph 2:6-7 and Rev 3:21 and determine whether we sit on our own thrones, or if we sit with Christ on His throne.

 

 

The Supreme Being vs. Lesser Gods

 

1. Today we can order a "supreme pizza", or "chicken supreme" or another supreme sandwich. Supreme is a word which is greatly trivialized today. What does the word supreme actually mean?

 

 

2. When you look up at the stars at night, do you think God made all of them, or just a few of them and other beings made other parts? Think about it first, then read Ps 19:1, Ps 8:3, Isaiah 44:24, and Isaiah 45:12.

 

 

3. Could God originally had a God above Him? Think about it first, and then read Isaiah 44:6, 8; 45:5, 6, 14.

 

 

4. What do you think is meant by the common phrase "Most High" or "Most High God" in Numbers 24:16, Psalm 7:10, and many others passages?

 

 

5. If 1 Tim 1:17 speaks of the Only God (NIV) or only wise God (KJV), what does that say about the wisdom in all the other gods? Is this the same message as Isaiah 41:22-24?

 

 

 

6. The times of the early church were times of struggle against Greco-Roman polytheism. One of Novatian's key points in his writing was that polytheists themselves often admit the god or goddess they are most devoted to is not the most high god. Novatian emphasized that the difference between the true God and the Greco-Roman idols is that the true God is Supreme. Do you think this argument would useful in talking to idolaters in India or Africa today?

 

 

God - Singular or Plural

 

1. A large number of verses say there is only One God. In addition to the verses looked at last time, other verses are: Deut 4:35-36; Deut 6:4; Mark 12:29-33; 2 Sam 7:22; James 2:19; Joel 2:27; Isaiah 46:9; John 5:6; 17:3; Ps 83:18; John 5:9, 1 Tim 1:17, 6:15-16. Do you see any ambiguity here?

 

2. Nevertheless, Paul speaks of a second god in 2 Cor 4:3-4. Who is this "god of this age"?

 

3. Do you think it is the same as the "Prince of this world" in John 12:31 and 14:30?

 

4. Is it the same one who is in control of this world in 1 John 5:19?

 

5. In 1 Cor 8:4-8 Paul speaks of many gods and lords that he knows of. Some could read this and say the Bible contradicts itself, because in other places it says there is only One God. Yet Paul says there is only One God in 1 Cor 8:4. So, not only does the bible contradict itself, Paul deliberately "contradicts" himself in the same sentence. Who are the many gods and lords in heaven and earth in 1 Cor 8:4-8?

 

6. For reference, other verses that speak of these same gods are Ps 86:8, 96:4-5, and 97:7.

 

 

7. So the Bible uses the word "God/god" in at least three different ways. These ways are:

 

A. Deut 6:4, Isaiah 40-44, Ps 91:1, etc.  

.

 

B. 2 Cor 4:3-4, John 12:31; 14:30, etc.

.

 

C. John 10:34-35, Ps 82:6-7

.

 

8. We cannot just worship any self-proclaimed god. Which of the three kinds are we to worship?

 

9. The word "God" is singular (see Gen 1:29, "I", etc.); nevertheless, in Gen 1:26 God says, "Let Us make man in our image." Likewise, Isaiah 6:8 has both "I" and "us" in the same verse. Since the "Us" does not refer to all the idols, and only One God made the heavens, earth, man, and everything in them by Isaiah 44:24, 45:12,14, how do explain this apparent problem?

 

10. What kind of image is meant in Gen 1:29? Does the Holy Spirit have a physical body? Did Jesus Christ have a physical body at that time. What could be meant by image?

Also see the material on the Trinity for more information.

 

ROMNEY IS FOR MORMON NOT FOR AMERICA AND NOT FOR YOU OR ME



THE HISTORY OF MORMONISM AND USING THIS KNOWLEDGE TO EVALUATE ROMNEY AS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. THIS IS WHAT MAKES HIM TICK. THIS TICK TOCK IS NOT FOR ME. I WILL NEVER CONVERT WHICH IS HIS MISSION

HE HAS NO MORAL COMPASS EXCEPT HIS MORMON BELIEF. HE WILL LIE, CHEAT, AND STEAL, TO BE PRESIDENT. HIS LIFE IS A COVER UP. WHAT OR WHO IS THE REAL MITT ROMNEY?

A DEACON OF THE MORMON CULT.

 

The history of the Mormons has shaped them into a people with a strong sense of unity and communality.[13] From the start, Mormons have tried to establish what they call Zion, a utopian society of the righteous.[14] Mormon history can be divided into three broad time periods: (1) the early history during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, (2) a "pioneer era" under the leadership of Brigham Young and his successors, and (3) a modern era beginning around the turn of the 20th century. In the first period, Smith had tried literally to build a city called Zion, in which converts could gather. During the pioneer era, Zion became a "landscape of villages" in Utah. In modern times, Zion is still an ideal, though Mormons gather together in their individual congregations rather than a central geographic location.[15]

Mormons trace their origins to the visions that Joseph Smith reported having in the early 1820s while living in upstate New York.[16] In 1823 Smith said an angel directed him to a buried book written on golden plates containing the religious history of an ancient people.[17] Smith published what he said was a translation of these plates in March 1830 as the Book of Mormon, named after Mormon, the ancient prophet-historian who compiled the book, and on April 6, 1830, Smith founded the Church of Christ.[18] The early church grew westward as Smith sent missionaries to preach the new gospel.[19] In 1831, the church moved to Kirtland, Ohio where missionaries had made a large number of converts[20] and Smith began establishing an outpost in Jackson County, Missouri,[21] where he planned to eventually build the city of Zion (or the New Jerusalem).[22] In 1833, Missouri settlers, alarmed by the rapid influx of Mormons, expelled them from Jackson County into the nearby Clay County, where local residents took them in.[23] After Smith led a mission, known as Zion's Camp, to recover the land,[24] he began building Kirtland Temple in Lake County, Ohio, where the church flourished.[25] When the Missouri Mormons were later asked to leave Clay County in 1836, they secured land in what would become Caldwell County.[26]

The Kirtland era ended in 1838, after the failure of a church-sponsored bank caused widespread defections,[27] and Smith regrouped with the remaining church in Far West, Missouri.[28] During the fall of 1838, tensions escalated into the 1838 Mormon War with the old Missouri settlers.[29] On October 27, the governor of Missouri ordered that that the Mormons "must be treated as enemies" and be exterminated or driven from the state.[30] Between November and April some eight thousand displaced Mormons migrated east into Illinois.[31]

In 1839, the Mormons converted a swampland on the banks of the Mississippi River into Nauvoo, Illinois[32] and began construction of the Nauvoo Temple. The city became the church's new headquarters and gathering place, and it grew rapidly, fueled in part by converts immigrating from Europe.[33] Meanwhile, Smith introduced temple ceremonies meant to seal families together for eternity, as well as the doctrines of eternal progression or exaltation,[34] and plural marriage.[35] Smith created a service organization for women called the Relief Society, as well as an organization called the Council of Fifty, representing a future theodemocratic "Kingdom of God" on the earth.[36] Smith also published the story of his First Vision, in which the Father and the Son appeared to him while he was about 14 years old.[37] Long after Smith's death, this vision would come to be regarded by some Mormons as the most important event in human history after the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.[38]

In 1844, local prejudices and political tensions, fueled by Mormon peculiarity and internal dissent, escalated into conflicts between Mormons and "anti-Mormons".[39] On June 27, 1844, Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were killed by a mob in Carthage, Illinois.[40] Because Hyrum was Joseph's logical successor,[41] their deaths caused a succession crisis,[42] and Brigham Young assumed leadership over the majority of Saints.[43] Young had been a close associate of Smith's and was senior apostle of the Quorum of the Twelve.[44] Smaller groups of Latter Day Saints followed other leaders to form other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement.[45]

Pioneer era

For two years after Smith's death, conflicts escalated between Mormons and other Illinois residents. To prevent war, Brigham Young led the Mormon pioneers (constituting most of the Latter Day Saints) to a temporary winter quarters in Nebraska and then eventually (beginning in 1847) to what became the Utah Territory.[46] Having failed to build Zion within the confines of American society, the Mormons began to construct a society in isolation, based on their beliefs and values.[47] The cooperative ethic that Mormons had developed over the last decade and a half became important as settlers branched out and colonized a large desert region now known as the Mormon Corridor.[48] Colonizing efforts were seen as religious duties, and the new villages were governed by the Mormon bishops (local lay religious leaders).[49] The Mormons viewed land as commonwealth, devising and maintaining a co-operative system of irrigation that allowed them to build a farming community in the desert.[50]

