Is President Bush as "above the law" as he thinks he is?

Here's an article I'm posting in full because I want to use my blog to increase awareness of what it says. This isn't about being a "Bush-hater," it's about raising awareness of an important set of issues and concerns about the kind of nation the USA is becoming, and the choices that all of us as citizens have to seriously weigh, not only in this year's elections, but in the months and years that will follow. I find the thinking and behavior described below to be very disturbing and I would hope that all but the most zealous partisans would recognize the threat to democracy and the US Constitution that is implied here.

Over the past few months, I've been reading a book, American Aurora, that provides a fascinating account of the controversies that took place during the presidency of John Adams. The book is enormous, over 850 pages long before you get to the endnotes and indexes (over 1000 pgs altogether,) consisting mostly of day-by-day newspaper clippings, government records and private correspondence between noteworthy "Founding Fathers" and others less famous but quite involved individuals. I liken it to "18th Century Blogging" and recommend it highly for anyone who has the desire to dig deeper into the minutiae of political debate in the most significant formative years of the United States.

The support that Adams and his fellow Federalists gave to the reprehensible "Alien and Sedition Acts" provides a striking parallel to what we see happening in our country these days. The problems we face now are quite similar to what the young republic faced back then, but there was a more viable and credible opposition, led by Thomas Jefferson and the intellectual heirs to Benjamin Franklin, who ultimately prevailed and saved the USA from the incipient monarchy that Adams and his supporters actively aimed to create in this country. (Yes, I'm of the opinion that John Adams was an arrogant buffoon who is not worthy of the largely positive press he's gotten in recent years. Regardless of the important role he played in the American Revolution, his legacy was largely undone in my opinion by the deviant course he pursued in his later career.) I harbor serious doubts that we have a group of individuals as clear-minded and in position to set our nation back on a course that promotes true liberty and more power to the people than was the case circa 1800.

So with that, I leave you to consider today's report from the Boston Globe newspaper...

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."

For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

Military link

Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.

Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.

On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.

In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration's lawyers.

Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ''security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements.

The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ''shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.

Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration.

Oversight questioned

Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees.

In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.

After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.

Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports.

It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports.

On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating ''whistle-blower" job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing.

When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed.

When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections.

Bush's statement did more than send a threatening message to federal energy specialists inclined to raise concerns with Congress; it also raised the possibility that Bush would not feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws that were on the books before he became president. His domestic spying program, for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before he took office.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.

''Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional," Golove said.

Defying Supreme Court

Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave certain executive branch officials the power to act independently of the president. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the power of Congress to make such arrangements. For example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors free of Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of the Federal Trade Commission from political interference.

Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by Congress might say.

In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to generate independent statistics about student performance, passed a law setting up an educational research institute to conduct studies and publish reports ''without the approval" of the Secretary of Education. Bush, however, decreed that the institute's director would be ''subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most recently, in 2003, the court upheld a race-conscious university admissions program over the strong objections of Bush, who argued that such programs should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Yet despite the court's rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine times to provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled out the provisions, declaring that he would construe them ''in a manner consistent with" the Constitution's guarantee of ''equal protection" to all -- which some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the affirmative-action provisions represent reverse discrimination against whites.

Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court's precedents, he threatens to ''overturn the existing structures of constitutional law."

A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ''disappear."

Common practice in '80s

Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are not unprecedented.

Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it.

But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president.

When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look at the statute's legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what Congress intended it to mean. Meese realized that recording what the president thought the law meant in a signing statement might increase a president's influence over future court rulings.

Under Meese's direction in 1986, a young Justice Department lawyer named Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a strategy memo about signing statements. It came to light in late 2005, after Bush named Alito to the Supreme Court.

In the memo, Alito predicted that Congress would resent the president's attempt to grab some of its power by seizing ''the last word on questions of interpretation." He suggested that Reagan's legal team should ''concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress."

Reagan's successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor.

Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress.

Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including the current one -- has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role.

Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.

But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.

''What we haven't seen until this administration is the sheer number of objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House," said Kelley, who has studied presidential signing statements through history. ''That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any previous administration."

Exaggerated fears?

Some administration defenders say that concerns about Bush's signing statements are overblown. Bush's signing statements, they say, should be seen as little more than political chest-thumping by administration lawyers who are dedicated to protecting presidential prerogatives.

Defenders say the fact that Bush is reserving the right to disobey the laws does not necessarily mean he has gone on to disobey them.

Indeed, in some cases, the administration has ended up following laws that Bush said he could bypass. For example, citing his power to ''withhold information" in September 2002, Bush declared that he could ignore a law requiring the State Department to list the number of overseas deaths of US citizens in foreign countries. Nevertheless, the department has still put the list on its website.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.