From 1849–52, the Mormons greatly expanded their missionary efforts, establishing several missions in Europe, Latin America, and the South Pacific.[51] Converts were expected to "gather" to Zion, and during Young's presidency (1847–77) over seventy thousand Mormon converts immigrated to America.[51] Many of the converts came from England and Scandinavia, and were quickly assimilated into the Mormon community.[52] Many of these immigrants crossed the Great Plains in wagons drawn by oxen, while some later groups pulled their possessions in small handcarts. During the 1860s newcomers began using the new railroad that was under construction.[53]

In 1852 church leaders publicized the previously secret practice of plural marriage, a form of polygamy.[54] Over the next 50 years many Mormons entered into plural marriages as a religious duty, with the number of plural marriages reaching a peak around 1860, and then declining through the rest of the century.[55] Besides the doctrinal reasons for plural marriage, the practice made some economic sense, as many of the plural wives were single women who arrived in Utah without brothers or fathers to offer them societal support.[56]

By 1857, tensions had again escalated between Mormons and other Americans, largely as a result of accusations involving polygamy and the theocratic rule of the Utah territory by Brigham Young.[57] In 1857 President James Buchanan sent an army to Utah, which Mormons interpreted as open aggression against them. Fearing a repeat of Missouri and Illinois, they prepared to defend themselves, determined to torch their own homes in the case that they were invaded.[58] The relatively peaceful Utah War ensued from 1857 to 1858, in which the most notable instance of violence was the Mountain Meadows massacre, when leaders of a local Mormon militia ordered the killing of a civilian emigrant party that was traveling through Utah during the escalating tensions.[59] In 1858 Young agreed to step down from his position as governor and was replaced by a non-Mormon, Alfred Cumming.[60] Nevertheless, the LDS Church still wielded significant political power in the Utah Territory.[61]

At Young's death in 1877, he was followed by other LDS Presidents, who resisted efforts by the United States Congress to outlaw Mormon polygamous marriages.[62] In 1878 the Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. United States that religious duty was not a suitable defense for practicing polygamy, and many Mormons went into hiding; later, Congress began seizing church assets.[62] In September 1890, church president Wilford Woodruff issued a Manifesto that officially suspended the practice of polygamy.[63] Although this Manifesto did not dissolve existing plural marriages, relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state. After the Manifesto, some Mormons continued to enter into polygamous marriages, but these eventually stopped in 1904 when church president Joseph F. Smith disavowed polygamy before 

Congress and issued a "Second Manifesto" calling for all plural marriages in the church to cease. Eventually, the church adopted a policy of excommunicating members found practicing polygamy, and today seeks actively to distance itself from "fundamentalist" groups that continue the practice.[64]

During the early 20th century, Mormons began to reintegrate into the American mainstream. In 1929 the Mormon Tabernacle Choir began broadcasting a weekly performance on national radio, becoming an asset for public relations.[65] Mormons emphasized patriotism and industry, rising in socioeconomic status from the bottom among American religious denominations to middle-class.[66] In the 1920s and 1930s Mormons began migrating out of Utah, a trend hurried by the Great Depression, as Mormons looked for work wherever they could find it.[67] As Mormons spread out, church leaders created programs that would help preserve the tight-knit community feel of Mormon culture.[68] In addition to weekly worship services, Mormons began participating in numerous programs such as Boy Scouting, a Young Women's organization, church-sponsored dances, ward basketball, camping trips, plays, and religious education programs for youth and college students.[69] During the Great Depression the church started a welfare program to meet the needs of poor members, which has since grown to include a humanitarian branch that provides relief to disaster victims.[70]

The 360-member, all-volunteer Mormon Tabernacle Choir

During the latter half of the century, there was a retrenchment movement in Mormonism in which Mormons became more conservative, attempting to regain their status as a "peculiar people".[71] Though the 1960s and 1970s brought positive changes such as Women's Liberation and the Civil Rights Movement, Mormon leaders were alarmed by the erosion of traditional values, the sexual revolution, the widespread use of recreational drugs, moral relativism, and other forces they saw as damaging to the family.[72] Partly to counter this, Mormons put an even greater emphasis on family life, religious education, and missionary work, becoming more conservative in the process. As a result, Mormons today are probably less integrated with mainstream society than they were in the early 1960s.[73]

Although black people have been members of Mormon congregations since Joseph Smith's time, before 1978, black membership was small. From 1852 to 1978, the LDS Church had a policy against ordaining men of African descent to the priesthood.[74] The church had previously been criticized for its policy during the civil rights movement, but the change came in 1978 and was prompted primarily by problems facing mixed race converts in Brazil.[75] Mormons greeted the change with joy and relief. Since 1978 black membership has grown, and in 1997 there were approximately 500,000 black members of the church (about 5% of the total membership), mostly in Africa, Brazil and the Caribbean.[76] Black membership has continued to grow substantially, especially in West Africa, where two temples have been built.[77] Many black Mormons are members of the Genesis Group, an organization of black members that predates the priesthood ban, and is endorsed by the church.[78]

Global distribution of LDS Church members in 2009

The LDS Church grew rapidly after World War II and became a world-wide organization as missionaries were sent across the globe. The church doubled in size every 15–20 years,[79] and by 1996, there were more Mormons outside the United States than inside.[80] In 2010 there were an estimated 14.1 million Mormons,[81] with roughly 57% living outside the United States.[82] Most Mormons are distributed in North and South America, the South Pacific, and Western Europe. The global distribution of Mormons resembles a contact diffusion model, radiating out from the organization's headquarters in Utah.[83] The church enforces general doctrinal uniformity, and congregations on all continents teach the same doctrines, and international Mormons tend to absorb a good deal of Mormon culture, possibly because of the church's top-down hierarchy and a missionary presence. However, international Mormons often bring pieces of their own heritage into the church, adapting church practices to local cultures.[84]

Isolation in Utah had allowed Mormons to create a culture of their own.[85] As the faith spread around the world, many of its more distinctive practices followed. Mormon converts are urged to undergo lifestyle changes, "repent of their sins," and adopt sometimes foreign standards of conduct.[85] Practices common to Mormons include studying the scriptures, praying daily, fasting on a regular basis, attending Sunday worship services, participating in church programs and activities on weekdays, and refraining from work on Sundays when possible. Mormons also emphasize standards they believe were taught by Jesus Christ, including personal honesty, integrity, obedience to law, chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.[86]

In 2010 Around 13–14% of Mormons lived in Utah: the center of cultural influence for Mormonism.[87] Utah Mormons (as well as Mormons living in the Intermountain West) are on average more culturally and/or politically conserv

conservative than those living in some cosmopolitan centers elsewhere in the U.S.[88] Utahns self-identifying as Mormon also attend church somewhat more on average than Mormons living in other states. (Nonetheless, whether they live in Utah or elsewhere in the U.S., Mormons tend to be more culturally and/or politically conservative than members of other U.S. religious groups.)[89] Utah Mormons often place a greater emphasis on pioneer heritage than international Mormons who generally are not descendants of the Mormon pioneers.[84]

Mormons have a strong sense of communality that stems from their doctrine and history.[90] LDS Church members have a responsibility to dedicate their time and talents to helping the poor and building the church. The church is divided by locality into congregations called wards with several wards making up a stake.[91] The vast majority of church leadership positions are lay positions, and church members may work 10–15 hours a week in unpaid church service.[92] Engaged Mormons also contribute 10 percent of their income to the church as tithing, and are often involved in humanitarian efforts. Many LDS young men choose to serve a two year proselytizing mission, during which they dedicate all of their time to the church, without pay.[93]

Mormons adhere to the Word of Wisdom, a health law or code that prohibits the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea, and encourages the use of wholesome herbs, grains, fruits, and a moderate consumption of meat.[94] The Word of Wisdom is interpreted to also prohibit other harmful and addictive substances and practices, such as the use of illegal drugs and abuse of prescription drugs.[95] Mormons also oppose addictive behavior such as viewing pornography and gambling.[86]

The concept of a united family that lives and progresses forever is at the core of Latter-day Saint doctrine, and Mormons place a high importance on family life.[96] Many Mormons hold weekly family home evenings, in which an evening is set aside for family bonding, study, prayer and other wholesome activities. Latter-day Saint fathers who hold the priesthood typically name and bless their children shortly after birth to formally give the child a name. Mormon parents hope and pray that their children will gain testimonies of the "gospel" so they can grow up and marry in temples.[97]

Mormons have a strict law of chastity, requiring abstention from sexual relations outside of marriage and strict fidelity within marriage. All sexual activity (heterosexual and homosexual) outside of marriage is considered a serious sin.[98] Same-sex marriages are not performed or supported by the LDS Church. Church members are encouraged to marry and have children, and Latter-day Saint families tend to be larger than average. Mormons are opposed to abortions, except in some exceptional circumstances, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, or when the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.[99] Practicing adult Mormons wear religious undergarments that remind them of sacred covenants and encourage them to dress modestly. Latter-day Saints are counseled not to partake of any form of media that is obscene or pornographic in any way, including media th

that depicts graphic representations of sex or violence. Tattoos and body piercings are also discouraged, with the exception of a single pair of earrings for LDS women.[100]

LGBT Mormons, or Mormons who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, remain in good standing in the church if they abstain from homosexual relations and obey the law of chastity.[101] While there are no official numbers, LDS Family Services estimates that there are on average four or five members per LDS ward who experience same-sex attraction.[102] Gary Watts, former president of Family Fellowship, estimates that only 10% of homosexuals stay in the church.[103] Many of these individuals have come forward through different support groups or websites stating their homosexual attractions and concurrent church membership.[104]

 

STUDENT LOANS CANNOT BE DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY. THE STUDENT ARE SCREWED. BLAME GRASSLEY FOR SPONSORING THE REFORM ACT OF 2005.

I just finished listening to a discussion on the radio about discharging student loans in bankruptcy, and it occurred to me that we could learn a lot from “The Middle Way” of Zen Buddhism in our approach to this issue.

“The Middle Way” is a term Siddhartha Guatama (hereafter “The Buddha”) used to describe the path to liberation.  In fact, he apparently taught this concept immediately after his “enlightenment” in The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma.  The idea of “The Middle Way” is that we should take a “path of moderation between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification.”  The Apostle Paul echoed this several centuries later by urging us to, “do all things in moderation.”  (Yes, I know I’m mixing religions here, but stay with me.)

But I’m not a Buddhist!

 No worries.  Neither am I.  But I think The Buddha had a point, and I think it’s something we can learn from here in America in the 21st century.

The pendulum in American politics swings wide from one extreme to the other, and how student loans have been treated in bankruptcy over the years illustrates this point.

The 70s…

In the 70s, we had what I call the “peace, love, and rock-n-roll” approach.  Student loans were freely dischargeable. Rock on!

The 80s…

In the 80s, student loans were dischargeable in Chapter 13, payment plan bankruptcies, or if they were more than 5 years old in Chapter 7 bankruptcies.

The 90s…

In the 1990s discharge in Chapter 13 was eliminated, and loans could only be discharged if the the 7-year requirement was met (it went from 5 to 7 years in 1990), or the debtor could demonstrate “undue hardship.”  (Spoiler alert: Undue hardship means, among other things, that you’re (very, very) disabled and will remain so for the rest of your life…and you can prove both of those things.  It has nothing to do with not having money for food, clothing, or the fact that you’re living in a van down by the river.)

1998 to 2005…

From 1998 to 2005, the only way to discharge student loans was to prove undue hardship.  (See “Student Loans: The Worst Kind of Debt (Part Three)).”  However, and this is a big however,private student loans were still dischargeable.

2005 to today… (Take me down to Crazy Town!)

In 2005, Congress passed our current Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as BAPCPA.  (Spoiler alert: There is nothing in this piece of legislation protecting consumers.) The 2005 Code made even private student loans essentially non-dischargeable and subject to the “undue hardship” (you’re very, very disabled) standard.

In 2005 it became easier to discharge federal and state income tax debt than PRIVATE student loan debt

Think of that for a moment.  Congress (part of the federal government) actually made it easier to discharge debt owed to the IRS (also part of the federal government) than debt owed to privatestudent loan companies (not part of the federal government, but having really good lobbyists).

What this means is that the IRS needs a freakin’ lobbyist!  And…

It also means that we’ve officially arrived at Crazy Town.  The Middle Way of the 80s and 90s has been abandoned, and if you owe student loans–especially to private lenders–well, you’re screwed.  No matter how much you owe, no matter how you’ll never be able to pay it back, no matter how unemployed you are, you’re screwed.

My favorite example of this, and it’s a recent one, is In re Wallace, a decision out of the Southern District of Ohio.  The bankruptcy judge described Wallace–because if I describe him, you’ll think I made this up–as follows:

After receiving his college degree, Wallace began to work as a manager of information technology at Kelly Services in 2005. He held that position for approximately one year, earning $12,261, but left after developing vision problems as a result of his diabetes. Also, as a result of the diabetes, Wallace underwent dialysis and multiple surgeries from 2005 to 2006. He developed kidney disease and, in April 2008, received pancreas and kidney transplants. Now 31 years old, Wallace is considered legally blind, with a prosthetic implant in his right eye socket and apparently uncorrectable 20/400 vision in his left eye. Whatever vision Wallace has is extremely limited. During his testimony, Wallace attempted to read written materials presented to him. Even while holding the materials near his face, he was unable to make out words written in typeface and was able to read only certain words that he or a family member had written using large handwriting. Because of his visual impairment, Wallace will never again be able to qualify for a driver’s license. Sometime in 2006, the Social Security Administration determined that Wallace was permanently disabled due to his blindness. [emphasis added].

Still, the Court ruled that Wallace failed a prong of the infamous Brunner test.  Wallace, the judge said, didn’t meet the undue hardship test!  The judge did agree to hold off issuing a ruling for two years to see how the blind diabetic with kidney and pancreas problems might fair job-wise.  Who knows, maybe he’ll regain his sight.  Anything’s possible, right?  In Crazy Town, it sure is.  And anyone with a shred of common sense yearns for a time when the Middle Way was the law.

 

PULITZER PRIZES AWARDED TO WRITINGS ABOUT TRASH INSTITUTIONS

Journalists on my Twitter feed are already buzzing about the announcement of this year’s Pulitzer Prize awards. This year’s crop actually represents a fair mirror for our failed institutions.

Sara Ganim and the Harrisburg Patriot-News won in the local reporting category for their stories on Jerry Sandusky and the sex abuse scandal at Penn State. Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eileen Sullivan and Chris Hawley of the Associated Press won in Investigative Reporting for their continued coverage of the NYPD spying on the Muslim-American community in New York. David Kocieniewski of the New York Times won for his consistent coverage of how corporations and the wealthy evaded taxes by exploiting loopholes. The Huffington Post won what I believe is their first-ever Pulitzer (I could be wrong), with David S. Wood winning for National Reporting on the physical and emotional toll to American soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And absolutely nobody won for Editorial Writing, in itself a commentary on a decade of wankerism.

I think the common thread here is the failure of institutions. Whether it’s the depravity at the heart of a lauded football program at a major university, the trashing of civil liberties by a respected police department, the consequences of unnecessary imperial adventures abroad, a government of, by and for the 1%, or the decay of the modern media (I would add the win for HuffPo and Eli Sanders winning for his work in the Seattle alt-weekly The Stranger to this), what the Pulitzers are reflecting is the grasping state of late empire, with all its flawed exposed for the world to see. The best work of the country comes from exposing the worst of the country. And that target becomes easier and easier to hit with each passing year.

 

A LAWYER'S ARGUMENT FOR REVISITING MARBURY V MADISON

Every law student learns in his first class on American Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court case styled "Marbury v. Madison", penned the then Chief Justice John Marshal. There is no express provision in the Consitution that a Court, even the Supreme Court had the power to review and Act of Congress on constitutional grounds. Disregarding the lack of a writing Chief Justice, created out of whole cloth the principle of "Judicial Review" empowering the Supreme Court to review an Act of Congress to determine whether the Act of Congress exceeded its authority under the separation of powers principles of our three branch national government. It was audacious for Chief Justice Marshal to state that the Supreme Court possessed such a power. We lawyers always assumed that such a power existed since the Supreme Court had been reviewing acts of Congress as either constitutional or unconstitutional instead of just ironing out the differences between the litigants based on "INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW" as jsxtaposed to constitutionality. Andrew Jackson fiercly opposed such a concept.

HAS THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDGE MADE LAW OF JUDICIAL REVIEW TRAVELLED TOO FAR THAT THE COURT SHOULD REVISIT ITS CONCEPT.

For anyone who still thought legal conservatives are dedicated to judicial restraint, the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the health care case should put that idea to rest. There has been no court less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices.

This should not be surprising. Republican administrations, spurred by conservative interest groups since the 1980s, handpicked each of the conservative justices to reshape or strike down law that fails to reflect conservative political ideology.

When Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy were selected by the Reagan administration, the goal was to choose judges who would be eager to undo liberal precedents. By the time John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito Jr. were selected in the second Bush administration, judicial “restraint” was no longer an aim among conservatives. They were chosen because their professional records showed that they would advance a political ideology that limits government and promotes market freedoms, with less regard to the general welfare.