''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations."

But Cooper, the Portland State University professor who has studied Bush's first-term signing statements, said the documents are being read closely by one key group of people: the bureaucrats who are charged with implementing new laws.

Lower-level officials will follow the president's instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said.

''Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn't look like the legislation," he said.

And in many cases, critics contend, there is no way to know whether the administration is violating laws -- or merely preserving the right to do so.

Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws.

In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill's principal sponsors in the Senate -- John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina -- all publicly rebuked the president.

''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation."

Added Graham: ''I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified."

And in March, when the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could ignore the oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, several Democrats lodged complaints.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused Bush of trying to ''cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow."

And Representatives Jane Harman of California and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan -- the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, respectively -- sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales demanding that Bush rescind his claim and abide by the law.

''Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight," they wrote. ''The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight. . . . Once the president signs a bill, he and all of us are bound by it."

Lack of court review

Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on Bush's claims, legal specialists said.

The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush's assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters.

''There can't be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ''And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked."

Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush's fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party.

''The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they're not taking action because they don't want to appear to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are all Republicans," said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor. ''Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are controlled by the same party."

Said Golove, the New York University law professor: ''Bush has essentially said that 'We're the executive branch and we're going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.' "

Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Kirk Franklin

Last night, after a rather busy and demanding week at work where I led trainings on five different subjects and tried to tend to a host of other duties, I wrapped up my activity for the week with a long night at the Van Andel Arena for a Kirk Franklin gospel music concert. I had agreed to do this several weeks ago before I realized just how busy I'd be, but it all worked out fine. I am pretty much a shoo-in for any musical events at the Arena, as long-time readers of this blog know, where I help operate a concession stand as a fundraiser for my son's high school marching band.

If you don't know Kirk Franklin, he's one of the more popular gospel music artists of today, incorporating a lot of hip-hop elements that appeal to the young and getting some sideways glances from more traditional purists who don't always appreciate the innovative approach. You know how that goes...

This show was different than most of the events I've worked at the arena in that the audience was almost entirely African-American. Given that this was a smaller than usual crowd (around 3000 people, a little under a third of a full house) and that a lot of these folks were clearly not as affluent as a typical Arena audience, I felt more empathy than usual for the plight of people who were hungry or thirsty, but unprepared for the prices we charge: $3.75 for a hotdog, $3.50 for a soda, $2.75 for a pack of M&M's, etc. I mean, I've seen worse in bigger venues in bigger cities, but with gas running $3.00 a gallon and a lot of these folks probably spending just a bit more for the ticket than they wish they had to, I could understand their struggles.

Now I've always been conscious of how overpriced the concessions are, but last night put things in a different context for me. Most of the time I work concerts at VAA, I'm catering to people who are splurging for a night out and come prepared to drop significant cash on the whole affair - the ticket, the souvenir shirts, concession snacks, perhaps dinner and drinks before or afterwards. But there was a different dynamic at play last night. Let's face it, Kirk Franklin wanted to "have church" with his audience last night and they largely came for the uplift and inspiration that comes from soul-stirring gospel music - both the uptempo foot-stompers and the emotive, confessional solo numbers where it's just a voice, an organ and the outbursts of "yes Lord!" from the audience offering exchanges of plea and redemption in the human-divine encounter. Yeah, there was a lot of entertainment to be found, much joy and celebration in the music and dancing and showmanship, but I think one can fairly say that there was more "on the line" in the relationship between performer and audience than is typical in the "fluffier" concerts that I've seen there over the past couple of years. (Shania Twain comes to mind as an example of what I mean by "fluffy.") :o)

So I did my best to be nice and supportive and generous to the people who came to our stand, as much as I could. I gave out some free mini-cups of soda to kids (though I'm not supposed to - those cups are meant for ketchup with the fries) when I could sense that their parents were struggling with having to spend $15 for refreshments for the group. I made friendly chit-chat and joined with them in their astonishment at what we were charging for some rather unfancy edibles, and wished them a fun and pleasant evening as they stepped away.

I don't know all that much of Kirk Franklin's music since gospel isn't a genre of choice in my iTunes collection, but I did recognize his hit from a few years ago, "Revolution" (which uses the "hoo-hoo!" chorus from Foxy's "Get Off" single from 1978 (and numerous other funk tunes before and since, but that's where I heard it first.) That was the number that Kirk and his band performed near the end of the show. I got to watch a bit of it from the side once we got the stand cleaned up. It was a sloooow night for sales, let me tell you. I reflected more on the socioeconomic injustices and struggles facing our society last night more than I ever have while working an arena show.