There is an enormous distinction to be made between the approaches of the Roberts court and the Warren court, which conservatives have long railed against for being an activist court. For one thing, Republican-appointed justices who led that court, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan Jr., were not selected to effect constitutional change as part of their own political agenda.

During an era of major social tumult, when the public’s attitudes about racial equality, fairness in the workings of democracy and the dignity of the individual proved incompatible with old precedents, those centrists led the court to take new positions in carrying out democratic principles. Yet they were extremely mindful of the need to maintain the court’s legitimacy, and sought unanimity in major rulings. Cooper v. Aaron, the 1958 landmark case that said states are bound by Supreme Court rulings, was unanimous. So was Katzenbach v. McClung, the 1964 case upholding the constitutionality of parts of the Civil Rights Act under the commerce clause.

The four moderates on the court have a leftish bent, but they see their role as stewards of the law, balancing the responsibility to enforce the Constitution through judicial review against the duty to show deference to the will of the political branches. In that respect, they and the conservatives seem to be following entirely different rules.

That difference is playing out in the health care case. Established precedents support broad authority for Congress to regulate national commerce, and the health care market is unquestionably national in scope. Yet to Justice Kennedy the mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance represents “a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act, to go into commerce.” To Justice Stephen Breyer, it’s clear that “if there are substantial effects on interstate commerce, Congress can act.”

Likewise, Justice Scalia’s willingness to delve into health care politics seems utterly alien to his moderate colleagues. On the question of what would happen if the mandate were struck down, Justice Scalia launched into a senatorial vote count: “You can’t repeal the rest of the act because you’re not going to get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the rest.” Justice Breyer, by contrast, said firmly: “I would stay out of politics. That’s for Congress; not us.”

If the conservatives decide that they can sidestep the Constitution to negate Congress’s choices on crucial national policies, the court’s legitimacy — and the millions of Americans who don’t have insurance — will pay a very heavy price. Chief Justice Roberts has the opportunity to avoid this disastrous outcome by forging even a narrow ruling to uphold the mandate and the rest of the law. A split court striking down the act will be declaring itself virtually unfettered by the law. And if that happens along party lines, with five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court is full of itself and wields too much power beyond all bounderies contemplated by our founders. A limit must be imposed but by whom. Constitutional Amendment? What is it in the Constution that the Court does not understand. Nothing. They have usurped power and we wimps have let them. Gore never should have paid attention to a wacky political court selling the Presidency to Bush. We Americans have paid a stiff price for that overreach.

Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.

 

WHY PRINCIPAL IS NOT BEING WRITTEN DOWN FOR HOMEOWNERS

  The Federal Housing Finance Agency is the current, and hand-picked, regulator for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The acting director of FHFA says that he takes his duties seriously.  His duties are above all to safeguard the risks imposed on the Taxpayer and the money the Taxpayer will have to pay.

 

          Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both put into conservatorship as a result of the Mortgage Fiasco, of course.  Neither had the money to pay the bills, i.e., the Mortgages they assumed, once the bills came due.

 

          There have been calls for Fannie and Freddie to write down the principal amount of the first Mortgages which they assumed.  The publicly stated theory behind such calls is that Homeowners-Mortgagors will find it easier to pay reduced first Mortgages.

 

          This ignores a fact that the FHFA acting director cannot ignore, however.  Writing down the principal on first Mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie without a corresponding write-down of the principal on second Mortgages would increase the likelihood that the second Mortgages would remain completely in effect and would be paid, or the Homeowners would suffer the consequences of Foreclosure once the first Mortgages, now held by Fannie and Freddie, no longer exist once a reduced write-down amount is paid.

 

          There is a victim, if you will, if Fannie or Freddie write down the principal amount due on first Mortgages even as the Homeowners would be given apparent relief on the face of it: Federal Taxpayers are the people due the principal amount which is being written down.  If the principal is in fact written down, the Taxpayers recover less whenever any Mortgage now held by Fannie or Freddie is reduced.

 

          Further, the second Mortgagors are investment Banks. They already got their bailout, as we all know.

 

          Reducing the amount owed on first Mortgages held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, without a corresponding write-down of the principal on second Mortgages held by the Banks, would mean nothing less than a second bailout of the Banks.

 

          Much of this is laid out in an easy-to-understand article byGretchen Morgenson, "Fair Game / A Bailout by Another Name" p.1 col. 6 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "SundayBusiness" Section, Sunday, March 25, 2012).  As Ms. Morgenson wrote at the conclusion of her article:

 

So the next time you hear someone advocating vast principal reductions on Fannie and Freddie loans, remind them that it would be another stealth bank bailout, courtesy of taxpayers.  Banks' unwillingness to share the pain has been a central feature of this crisis.  It's time to put an end to this dysfunctional dynamic.

 

 

INDIA IN ONE, TWO, OR THREE WEEKS. BY TOUR OR INDEPENDENT TRAVEL. PHOTOS ON MY WALL

INDIA IN ONE, TWO, OR THREE WEEKS. BY TOUR OR INDEPENDENT TRAVEL. PHOTOS ON MY WALL

by Martin S Friedlander on Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 1:11pm ·

 

PublicFriendsFriends except AcquaintancesOnly MeCustomAcquaintancesStuyvesant High SchoolSee all lists...WELCOMEWelcome to my class on EgWELCOME TO MY LIBERAL CREgut nachtClose FriendsSole PractitionerCCNYNYSE EuronextHerzfeld & RublinUnited States Army ReserveNorthwestern University School of LawLos Angeles AreaFamilyGo Back

India in One, Two or Three Weeks

 

Car Culture/Corbis

Amber Fort, a hilltop redoubt outside Jaipur best reached by elephant back, is notable for interiors that feature the latest technological innovations of earlier ages and views of the Aravalli range. More Photos »

By GUY TREBAY

Published: March 23, 2012 

 

MY PERSONAL COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS

 

THE connection between travel and a Coco Chanel dictum may not be that obvious. The French designer once purportedly said that a woman should stop before leaving the house, gaze in the mirror and then remove one piece of jewelry. The operative principle was to simplify.

Multimedia

Slide Show

In India, Palaces, Markets and History

 

In travel it is seldom acknowledged how routinely people pile on excess. And while this may not hold true on cruises or Club Med, where the biggest daily challenge is finding the proper level of SPF, among independenttravelers the tendency is to take on countries, regions, continents, galaxies.

INDEPENDENT TRAVEL IS THE WAY TO GO. MEET INDIA AND ITS PEOPLE WITHOUT OTHER AMERICANS, USUALLY OLD, TIMID, UNKNOWLEDGEABLE IN TOW.

From the placid vantage of a laptop, the world looks manageable. In real time, the degree of travel difficulty unfolds in agonizing increments. Did I really think I could fit all that into a week? I did.

IMPOSSIBLE. ONE OF THE LARGEST AND DIVERSE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WITH A FANTASTIC HISTORY OF DISCOVERY, ART, MATHAMATICS, SCIENCE, RELIGIONS, AND STRANGE PRACTICES IN THE WORLD. OUR FIRST TRIP IN 1983 WAS FOR TWO WEEKS, AND WE FIT IN NEPAL AND KASHMIR ON A HOUSEBOAT ON LAKE DAL.

OUR SECOND TRIP WAS FOR THREE WEEKS AND WE TRAVELED FROM DEHLI IN THE NORTH TO GOA IN THE SOUTH BY CAR AND AIRPLANE, WITH MANY STOPS ALONG THE WAY. THE MOGHULS DID NOT CONQUER SOUTH INDIA, BUT THE PORTUGESE SAILORS LIKE VASCO DE GAMA. FOUNDED AND COLONIZED GOA. CLIVE, ON LICENSE BY THE BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY STARTED HIS CONQUEST IN MADRAS ALL THE WAY TO CALCUTTA.

Across almost three decades of travel I’ve often noted the general custom; I’ve inflicted it on myself. And it occurs to me that in few other places are Chanel’s words of advice better applied than India, a country my passports inform me I have visited more than 20 times. Assuming, perhaps, that the first trip to that compelling and bewildering country will be their only one, friends cram itineraries full to the point where misery is a guarantee. Thus my advice to pals heading to South Asia is to appraise the itinerary with a ruthless eye and then, long before heading to the airport, strike something off.

First-timers to India tend to be guided unvaryingly (and sensibly) around the so-called Golden Triangle (Delhi/Agra/Jaipur). This route, straightforward enough on paper, requires some discernment to get right. A policy of less is more is always sensible in India, in order to limit the shock the place inevitably delivers to an average Westerner’s system. MY WIFE ALWAYS FITS TOO MUCH IN AN ITINERARY.

A question often posed is whether a week is enough time to cover the birthplace of three great faiths — Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. The answer, reasonably, is no. But travelers are not reasonable people, and it is distinctly possible to absorb the essence of India in CliffsNotes form.

The One-Week Trip

It is useful to start in the capital. A city created, like great geological formations, of time-sculptured and overlapping strata, Delhi is seven cities at least and almost as many civilizations collapsed, accreted and jumbled into one.

Despite its shambolic beginnings and ambient tumult, Delhi is a pleasing city to visit, in part because it retains swaths of forest greenbelt — its broad avenues, its traffic roundabouts and other useful systems bequeathed by the imperial nannies of the British Raj. Compared with the horn-honking frenzy of industrial tech centers elsewhere in the country, Delhi remains notably civilized. It is, as is often noted, Washington, D.C., to Mumbai’s New York. 

START IN DELHI

A week in India, I tell friends, axiomatically begins with two days in the capital (for simplicity’s sake I am referring to time spent in-country; nearly a full day is lost traveling to India from the East Coast of the United States). And, if budget permits, I advise them to book into one of the city’s fine, though pricey top-tier hotels. There is a reason for this. Delhi is ever sprawling, and the premium you pay at hotels like the Taj Mahal or the Oberoi for a central location and for “amenities” like potable tap water (even ice is safe in such places these days), knowledgeable concierges, well-trained staff and, yes, consistent electrical service is repaid a thousandfold by reduced time in traffic and a placid digestive tract.

Because I believe that denial is the only plausible treatment for jet lag, after the usual 1 a.m. arrival and witching-hour check-in, I tend to sleep what few hours remain before dawn, setting the alarm for breakfast so that I can launch myself into the first day.

Some intrepid types navigate the city on the newly extended and, from all accounts, efficient Metro. In the interest of time-saving, I just flag down a cab at the hotel taxi rank. In most Indian cities the beloved Hindustan Ambassador taxi, its buglike design little altered since 1958, has begun to vanish, replaced by more modern vehicles. In Delhi, though, the Ambassador remains a reassuringly constant presence. No less comforting is the off-meter flat rate many drivers remain willing to accept. While this rate is subject to change at any time, in my experience it has held surprisingly steady for more than a decade: 1,000 rupees (or about $21 at current exchange rates) hires a car for 50 miles or eight hours.

While every guidebook instructs visitors to start out by seeing the lanes of Old Delhi, the Mughal sites like the Red Fort and the colossal mosque known as Jama Masjid, I gave up on the noise and crowds and filth of Old Delhi long ago. I advise friends to save their awe instead for the next phase of the journey, for Agra and the Taj Mahal, for Emperor Akbar’s little-visited tomb at nearby Sikandra, and for Fatehpur Sikri, the evanescent red sandstone city that lies about 20 miles down the road from the great and, in my impious view, overrated shrine to love.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Back in the capital on one’s first day in the country, I recommend bypassing the old city to have a driver convey one instead in early morning to Rashtrapati Bhavan, now the presidential residence, though built for the British viceroy and thus a cornerstone of Sir Edwin Lutyens’s New Delhi and symbolic centerpiece of the British Raj. Heightened security has made it difficult to experience this complex of government buildings except at some distance or through gates. So I tend to have the car park on a side road while I stroll the broad Rajpath, which leads downhill from Raisina Hill to India Gate.

Few remnants of the colonial presence in India survive as nearly intact as does Rashtrapati Bhavan; fewer still evince comparable architectural modesty — a notable feature for an array of buildings designed to express imperial might.

This may be the place to note the presence of animals in urban Indian settings, the cows that still turn up on New Delhi medians despite laws that ban their presence; the white stallions trotting through traffic on the way to a wedding ceremony; the goat flocks being herded along the four-lane blacktop in Tamil Nadu. At Rashtrapati Bhavan, the wildlife takes the form of impertinent monkeys that fling themselves across the facades of the red sandstone pavilions, tails looping from domed chhatris, prehensile thumbs hitched on to crevices of pierced-sandstone jali screens as they nonchalantly delouse themselves.

From Raisina Hill and the presidential residence, I typically have my taxi drive on to the National Museum, whose survey collection provides a fine grounding for visitors in need of a playbook to India’s cultural and religious multiplicities. After this, I have a late lunch at one of several downtown outposts of a restaurant called Nathu’s Sweets, a Delhi institution noted for its Bengali home-cooking and unctuous desserts.

The Nathu’s branch I frequent occupies a corner of the antiques enclave called Sunder Nagar Market, and thus is convenient for a leisurely afternoon tour through the Aladdin’s-cave-like emporiums there, places like Ladakh Art Gallery or Bharany’s, a shop whose presiding, though occasionally absent spirit is C. L. Bharany, a wizened ancient with a sharp sense of business and an expansive philosophy of life.

That’s plenty for one day, especially on little sleep: head back to your hotel, I tell friends. Order a club sandwich and watermelon juice and sack out.

On Day 2, I tend to set out early for South Delhi and for the austere and distinctly phallic minaret at Qutb Minar, or else spend time at the seldom-visited Sikh Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, or at an obscure ruins near the woodlands of Mehrauli known as Jamali Kamali Masjid.

Few locals even know of this mosque complex named for a Sufi saint interred beside his male lover. I’d never heard of it before being taken there by Bim Bissell, the irrepressible matriarch of the family behind the Indian handicrafts emporium chain Fabindia.

On our visit, Bim mentioned to me offhandedly that when her children were young, the family customarily packed food for al fresco meals at Jamali Kamali. It seemed somehow characteristic of both Bim and her city that it was a natural thing to picnic with your children at a tomb.

After my morning outings, I tend to make my way to Basil and Thymefor lunch. This simple and surprisingly inexpensive cafe is in a bungalow in Santushti Shopping Complex, itself set behind the walls of New Wellington Camp, Air Force Station, a shopping complex much favored by Delhi’s retail-mad leisure class.

Here, the chef, Bhicoo J. Manekshaw — now closing in on 90 and retired from the stove — continues to devise menus offering fresh, unfussy fare best categorized under the rubric of what was once called “butler food” in India. Over lunch of cold-poached salmon or roast chicken with black mushroom stuffing, washed down with fresh lime soda, it is easy to forget that outside Santushti’s gated walls is a tumultuous city of 14 million and that one is not just passing time before catching the 5:05 to Cos Cob.

After lunch I poke around at Santushti, stopping in at Anokhi to see the new offerings produced by this Jaipur-based company specializing in hand-block printed fabrics, and at Tulsi, the small shop run by the designer Neeru Kumar. From there I move on by taxi to Baba Kharak Singh Marg, an avenue that juts like a radial spoke from the central roundabout of Connaught Circus.

Baba Kharak Singh Marg is among the last remaining streets in India where it is possible to find an array of government-sponsored emporiums, places that, in a drowsy and state-subsidized way, promote the specialist crafts that are fast disappearing from the Indian scene. From Andhra Pradesh comes iron and silver filigree work called Bidriware; from Orissa, paintings on palm fiber; from Rajasthan, white-on-white patchwork appliqué; from Assam, the naturally golden silk called muga; from Kashmir, the lacquerware that is pretty inescapable in India or, for that matter, at ABC Carpet & Home.

If fatigue threatens, this experience can be condensed by stopping in atKamala, a well curated omnibus crafts shop run by the Crafts Council of India, at the end of the state shop parade.

(Of course, if one happens to be in Delhi on a weekend, it is worth ditching the country club lunch at Santushti to splash out on the buffet at the Threesixty restaurant in the Oberoi hotel. The most steroidal bar mitzvah feast has nothing on the Oberoi’s buffet, a prime example of the notion that in India too much is hardly ever enough — although, of course, for much of the population too little is a grim and permanent condition.)

Fortified by lunch, and as a preparation for the journey to Agra, I urge friends to head straight for Humayun’s Tomb. For decades this monument was a travesty — its fountains and watercourses barren, its lawns moth-eaten, its ancient palisades in peril of imminent collapse. Wasps had built vast bulbous nests in the pointed Mughal archways; shanty dwellers had built their own improvised nests in crevices of the monument walls.

Though evocative in decay, Humayun’s Tomb is no less so today, restored with funds from the Aga Khan Trust for Culture, and in all of Delhi or even of India, there can be few places lovelier than Humayun’s Tomb at sunset, when the waning light of day outlines the tiled dome and eagles hang in the thermals above the nearby Yamuna River.

ON TO THE TAJ MAHAL

From Delhi, I typically hire a car and driver through the hotel travel desk and head to Agra. And while I would prefer not to spend a night in this shamefully polluted city, this is the only proper way to visit the Taj Mahal.