A few words about Kirk Franklin the performer then. I stole a peek at the end of one of his opening numbers, and was trying to figure out which of the singers on stage was him, though none seemed to fit my expectations. That's because he was out in the audience at the moment, singing with the crowd - I realized that when I saw the security guys help him get back up on stage, which he did with an athletic leap, then proceeded to strut, spin and stomp across the stage as the song came to its dramatic conclusion. He turned to face the audience and said this: "You know, there's people out there who think that Kirk Franklin's had a few too many Red Bulls! But let me tell you something. I'm a black man who's not in prison. My kids know who their daddy is. And I love Jesus more than I love money!"

I'm just quoting the man.

And finally, toward the end of the show, I was delighted to hear him say, actually, and sincerely, without apparent irony (though he did say something like "we're gonna go old school now..." which doesn't exactly count as irony but it did reflect self-consciousness) ... he said:

"Just throw your hands in the air
And wave 'em like you just don't care!"

I hear that saying all the time, but it's fun to hear it in concert and see the audience actually doing it. So those are my comments on Kirk Franklin.

In other news, I found out that the Van Andel Arena is terminating its concession contract with Centerplate and switching over to SMG, a bigger corporate entity, and that all the current staff working there will have to reapply for their jobs. It may also mean an end to our fundraising activities at the arena, though no one is really sure what is going to happen with all that. It may be that the Pearl Jam and Kenny Chesney concerts I'm scheduled to work next month may be my last!

Running the Training Gauntlet

This has been a kick-butt week in some ways as I've had to present trainings in various places on different topics, and I ain't done yet. I already blogged about the thing I did over by Detroit. Yesterday, I led a session on Avoiding Power Struggles at Resurrection Life Church (in the same impressive multi-million dollar edifice I blogged about last month) for a group of their student interns. It was a good session, but partway into the class I realized that they don't have quite the same issue with power struggles that we do at Wedgwood, given our residential setting and the need to deal with whatever behavior the clients send our way. At ResLife, they just excuse the misbehaving child from the class and report them to their parents. Oh I figure their involvement goes deeper than that - I know it does, actually I respect what these young adult volunteers are trying to give the teens and youngsters they work with, and I know they get into some deeper stuff with some of them. Hard not to deal with some heavier things when you have a youth group consisting of hundreds of (perhaps more than a thousand) kids. But the fact remains, they're simply not as "locked in" to the conflict cycle as the YTS staff are at Wedgwood. But I think they got some good food for thought and perhaps a little eye-opening in the process.

Immediately after concluding that training, I had to drive back across town to Wedgwood to prepare for my second official CPR class, this one an Intro course for people who had never taken CPR before. I kind of surprised myself with how well I was able to recall and lead the group through all the basic steps of the curriculum. I had a very experienced co-trainer who was there to help as needed, but he was also there to observe my presentation skills and give me my full certification, so I didn't want to rely on him too much. But after the four-hour class was done, he told me that I did a great job, gave me a few pointers for next time, and wrote some very nice things on the report he'd later turn in to Life EMS and the American Heart Association. So I'm on my way as a CPR instructor!

Then today I led an Intro to Handle With Care training, the first of two sessions where staff are taught how to do physical restraints of acting out clients. We had a fairly small group (six people) and what made the job a little more complicated than usual was that I was also helping a new trainer get his first "live" class under his belt. So I had to carry a larger share of the task than usual, but it went well and after all that, I feel pretty good about where I'm at in this busy busy week.

But wait! That's not all! I have the second half of the HWC Intro to do tomorrow, where we show our trainees how to safely take a person all the way down to the floor. Then on Friday, I teach a Behavior Management class to some of the same people that I worked with today. That will be a breeze after the other sessions I've led this week, but that's five days in a row of being on stage! Certainly more than enough to satisfy my modest tendencies towards extroversion.

Wayne Co. Family Center

I spent this workday driving to suburban Detroit and back, pausing for a few hours while there to offer a Listening Skills training to a group of staff who work at the Wayne County Family Center, on the campus of Lutheran Social Services. The Center is a place where homeless families can live while the parent(s) work with counselors to find jobs and generally get their lives in order. The facility is housed in an old red-brick building that looks a little worn and weary from the outside, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that the interior is clean and well-maintained, though certainly not "fancy" by any means. My hunch is that the structure (and an even larger and more ominous looking one right next to it, complete with a tall smokestack and and a rather industrial look windows that made me wonder just what the building was ever used for in the first place.)1

The group I spoke to consisted of twelve women who work as staff there. All but one were African-American, and I enjoyed the class quite a bit as we got to know each other and shared our experiences of working with needy, demanding people in our respective settings. I feel fairly satisfied with the training itself - I only had two hours to present the material, which limited the amount of time we could dedicate to actually practicing the skills, but I figured I could present the ideas, give them a chance to try the basic technique of "tentative opening, identifying the thought and feeling" and allow me a chance to give them some feedback and answer their questions. I think everyone was pretty satisfied. I feel quite pleased myself to have gone and given these women a gift of training in useful skills and some encouragement in the worthy and important (but unglamorous) work they are doing, tending to the needs of "the least of these." (Matthew 25:40)

I have a busy training week ahead of me, and I'll describe it in more detail as the days role by.

Donald Miller comes to Mars Hill

Tonight Julie, Derek and I went to go hear Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz, speak at Mars Hill Bible Church at their Sunday evening worship service. Miller was in town for Calvin College's "Festival of Faith and Writing" which I'm embarrassed to admit I did not attend any portion of this year. The festival's main event speaker was Salman Rushdie, who spoke on Friday night, introducing himself as a "dreadful old atheist" to the dismay of some people in the audience, I imagine. Here's some local press coverage if you want to read up on what Rushdie and others had to say.

Miller was actually the last speaker to address the festival. I wasn't able to go because I had previously volunteered to work a hockey game at the Van Andel Arena, but my wife went, so she got to hear him two nights in a row. She noted that even though he used a couple of the same anecdotes, he basically gave two different presentations befitting the occasion and interests of each respective gathering. Tonight's talk at MHBC was more a stand-up monologue than a sermon, which I got the impression was pretty much par for the course at this particular church. I'll get to Miller's comments in a moment, but let me reflect on Mars Hill first.

MHBC is one of the largest congregations in West Michigan, and has become somewhat famous as one of the more successful churches to affiliate itself with the Emergent "thing" (it's not a movement, so I've heard...) Their pastor, Rob Bell, has published a book, Velvet Elvis, which looks like an interesting read, a bit unconventional as far as Christian publishing goes, both in format and in content. MHBC has no aspirations to be theologically innovative in any way that would bring them into question as far as orthodoxy and doctrine are concerned (though the church still has its detractors among the evangelical watchdogs out there who continually sniff around for signs of trouble.) But I did observe some language in the songs tonight that I found interesting. The opening praise songs really emphasized God's immanence and could easily be taken as a challenge to the idea of a "sacred space" as well as conventional prayers that beseech God to be present in worship or to fill the believers with His Spirit. The lyrics basically stated that such sentiments were unnecessary and mistaken - the idea being that we are always and continually in God's presence and that "muddy ground" was just as holy as the most meticulously guarded chapel or sanctuary. I get where the church is going with this - there's a serious attempt to remind the worshippers that we are never out of God's sight, care or attention, and I can see a value in establishing a natural, personal transparency and authenticity as a high value for the mostly-youngish congregation. In fact, I think it's this very lack of overt piety and pretension that so many people find refreshing about the worship environment. But it is radical and provocative in its own way, even though I don't see MHBC as wanting to necessarily alienate itself from more traditional evangelical churches.

The atmosphere inside the place also merits some mention. The meeting room is basically a large ex-department store, one of the larger spaces that used to anchor the building when it was known as the Grand Village Mall. Yes, that's right, the church meets in a converted shopping center, with the classrooms, nursery and other activities taking place in smaller rooms that once housed jewelry, clothing and merchandise vendors. The stage is set in the middle of the room, with video screens overhead suspended from the ceiling facing the four points of the compass. A six piece band led things off with a lively rock number that was functionally an instrumental, no discernible words, but very up-tempo, giving the place a club or concert like atmosphere with lots of chatter, socializing, greetings and hugs exchanged all over the place as a few thousand people filled the chairs. Eventually, of course, more familiar praise choruses filled the air at an impressive volume and enthusiasm level.

Everything that we saw on stage was casual - the clothes, the verbals, the body language, the overall presentation. Very down-to-earth and unassuming. Make no mistake though, this is an organized endeavor and the operation they are running is impressive. Their YTD budget is $4.5 million so far this year (I figure that must be an Oct-Sept fiscal year or something along those lines) and the church is about half a million over-budget! So they are clearly propering, and they don't pass the plate. They have "Joy Boxes" attached to the wall that people can drop their gifts into, and despite the lack of a hard sell, people obviously do give generously. Tonight, before Miller came on, there was a brief presentation about some of the on-going Hurricane Katrina relief work that MHBC has been involved with.