What I mean is that the Taj Mahal seen in the glaring sun of an Indian midday, as happens when you reach it after arriving from Delhi, can seem as ghostly blank as an overexposed photo. Seen at dusk or dawn, however, the structure’s marmoreal surface magically absorbs and reflects the ambient colors of sky and clouds and even a hint of the orangy pollution belched out by nearby industries.

Upon arrival at Agra on one’s third day in India and having risen to see the great monument near dawn, it is usual to press on to Jaipur on a route that takes you first to Fatehpur Sikri, among the most evocative ruins in India.

Unlike the Taj Mahal, which impresses but rarely moves me, this city abandoned in the 16th century is a deeply atmospheric place, rising as it does from farm fields in the middle of seemingly nowhere. A complex of meeting halls, women’s quarters, courtyard gardens and stables for elephants, Fatehpur Sikri was occupied for a mere 14 years before a shortage of water forced its abandonment. Like all lost cities, it is a screen onto which one is free to project any narrative of your choosing. It is a poetic place, as even the wild parrots scribbling their vivid green arabesques above the old minarets seem to know.

From there I continue on to Jaipur, the fabled Pink City, which is, by Indian standards, not that old (17th century) and by any reasonable estimate, not so roseate, either. Still, Jaipur must be seen for at least three reasons: the City Palace; a hilltop redoubt outside town called Amber (pronounced Amer) Fort; and Gem Palace, which is not a palace at all.

Even an hourlong tour of City Palace, a multistory ancestral home of the high-living Anglophile Maharajahs of Jaipur, provides a tantalizing peek into the voluptuary lives of the acquisitive royals, who collected miniatures by the yard, silver by the ton, carpets seemingly by the mile.

At Amber Fort, the ruling Kachhawa clan lived and ruled from a hilltop redoubt of red sandstone and white marble, where the fused influences of Hindu and Muslim architecture are only part of the pleasure of place. The fort is best reached on elephant back (a bit of tourist hokum that is well worth it) and is notable both for interiors that feature the latest technological innovations of earlier ages — cascading water running down marble ramps provided an early form of air-conditioning — and views of the barren Aravalli range.

It makes sense to save Gem Palace for last because it is the sort of place that yields up its secrets slowly. Chambers filled with cases of jewels and silver lead into each other, and serious shoppers will often find a member of the Kasliwal family — which has run the place for generations — beckoning them into a back room for glimpses of treasures not kept on public view.

Gem Palace is one of those purveyors passed around like a secret among cognoscenti, though realistically it’s not much of a secret. Eventually everyone from the philanthropist Anne Bass to Giorgio Armani to Aunt Tillie has wandered in at some point. The greater challenge is getting out without losing your shirt.

That then is the one-week plan. You might return to New Delhi and fly home, or else stay on and — doubling the available time — use this same basic format for an itinerary easily expanded to encompass places a bit farther afield. The following itineraries can be managed in chunks of two to three days and accordingly the first stop after Jaipur is Jodhpur, my favorite among the cities of Rajasthan.

Two Weeks is Better

DIVE INTO RAJASTHAN

Jodhpur, like the other cities noted below, can probably be adequately enjoyed in two days (OUR PLAN) and is an easy hop by plane from Jaipur via Delhi or Mumbai and an easy place, as well, in which to find hotels at every price. I have tested them all, from the funky stucco pavilions of Ajit Bhawanto the businesslike Hari Mahal. There is, though, only one ideal place to lay one’s head in this desert outpost, and that is the Indo-Saracenic pile called Umaid Bhawan Palace.

MY WIFE ALWAYS BOOKS THE BEST AND EXPENSIVE. I TOLD HER. NEVER BOOK WITH MEALS INCLUSIVE. MY SYSTEM CANNOT TOLERATE THE FOOD, EXCEPT FOR CHINESE AND I HAD INTESTINAL PROBLEMS ON THE FIRST TWO TRIPS LIKE NONE THAT I HAD EVER EXPERIENCED. AMERICAN DOCTORS DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ON TREATMENT SO THEY PRESCRIBE CIPRO, AN ANTI BIOTIC. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, SEEK TREATMENT FROM A GOOD DOCTOR IN INDIA. THEY ARE WELL EDUCATED AND TRAINED AND ARE VERY EXPERIENCED IN TREATING THESE INTESTINAL DISORDERS. REMEMBER, YOU LOSE ELECTROLYTES SO MAKE SURE YOU DRINK LOTS OF BOTTLED WATER WITH SALTS OF EVERY DESCRIPTION OR YOU WILL BE IN BIG TROUBLE. DURING THE DAY BY CAR I SURVIVE ON BANANAS, COCONUT MILK, CONSOMME AND RICE. NO VEGETABLES, MEAT OR FISH. STRICT HINDUS ARE VEGANS.

Last of the mega-palaces built over a century-long building spree by Indian maharajahs, Umaid Bhawan is sometimes likened to a Victorian railway station and invariably said to have been built as a charitable work-relief program for a region beset by a prolonged and killing drought. Believe what you like, the place can be reliably said to belong to its resident owner, the Oxford-educated Gaj Singh II, 64, the Maharajah of Jodhpur, who inherited the immense pile at age 4.

A vast and haunting palace, replete with Bohemian chandeliers, gilt tête-à-têtes and taxidermied trophies bagged during ancient shikars, Umaid Bhawan sits atop a low hill and overlooks another of Gaj Singh’s properties, the great citadel of Mehrangarh Fort.

Umaid Bhawan is now operated in partnership with Taj Hotels Resorts & Palaces, and it must be said that a certain amount of its quiddity was lost in hotel-chain translation. Still, the palace retains its time-stopped aura and, perhaps alone among the great Rajasthan palaces, easily conjures an era when palace ladies led segregated, gossipy lives in the secluded zenana, when the gallants of the legendary Jodhpur polo teams played fierce chukkers and returned to drink stiff whiskies in a bar where, to this day, a stuffed black bear stands upright with a drinks tray balanced in its paws.

A visit to Jodhpur logically starts with a trip to the hilltop citadel ofMehrangarh Fort, where, up a series of ramps and past the studded elephant gates is a historical fortress museum almost without parallel in India.

Gaj Singh II was an early adopter of Western-style curatorial practices, a welcome anomaly in a country so stuffed with antiquities that treasures are often carelessly left by their owners to be devoured by white ants or to rot in the dust. The Mehrangarh collection includes silver elephant howdahs, Jodhpur school miniatures, arms and armor, and textiles. The fort itself, though massive, stupendous and ominous when seen from afar, is surprisingly intimate and homey within: a series of mirrored chambers of pleasure and rest.

From the sinuous ramparts of Mehrangarh there are fine, expansive views of the surrounding Thar Desert and — barnacled to the flanks of the fortress — the traditional houses of the city’s Brahmins, all painted Krishna blue.

TAKE A DRIVE TO UDAIPUR UDAIPUR IS FANTASTIC. WE STAY AT THE LAKE PALACE ON AN ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE. OUR LAUNDRY WAS DONE THE OLD FASHIONED WAY. BY HAND, SCRUBBING ON THE ROCKS BY THE LAKE, AND SUN DRIED LIKE RAISINS. DONT HAVE YOUR GOOD CLOTHES WASHED THIS WAY. RUINED, BUT THEN YOU WILL FIT IN WITH THE LOCALS.

From Jodhpur I go on to Udaipur, again booking a driver and car (DONT DRIVE YOURSELF. ON THE LEFT, AVOIDING WANDERING ANIMALS AND PEOPLE AND LOTS OF POOP )for aroad trip that Google Maps pegs at precisely five hours and 20 minutes. At a guess, the geniuses at Google Maps have never actually seen an Indian road. I myself find a useful rule of thumb when in India to double the estimated road time and average things out.

Winding slowly uphill through sere desert and a region inhabited by a pacifist tribe called the Bhils, the drive from Jodhpur eventually crests the Aravallis before descending into a startlingly verdant landscape of cultivated fields.

Only by traveling overland are you able to visit the Jain Adinatha Temple at Ranakpur, an ineffable monument of marble whose hall contains either hundreds or thousands of intricately carved columns, depending upon whom you ask. It is an austere place, one whose ecstatic carvings create an atmosphere of quietly humming spiritual intensity, something like a fission lab for souls. (NEVER BEEN HERE)

A fine (and, essentially, the only) stopping-off point at Ranakpur isMaharani Bagh Orchard Retreat, a former country house still in the family of the Maharajah of Jodhpur. Set amid gardens and fruit groves, the hotel is right off a main artery where, come evening, one can watch the traffic of barefoot pilgrims heading toward the temple as red-turbaned Rabari tribesmen head the opposite way with their herds of sheep or goats.