OK, so on to Don Miller. What I said about the church being down-to-earth and unassuming is equally true about him. He wore the same bright orange sweater tonight that he wore at Calvin last night (for which he apologized to Julie afterward when we met him for a handshake and a book-signing.) The white shirt he had on under the sweater was untucked in the back. He ambled on stage and wandered around blending humorous stories with a credible but fairly simple application of portions of the Sermon on the Mount (basing his comments on the Eugene Peterson "Message" paraphrase, which gave him more colorful and less familiar language to work with in making his points.)

He was willing to put a little more edge in his humor than is often heard in church sermons (e.g. his riffing on American commercialism and consumerism concluded that the advertising for a particular brand of dishsoap implied that the product would "make you skinny and cause people to want to have sex with you.") He also took on Christian evangelists and apologists who present the Bible as a "promise book" that "makes your life all better once you invite Jesus to fill the void in your life." He even went so far as to blast writers who present a model of prayer "based on Old Testament figures" that would result in blessings and prosperity if the formula was followed correctly (which I took to be an indirect knock at the now-passe' "Prayer of Jabez.")

Basically, he poked holes in some of the cheesier ways that the gospel has been presented to people over the past several decades, drawing more attention to the idea of Christianity as a relationship, not a philosophical or religious belief system. Nothing in that that I haven't heard or considered before. But overall, I think he presented himself credibly and did a good job connecting with the large crowd that had come out to hear this fresh and engaging voice in the world of popular Christian writing. I am happy to see guys like Miller getting an audience - he's not challenging his readers to the utmost as far as intellect or profundity are concerned, but neither is he appealing to their appetite for sensationalism, simplistic answers or scape-goating. His stance toward people is basically affirming, patient and kind-hearted, and given a lot of the mindset I see still holding sway in the preaching and teaching of many evangelical churches, I think he represents a step in the right direction.

Bush: "I'm the Decider"

President Bush made the above quote the other day in rejecting calls for Donald Rumsfeld to step down as Secretary of Defense. Now a musical parody incorporating that statement has hit the internet. It's funny... and too cool!

Zeroing in on "The Secret Message of Jesus"

Now that Easter is over, my self-imposed fast on buying books and CD's has come to an end and I'm pleased to say that I got through it cleanly and with relative ease. But I am looking forward to adding to my collection fairly soon. I haven't bought any new stuff yet though. My next intended purchase, unless I come across an unexpected bargain somewhere, is Brian McLaren's new book, The Secret Message of Jesus. I'm a McLaren fan, ever since I read A New Kind of Christian a few years ago. There are other good new books out there that I would like to get but I'm looking for something we can read through after dinner as a family and that's a volume that I think will fit the bill. (Not quite as provocative as Borg and Crossan's The Last Week...)

I have a coupon from Family Christian Stores that will get me 25% off but the thing is, both of the local stores are currently out of stock on the book, even though it's advertised in their latest catalog! I don't know if that means that the book is flying off the shelves or if they just underpurchased their first shipment of the title. I've seen the book in other stores but I want to get a good deal. And I like the idea of buying McLaren's stuff at that particular chain (rather than, say, Barnes and Noble or some other "secular" bookstore.) It just might be the case that this McLaren book is about the only thing I'd want to buy at the Family Christian Stores outlet!

They told me that the book will be in by the end of this week when I last checked yesterday, so I will get it soon and report my thoughts here and perhaps on the PoMoXian email list. Stay tuned.

"Touched or Tickled?" - Tagged!

I've made a new blog acquaintance, a guy named Chuck who lives in Cincinnati who is fairly new to blogging. He posted last Friday in response to a tag he received about "five performing arts events that touched or tickled him." I like the topic, so I brazenly asked him if he would tag me so I could play. He did and here I am, a week late (sorry) with my five musical events that touched or tickled me. (I'm limiting it to music only, even though I've been to some good plays over the years, and I won't count movies, even though they do feature a lot of performing.)

1. Queen & Thin Lizzy, Kalamazoo MI - January 1977.



My first rock concert. I was only 14 at the time, back in the heyday of general admission, everyone crushed up to the edge of the stage, no yellow-shirt security guys posted every five feet with an open space between performer and the audience. The lucky ones with their elbows resting on stage got to have some open space in front of them as Freddie Mercury pranced and preened just inches away. Both bands were incredible that night - Thin Lizzy was at their peak, having just released the "Jailbreak" album featuring "The Boys are Back in Town." As for Queen, they were on their "Night at the Opera" tour and "Bohemian Rhapsody" was on the hit charts as a current release. While waiting outside to get into Wings Stadium, we (the crowd) burst into a spontaneous rendition of the song, complete with pseudo-operatic choral bits, and there was a eager anticipation to see and hear the band reproduce the elaborately orchestrated middle-section of the song on stage. Well, the concert was altogether stupendous, and eventually they got to performing "BoRhap." But just as they got to "I see a little silhouetto of a man" bit, the stage went dark and a tape recording came on! I have to admit I was a little disappointed, but I just didn't understand how impossible it would have been to do that part justice. And they made up for it big time, because when the tape ended, the lights came up, the smoke bombs and flares went off, Freddie had done a full-costume change, Brian May was ripping out the power chords and I'm sure you know just how rockingly awesome and intense that end segment of the song is, especially live with a frenzied crowd pumping their fists triumphantly in unison.

2. Sex Pistols, San Francisco, 1978.



The notorious English punk band released it's only authentic album in the latter half of 1977, when I was just 16 years old, the perfect age and time for this music as far as I'm concerned. I don't listen to the Pistols much these days, but I have a lot of fond recollections of just how well they expressed for me the pissed-off and contemptuous attitude I felt for the world around me at the time. Rarely have I ever felt that a band spoke for me quite as strongly and accurately as they did. So it was a real highlight for me to see them perform live, in what turned out to be their final concert (not counting the reunion tours they did in the 1990's, where I must admit their musicianship and professionalism were much improved over what I saw that night at Winterland. The last performance featuring both Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious on the same stage was really more of a debacle than a concert. Most observers and the band themselves call it the worst show they ever put on, and I can believe that, but it was still the Pistols, they had come all the way from England to the Bay Area where I was now living, and that completed the cycle that in some mysterious way connected them with my teenage life and proceeded to move me inexorably toward forming my own punk rock band a little over two years later (after I had taught myself a few rudimentary guitar chords.)

3. Aerosmith, Journey, AC/DC, Houston, 1978



Besides seeing three great archetypal arena-rock groups all on the same bill (but before Journey and AC/DC had achieved their full reputations as "legendary bands") the main highlight of this one for me was the sheer adventure of the event itself. I was down in Texas visiting my buddy John, who had accompanied me to the Queen concert mentioned above. His family moved to Texas in the summer of '77 so I went to visit him the next summer down in his new home. His parents were very strict Baptists who had rules against going to the movies, but paradoxically had been OK with John going to rock concerts! At least, that was the rule in Michigan. When they moved to Texas, I guess their legalism got reconfigured to forbid rock concerts. The thing was though, this show was so enticing that John was not willing to let it pass by. We had already bought tickets before he'd heard from the parents that he was forbidden to go. I was not obliged to follow their rules, even though I was staying in their house, and John had other friends who would do the driving so I was set on going. We wound up concocting a scheme where John snuck out of his bedroom window, we went to the show and had a great time, and he came back to deal with the consequences later. As for the concert, a lot of people had no idea who AC/DC were (they found out though!) I had bought their records "High Voltage" and "Let There Be Rock" earlier that year so I knew what to expect. This was when Bon Scott was still singing with them, and I think Angus Young must have been the first guitar player to use a wireless system, which he needed not only to writhe and spazz around on stage as he is so famous for, but also so that he could jump on Bon's shoulders and they could walk around the floor of the arena while he played frenetic guitar solos the entire time! Journey also surprised a lot of people in the audience who were there mainly for the headliners - this was back when they were decent, before Steve Perry's "Open Arms" wimpiness had tarnished the groups legacy. Aerosmith were raucous and sloppy and over the top, as they've pretty much always been. It was also one of the most "stoner-friendly" gigs I've ever been to. The large video screen in the Astrodome Arena featured numerous shots of people smoking pot, power-hitting each other, girls pulling their shirts up, etc. It was the 70's, man, what more do I have to say?

4. Flipper, Berkeley, CA, 1981.

Flipper was a hardcore punk band from San Francisco that I used to hang out with and idolize in my own demented way while my own band, the Church Police, played in their shadow as their proteges. They weren't fast and tight, but rather intense, plodding, very very heavy, ominous, bitter and cynical. Also a lot of fun. I have numerous memories of watching them perform and it's hard for me to single out a particular best or favorite show, but I'll pick this one because it wound up resulting in a commercially available live recording that features me singing along with them on stage - in a way... What happened was that an outdoor punk concert was arranged for the summer of '81 featuring a whole slew of bands, Flipper among them (not the Church Police though.) This was unusual because normally we only played late at night in underground clubs, warehouses, etc. But it was cool to do something different. As a friend of the band, I had a standing permission to hang out with them and occasionally improvise on-stage antics as long as I didn't overdo it. On this occasion, I saw an open mike on the left side of the stage and decided that I felt like accompanying them vocally. So I took the mike. As I was standing there, a copy of the "Revolutionary Worker" newspaper blew up onto the stage and into my hands. I grabbed it and started reading whatever I saw into the microphone. The text was a letter to the editor that had something to do with the stress and hardship endured by the oppressed masses. As I was reading, the band launched into a song titled "Ever" which I didn't know well enough to sing along with so I just stood there dumbly, shouting and making noise for a bit. Then a fight broke out on stage between Ted, the guitar player, and some members of the audience. At that point, I went into a rant that got caught on tape, that I can hardly describe here but I'd be willing to send you the mp3 if you are interested in hearing it. Flipper liked the tape so much that they decided to release the aborted version of the song as their contribution to the Eastern Front LP, and the track was eventually added to one of their post-breakup compilation albums that is now sadly out of print.