The end point of this particular road trip is Udaipur, a lovely though to my mind essentially dull spot whose chief points of interest are the finely conserved City Palace of Maharana Udai Singh II, the renowned Taj Lake Palace hotel and the ritzy Oberoi Udaivilas overlooking Lake Pichola from shoreside just outside of town. Udaipur is a great place to unwind, though. For those lucky enough to put up at Lake Palace, there is a ready excuse for enforced idleness, since the only way to reach the hotel or leave it is by boat.

Three Weeks, Divine

HEAD TO THE DESERT

For more leisured travelers, and bucket list types, I advise a longer journey, one that heads from Udaipur, by road, for the majestic destination of Jaisalmer, a desert city that is among the oldest of Rajasthan’s fortress citadels, a once sleepy place whose tourist potential has been exploited as ruthlessly as its conservation has been sadly allowed to decline.

Conservation groups are actively working to preserve this fragile monument, where ancient havelis, or merchants’ houses, with lacelike screen walls of wood or stone crowd narrow lanes. Their main task is to keep the fortress walls from outright collapse. In doing so, however, they hope to preserve the ineffable stillness of this golden walled island surrounded by the sand sea that is the Thar Desert, historically known as the Land of Death.

One can easily spend two days or more wandering the narrow lanes, where buildings crowd in on one another (and where pedestrians used to have to yield to cows). Time has a funny way of seeming to stretch infinitely before one in Jaisalmer, during days spent visiting the jewel-box Jain temples dedicated to Rishabhdevji, Sambhavanathji and Ashtapadi, idling on rooftop cafes drinking lassi or scanning the desert from the fortress walls.

STUMBLE INTO AN OASIS

And when you have had enough of that, you can move on to other and even more obscure desert cities, my favorite among them being the rough-and-tumble city of Nagaur, home to a fine citadel

complex known as Ahhichatragarh-Nagaur Fort.

A 200-mile overland journey from Jaisalmer, Nagaur is a challenge to take up only after getting your travel legs in India. The drive is rough and dusty, and when years ago a woman friend and I first fetched up there, dust caked our clothes and filled every uncovered orifice, and our fillings had nearly shaken loose from our teeth. We swore bitterly as we banged on the padlocked fort doors, like Dorothy in Oz, until the gates creaked open and a turbaned figure beckoned us inside.

And there in a courtyard not far from a 17th-century stable block, we found a cluster of luxurious tents, their walls made from hand-block printed cottons, their camp beds covered in thick quilts, the private baths fitted out with showers that rained hot water.

If it is true that in India a traveler is often tested by the tumult, the hustle, the dirt, the pollution, the first-world prices and sometimes second-rate service, the inevitable upturned palms and the overall din, it is also the case that as the advertising campaigns promise, India is in fact incredible.

How else to explain the experience we had of emerging from our private showers at Royal Camp, Nagaur Fort (open only from October to March) to find that we were the only guests at the fort, the sole patrons being served cocktails by a freshly kindled wood fire in a broad Mughal courtyard under the cold black dome of desert sky?

A delicious Rajasthani thali meal was presented on a table set up in an ancient pavilion. Perhaps too much terrible Indian wine was consumed. In our individual tents the bedcovers had been turned down and desert chill staved off by hot-water bottles discreetly tucked into the beds. Delirious sleep overtook us. When we awoke, we found that our plans to stay just a night had suddenly changed.

And that is something I forgot to mention, how in India time is oddly elastic, everything fraught with challenge and wonders so inevitable that it makes sense to allow for enormous changes at the last minute (to swipe Grace Paley’s wonderful phrase). In India the plans you made at home are seldom the final word on the matter. Do yourself a favor and keep that in mind.

IF YOU GO

DELHI

MODERN AMENITIES, LUXURY SERVICE

Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi (1 Mansingh Road; 91-11-2302-6162;tajhotels.com).

Oberoi, New Delhi (Dr. Zakir Hussain Marg; 91-11 2436-3030;oberoihotels.com/oberoi_delhi).

IMPERIAL MIGHT

A walk down the Rajpath will take you from Rashtrapati Bhavan(presidentofindia.nic.in/rb.html), the presidential residence, to IndiaGate.

ALADDIN’S CAVES

Sunder Nagar Market (Mathura Road, south of Purana Qila).

Nathu’s Sweets (2 Sunder Nagar Market; 91-11-2435-2435;nathusweets.com).

Bharany’s (14 Sunder Nagar Market; 91-98728-01419; bharanys.com).

SOUTH SIDE

Gurudwara Bangla Sahib (Cannaught Place, at Ashok Road and Baba Kharag Singh Marg; banglasahib.org).

Jamali Kamali Masjid (in the archaeological village in Mehrauli).

Baba Kharak Singh Marg (off Cannaught Circus).

Santushti Shopping Complex (New Wellington Camp, Air Force Station, Race Course Road).

MUGHAL MONUMENT

Humayun’s Tomb (at the end of Lodi Road at Mathura Road)

AGRA

The Taj Mahal. Sunrise or sunset are the best times to take in the famous white marble mausoleum.

Fatehpur Sikri (Uttar Pradesh, Agra District).

JAIPUR

City Palace (Kanwar Nagar, Tripolia Bazar; 91-141-408-8888;msmsmuseum.com).

Amber Fort (Delhi-Jaipur Highway, 20 minutes north of Jaipur).

Gem Palace (M.I. Road, near Mahavir Marg; 91-14-1237-4175;gempalacejaipur.com).

JODHPUR

Umaid Bhawan Palace (off State Highway 61; 91-29-1251-0101;tajhotels.com).

Mehrangarh Fort (P.B. No. 165, Fort Road; 91-29-1254-8790;mehrangarh.org).

UDAIPUR

Adinatha Temple (about 3 hours, 50 minutes south of Jodhpur inRanakpur).

Maharani Bagh Orchard Retreat (off State Highway 32, Ranakpur; 91-22-6150-6363; nivalink.com/maharanibagh).

City Palace (City Palace Complex, off Battiyanni Chohtta, northeast Lake Pichola). 

Taj Lake Palace (Lake Pichola; 91-29-4242-8800; tajhotels.com).

Oberoi Udaivilas (91-29-4243-3300; oberoihotels.com).

NAGAUR

Ahhichatragarh-Nagaur Fort (91-29-1251-2146;mehrangarh.org/t_nagaur.htm).

Royal Camp Nagaur Fort (91-22-6150-6363;nivalink.com/campnagaur).

 

THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT COVER INDIA FROM DEHLI TO THE SOUTH. TAKE MY ADVICE AND SEE IT. WE VISITED A HINDU TEMPLE IN MADERAI (CENTRAL INDIA) AT 9 PM. PARTICIPATED FULLY IN THE CEREMONY. OUR FORHEADS WE PAINTED AND WE CHANTED WITH THE HUNDREDS OF OTHER HINDUS. LEARNED THEIR GODS, UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL. PARTICIPATION IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. FLOWERS, INCENSE, STRANGE FRAGRANCES ALONG WITH FRAGRANCES FROM DUNG ALL MIXED TOGETHER.

 

GO SOUTH TO HYDERBAD AND ALL THE OTHER BADS (THEY ARE GOODS) BAD IS THE ENDING PORTION OF A HINDU CITY WHILE STAN IS THE ENDING PORTION OF A MOGHUL CITY. THE MOGHULS ARE MUSLIMS. HYDERBAD IS 50% OF BOTH. THE MUSLIMS BUILT THEIR MOSQUE OVER A HINDU TEMPLE. WHEN WE VISITED THE MOSQUE AND THE SOUK, IT HAPPENED TO BE AN IMPORTANT HOLIDAY FOR BOTH RELIGIONS. HUNDREDS OF MUSLIMS GUARDING THE MOSQUE WITH HUNDREDS OF HINDUS WISHING TO TEAR IT DOWN. INDIAN ARMY TROOPS IN THE MIDDLE TO STOP A RIOT THAT I SAW COMING. GRABBED WIFE ANS THREW HER INTO OUR CAR AND TOLD THE DRIVER TO GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE. THEY HAD THEIR RIOT WITH 50 KILLED. POINT OF ADVICE. DONT BE IN THE MIDDLE AS YOU MAY BE KILLED

 

IN CONCLUSION, THERE IS SO MUCH TO SEE AND DO FROM THE NORTH WHERE THE SIHKS LIVE AND VISIT THEIR GOLDEN TEMPLE IN AMRISTAR, WHICH IS A FEW MILES FROM THE PAKI BORDER. CEREMONY EACH DAY AT DUSK CELEBRATING THE OUSTER OF THE BRITS AND THE DISASTER OF THE PARTITION.