5. Pearl Jam, Grand Rapids MI, 2004



I'll skip ahead a couple of decades to mention one of my more recent concerts that I blogged about here. I have a lot of other great shows I could mention... Devo, the Ramones, the Clash, Elvis Costello, Spiritualized, Ted Nugent, Van Halen, John Denver, Phil Keaggy, Oasis... just a few of the best ones that come to mind - but I'll include PJ because it really was a terrific concert, the circumstances of it were super-cool, and I just found out the other day that I'm going to get to work their show at the Van Andel Arena here in town next month! So I'm pumped about that.

Me-anderings

Here are a couple of articles that catch my attention.

US Christian activist warns against religious right in Australia - Jim Wallis is in Australia promoting God's Politics (the Aussie version.) This article is OK but it links to a couple others that are more interesting.

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies I'm not very pleased to see that Christians are resorting to the courts in order to overturn efforts aimed at creating a more harmonious and understanding environment on college campuses and elsewhere.

“Gospel of Judas” Irrelevant in Light of Even More Startling Ancient Text - Warning: this is recommended only if you have an appreciation of the bizarre. I'm not endorsing anything you read on this site, I just saw the headline and followed it to see what it was about.

As for what I've been up to, it's mostly been about work. I led a big Handle With Care training yesterday for a bunch of school teachers who did fairly well overall despite a clear lack of interest on their part in actually using the methods we taught them. Today I'm the MC at an annual recognition banquet that Wedgwood holds for its veteran staff. As a 17-year employee, I don't fall into one of the groups due to be recognized, but I'll have some fun with the skits and multimedia gags that we've put together in honor of the 10, 15, 20 and 30 year employees. This morning I edited some mp3 files to make a little medley for Kate, who's worked really hard to coordinate everything. Kate's my conservative, Rush-Limbaugh-listening office mate who I like and who likes me despite the obvious differences in our politics. :o)

Other than that, I just have a whole bunch of training stuff to focus on over the next few days, weeks, months, years, etc. That's just what I do. Plus it's a new baseball season and I'm pretty focused on how my fantasy teams are going to do, as well as the Tigers and Giants who are both off to decent starts and we'll see how long that lasts.

Tomorrow I go pick up Curt from college, and we get into the Holy Week events. There's a Maundy Thursday service I'll be attending at Christ Church, then I'm doing a Good Friday reading at Wedgwood's service in the late afternoon. I have to learn how to correctly pronounce "eloi, eloi, lama sabachtani" before then. And on we go into Easter weekend. I'll post some thoughts about all that when I get a chance.

This is not a blog entry.

I just want to apologize for not posting anything new over the past few days. It's been Spring Break around here, I've been taking some time off of work, spending it with my youngest son going places and doing things. Today is my wife's birthday so I've been trying to do some extra stuff around the house and treat her extra-nice and all that, and besides that, I just haven't spent much time trying to gather my thoughts and come up with anything particularly blog-worthy. (Actually, I have two "drafts" that haven't been completed yet, both having to do with music, one of which is in response to a tag I received from Chuck, a new blogger acquaintance that I connected with earlier this week. So those will be finished and posted fairly soon...)

Plus I was content to just let that "I win." entry sit there at the top of the page for a few extra days. :o)

So that's what has been up with me lately, in case you are wondering.

I Win.

Well how about that? I am experiencing a high level of serendipity as it turns out that the NCAA bracket predictions I drew up on Wednesday, March 15 turned out to be remarkably accurate! Specifically, I had the tournament coming down to the final two of Florida and UCLA, with Florida winning, and that's exactly how it turned out.

This is especially amusing to me because I really don't pay much attention to college hoops, compared with pro baseball or football. I know enough to recognize that the Gators and Bruins had good teams this year, but I had no awareness of even a single player in either lineup, nor could I have pointed out either teams particular strengths. I just took a lead from one commentator I heard on ESPN radio about each team "going deeper than a lot of people might be expecting," which was probably said a hundred times about half of the teams in the tournament, but that tip was said at a moment when I was actively listening in order to formulate an opinion on how things would unfold this year.