 

AS A POINT OF HISTORY, THE BRITS SLAUGHTERED A FEW THOUSAND MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE OF AMRISTAR BEFORE WWI FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT THEY WANTED THE BRITS TO GO. THE SIKHS MADE FANTASTIC SOLDIERS FOR THE BRITS WHO WERE USED BY THE BRITS TO FIGHT THEIR WARS IN AFRICA AND EUROPE. WHOLE DIVISIONS OF THE INDIAN ARMY FOUGHT FOR THE BRITS IN ITALY DURING WWII

 

MADRAS, KERALA, AND GOA ARE NOT TO BE MISSED AND NEITHER IS CALCUTTA. CALCUTTA USED TO BE THE CENTER OF BRITISH CONTROL BEFORE DEHLI. CLIVE CONQUERED IT. READ CLIVE BEFORE YOU VISIT.

 

THEN THEIR IS KASHMIR AND ITS CAPITAL SRINIGAR. YOU SEE THE HIMALYAS FROM THEIR. THE BEAUTIFUL LAKE, AND SHALIMAR GARDENS WHERE THE PERFUME BY THAT NAME COMES. WE WERE IN SHALIMAR FOR THE DOZENS OF WEDDINGS WHERE I WAS THE OFFICIAL AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHER. THE MUSLIMS AND THE HNDUS ARE STILL FIGHTING OVER THE PARTITION OF KASHMIR WHICH IS WHY THE PAKIS AND THE INDIANS FACE OFF WITH EACHOTHER WITH THEIR ARMIES.

 

BENGALIS AND PUJABIS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN STATURE AND CULTURE. MUMBAI IS THE COMMERCIAL CENTER OF THE PUJAB AND ALL OF INDIA WHILE CALCUTTA IS THE CAPITAL OF THE BENGAL PROVINCE. BENGAL BORDERS ON BURMA AND DURING WWII THE JAPANESE ARMY PENETRATED BENGAL TO CAPTURE INDIA. WINGATE, SLIM AND VINEGAR JOE STILLWELL DISTINGUISHED THEMSELVES IN FIGHTING OFF THE JAPANESE.

 

WE ARE VISITING BURMA ON OUR TRIP WHERE MY WIFE WILL LOOK AT THE BUDDHIST TEMPLES AND I WILL TRAIPSE THROUGH THE BATTLEFIELDS OF BURMA. THE FAMOUS FLYING TIGERS WITH ONLY ABOUT 25 P 40S STOPPED THE JAPANESE ARMY FROM INVADING CHINA AND CONQUERING CHUNKING WHICH WAS THE HEADQUARTERS OF CHANG.

 

I TRUST THAT I HAVE BEEN A GOOD TOUR GUIDE FOR YOU ALL.

 

MARTIN

 

 

The rich versus the seething masses

The rich versus the seething masses

By John Lloyd

  

In a remarkable column in Italy’s paper of record earlier this week, the columnist Ernesto Galli della Loggia flayed his country’s ruling class. The country is witnessing, he believes “a kind of incontinence and exhibitionism without restraint, a compulsive acquisitiveness,” rife within the highest circles of Italian society. This, mind you, after the departure of the highly acquisitive former Premier Silvio Berlusconi.

“It seems,” he writes, “that in this country, for bankers, for entrepreneurs, for senior officials, for celebrities and for politicians, for those who, in short, count for something, any reward is never enough, any privilege or treat is never too excessive, any show of wealth is never over the top.” The politicians, if not the richest, are still the most degraded, because of their elective positions of trust. The press, the justice system and the frequent leaks of the many wiretaps that Italy’s magistrates order show the snouts of a political class that are too often deep into troughs of money, luxury and privilege, funded either by the Italian taxpayer or by private interests avid for political favor.

Flaying the rich in one form or another is becoming a habit everywhere where freedom reigns in the world and even — more carefully and more dangerously — where it doesn’t, as in Russia and China, where the very rich often have the backing of the state, or sometimes, are the state. It’s happening because the financial crash is making many people poorer, and most people poorer relative to the rich, who still contrive to get richer and richer. The stagnation in middle- and working-class incomes in many parts of the Western world is often turning into real decreases in spending power. Insofar as that goes on — and a fragile improvement in Europe and North America may take hold, and once again raise all boats, or it may not — then privileges, treats and shows of wealth become more and more galling, even to moderates not previously given to envy or militancy.

In mid-19th century Europe and in the turn-of-the-century United States, novelists like Charles Dickens, Emile Zola and Theodore Dreiser drew portraits of societies corrupted by greed and the lust for money and security. Now, the task of exposing those sores pass to journalists and academics, through a slew of books on inequality, financial malpractice and political and corporate corruption. In China, where such realistic exposes are frowned on and usually suppressed, the job again falls to the novelists, with harrowing pieces like Su Tong’s Rice or Jia Pingwa’s Turbulence,among many others. Many journalists try their best: But while exposes are published, few see the light of day unless the Communist Party’s propaganda department wishes it — which often means that the story has a pre-ordered happy ending, to the effect that what has been exposed is already corrected by the party’s intercession.

There is a kind of convergence happening between the Western developed economies and the leading developing ones. In the former, especially those in Western Europe, the conditions described by the novelists, and by reformers and radical politicians, led to a growth in state provision and an expanding network of health, pension and social provision (more so in Europe than in the U.S.). This was the result of protests over the decades, reform movements of every kind and the galvanizing effect of World War II, in which the masses who fought against fascism demanded a state that adopted many of the features of social democracy.

The welfare states created then, generous by past standards, are now being cut back. This is not a return to the days when children were hauling coal wagons along underground tunnels, or paupers were consigned to the workhouses. Nevertheless, the armies of the unemployed, many of them youthful, face tougher choices than their parents and even grandparents did, coming to maturity in postwar years, when employment was relatively full and horizons of both the state and of corporations were expanding. These were times, too, when the Soviet Union and China were committed to a failing and brutal system, India was ineradicably poor and Brazil, with other South American countries, oscillated between rackety civilian governments, and oppressive military-backed ones. At the time, freedom and wealth were obvious bedfellows.

The big developing countries, democratic or not, are now facing the same kind of strains decades on. Russia’s middle class became energized at the end of last year — their demands were for intellectual and press freedom and against corruption rather than for higher incomes. The prognostications for Vladimir Putin’s third term as president frame his coming term against this newly self-enfranchised class, and find him wanting. Corruption is also the issue driving less well covered but quite large (about 20,000 people on the streets) protests in Brazil: though there, the apparent willingness of President Dilma Rousseff to tackle the issue keeps the agitation civil.

In India, a movement headed by Kisan (better known as Anna) Harare against corruption rolled through the vast state last year. It was propelled by his hunger strikes and by his embrace of Gandhian principles of non-violence — and by the huge disparities of wealth, and allegations of the creation of massive offshore accounts, out of reach of the Indian tax and justice system. After arrests and off-on hunger strikes, and often backed by big demonstrations, the Harare-led movement’s pressure forced the government to pass an anti-corruption bill in Parliament last December — which was immediately condemned by Harare as weak. The protests continue.

China is the most dramatic. The country’s poverty level declined precipitously after capitalism was pronounced glorious in the eighties, but with that, the millions of workers in state enterprises lost their security, and many were made unemployed. Often, as Washington Post reporter Philip Pan details in his fluently revelatory narrative, Out of Mao’s Shadow (2008), this was only to see their former managers and city party bosses make millions from their plants’ privatization. Pan, on a visit to a coal mine that bears dismal comparison with the pits in Zola’s Germinal, notes that in China, 4 to 5 miners die for ever million tons of coal produced, against 1 in Russia and India and 0.05 in the U.S. and the U.K. So meager is the compensation paid to the families that it is more economically rational for the owners of the privately owned mines to pay restitution than to improve safety.

Protests in China are building, and they shake the leadership. In a press conference broadcast live on Chinese state television earlier this month, the retiring Wen Jiabao warned that the growing wealth gap, corruption and increasing hatred of the state could jeopardize the economic gains. Most startlingly, he warned that “mistakes like the Cultural Revolution may happen again. Any government official or party member with a sense of responsibility should recognize this.”

In West and East, in widely differing ways, the working, out-of-work, insecure middle and angry classes grow, and become less inhibited about their anger. Huge accumulations of wealth, corruptly or legally acquired, dance before the eyes of the 99 percent, who will never acquire a sliver of such riches. This is indeed, in Galli della Loggia’s words, “incontinence and exhibitionism without restraint, a compulsive acquisitiveness.” It makes people mad as hell. Will they not take it anymore? And where will they seriously not take it first?

PHOTO: A lawyer shows his professional identification card during a protest in front of the Justice Palace in Rome, March 15, 2012. Lawyers’ guilds say the reform planned by the government of Prime Minister Mario Monti will only increase legal costs, undermine the protection of the weak, reduce expertise and unleash an uncontrolled market in fees.