I also knew that this was a year when no dominant team seemed likely to steamroll through the tournament, thus I figured going with Duke or Connecticut would not work for me because they were such popular picks, I'd never win because my lower brackets would be inaccurate. So I looked at two teams that appeared "due" and that led me to Florida and UCLA. It's as simple as a coin flip to explain why I went with the Gators though. I'd be more naturally inclined to go with the California team (I'm more a NoCal guy, but I dislike Florida the region even more than I dislike LA!)

So I get my name inscribed on a trophy and "extreme bragging rights" as the contest coordinator put it. So I'm happy this morning. I might even go buy a Gators T-shirt to wear to work today!

Grand Dialogue

(note: this image was not used during the conference I describe below)

Grand Valley State University hosted a conference dealing with the interface between science and religion (actually, it was more like "between science and Christianity.") It's part of an on-going effort, a series of meetings, called the "Grand Dialogue." I went to a public lecture by Dr. Michael Ruse last year that I wrote about here. This was a more elaborate production, involving a noteworthy keynote speaker (Dr. John Haught) that I was not able to hear myself due to some personal scheduling conflicts.

Here are my notes on one of the afternoon breakout sessions that I attended, titled "Evolution Wars: A Failure to Communicate," presented by Dr. Uko Zylstra, a biology professor from Calvin College.

Lecture title drawn from Time magazine article from August 2005, initiated by Pres. Bush's comments on the Intelligent Design trial that occurred in Dover, PA at that time.

Evolution wars largely based on a failure to define or clarify the different meanings/applications of the word "evolution."

Makes distinction btw evolutionary theory and "evolutionary naturalism" - with worldview implications that aren't "scientific."

Quote: "Evolution is a fact! Fact! FACT!" Why then is there so much discussion and debate?

Dictionary definition of evolution: A progressive change from simple to complex.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" (famous quote from Dobzhansky)

"Because evolution from shared ancestors has shaped organs and physiological processes that operate in similar ways from worms to humans, we can learn about our bodies by studying bacteria, dogs and monkeys." In this statement, "evolution" appears to be regarded as "the agent for change."

Alternative core theme of 20th century biology: "The Gene" (similar but different than "Evolution")

"The attempt to force Darwinian thinking into role of explanatory principal of universal scope has proved utterly unconvincing. It seeks to inflate an assembly of half-truths into a Theory of Everything." - Polkinghorne

"Darwinian drive to propagate genes doesn't account for scientific knowledge, aesthetics or morals." - Polkinghorne

Is natural selection the *only* force behind genetic change? Can we reasonably draw such a conclusion (ruling out all others?)

Distinction of evolution as:

• Pattern - much evidence
  
• Process - some evidence, but less than pattern
  
• Mechanism - very little evidence; natural selection is viewed as inadequate to account for many structures and phenomena, and assuming that it is an adequate explanation, or the only valid one, falls short of "critical scientific thinking"

Example of "process" evidence: DNA sequence, particularly Cytochrome C, an important protein found in nearly all living things. The similarities and differences of its composition in different species provides a useful means for establishing relationships between species. (The professor pulled out a series of diagrams and charts that I can't replicate or explain here.)

The universal language of DNA points to a unique origin of life, rather than multiple occurrences of life arising out of random chemical processes in the distant past.

Significant admission by professor: "Common ancestry of all species is quite likely, according to evidence. This is not a conversation I could have with my parents!" (The professor appears to be in his late-50's or early 60's.)

Life appeared around 3.5 billion years ago on earth. The origins of RNA/DNA are the key question. RNA could catalyze its own reproduction, once it comes into existence. "From that point, evolutionary processes took over." - Levine and Miller

Evolutionary Naturalists are reluctant to acknowledge to gaps in early origins theory (e.g. the transfer-RNA problem, which is well-known and significant in scientific circles, but not presented in introductory science textbooks - why is that? asks Prof. Zylstra.)

He proposes that we distinguish evolution from "evolutionism," i.e. a naturalist/materialist worldview that presumes that natural selection provides the sufficient explanation for all (or nearly all) life phenomena.

Sees dispute between "evolutionism" and "creationism." His own view (consistent with Calvinist Reformed theology) is that "God directs creation through laws." Contrasted with this view, philosophical materialism sees matter as the basis for reality, with mind and spirit as "by-products." He also has disagreements with young-earth creationists, who posit an interventionist God, largely naturalistic in their presumptions until those explanations don't suffice and they propose a particular, unusual intervention by God that can't be replicated or even adequately explained. e.g. creating new species, organs, physical mechanisms suddenly and abruptly.

That's the end of my notes - they may require further explanation, so let me know if you have questions and I'll do my best to clarify.