What’s
Wrong Today:

It
is 13 years since 9/11. Since 9/10, Washington has deployed a national security
state, which has caused a significant erosion of our personal liberties. Few
Americans noticed the dark consequences of these changes. The past two US
Presidents have bent America’s laws and have violated some of our most deeply
held rights.

Even
after all of the Edward Snowden revelations, there is no assurance that
anything meaningful will be done by Mr. Obama, or any subsequent administration
to protect the zone of privacy in which most of us believe we have the right to
live. Here is a brief reminder of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:

And
there has been little debate in the mainstream media regarding
the growing power of the security state. What limited attention there was did
not lead to follow-up by the major networks, or by old-school print media,
until Edward Snowden met with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras and the story
was picked up and followed by the Guardian
and the Washington Post.

Back
in April, Georgetown University hosted an event called Beyond
Orwell, Surveillance, Secrets and Whistleblowing in the Security State.

The event was sponsored by the Lannan Foundation, among the outstanding
jewels of Georgetown.

Daniel
Ellsberg gave the keynote address, after a long and thoughtful introduction by
Glen Greenwald. The
speakers included Jesselyn Radack, Edward Snowden’s attorney, and 3
whistleblowers, Thomas Drake, Coleen Rowley and Ray McGovern. The
discussion was wide ranging and worth reading (or viewing) in its entirety. Corrente
has a transcript of the event. It is a must read for all of us.

Today,
let’s focus on what Daniel Ellsberg said about Edward Snowden’s motives. He
quotes Snowden from a Vanity Fair interview:

Ellsberg
asks in his keynote:

Ellsberg
says that Snowden’s thought:

Ellsberg:
(emphasis by the Wrongologist)

When
Ellsberg told Snowden that he was going to be keynoting the Lannan
Whistleblower event, Ellsberg asked: “What message would you think I should
give?” And Snowden said,

Ellsberg
then had an important rumination on how that effort of conscience makes the
standee a target. He said it is a platitude that all can agree with. In fact,
who would say, “No, don’t stand up for
something”?

In
practice, who stands up? Almost no one. That includes Congress and politicians
everywhere. They follow the advice, “To
get along, go along.” Your mother or father probably told you, (and you
probably tell your own kids): “Of course, you must  stand up for what you believe.”

Ellsberg
speaks of the internal voice that says “I’ll go this far, but there’s a line I
will not cross. I will not go that far.” He says humans have this self-image:
“Too much is too much. I will go along with certain things for various reasons,
consequences, but there are things I won’t go along with. There’s a line I
won’t cross.”

How
does this relate to whistleblowers and Congress? Think about how someone in the
know reacted when James
Clapper, Director of National Intelligence lied when he was asked the
question by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), “Are you, (the NSA), is NSA under you,
collecting data, any kind of data at all, on millions of Americans?”

And
Clapper of course, said no. Now, because of Snowden, we know what was unusual
about that lie was not the lie, but the fact the truth was already known to the
Committee.

Wyden
had also given an advance warning of the question to Clapper, who went forward with
the lie. And when Snowden revealed that it was a lie, that the NSA was collecting
data on hundreds of millions of Americans, Clapper’s response was: “Well, it was not true, what I’d said, but
it was the least untruthful statement I could have made.”

Clapper’s
line in the sand was moveable. And when he came up to the point they had
earlier defined as the line that no one should cross (lying to Congress) and
they wouldn’t cross, it moved. Sen. Wyden’s line moved as well. Sen. Wyden did
not say, “You and I both know that your statement is false. You have committed
perjury”.

Clapper
of course, had not deceived the committee. They all knew the reality. Wyden joined
Clapper by not challenging him. He became a partner in the deception of the
American public, and in a violation of the Constitution, and not some minor
part of the Constitution. They were undermining the Fourth Amendment.

Ellsberg
added a thought about personal sacrifice if one is to be a whistleblower. He
reminds us that he was often called a traitor. Ellsberg says:

We
need more Snowdens. People who will say as Snowden did, “There are things worth
dying for.”

Ellsberg
closed with a thought about Nathan Hale. Nathan Hale was a spy for the Colonies
against the British. He was the first American to be prosecuted as a spy. Ellsberg
was the second, 200 years later.

Nathan
Hale was hanged as a traitor. All of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence were traitors in the eyes of the British government. Five of them were
also hanged. Nathan Hale said, “I regret that I have but one life to give for
my country”, quite similar to what Snowden has said.

So,
Ellsberg sees a direct line from Nathan Hale, through him, to Snowden.

And
you, dear Wrongologist readers, you should decide how far to go, what is the
line that for you, shouldn’t be crossed. Then you must work to get your elected
representatives to see it the same way.

Thomas Drake, one of the whistlers, said, this notion that somehow privacy doesn’t matter, but it’s
fundamental to who we are. He reminds us of the motto of the Stasi: (East German Secret
Police): “To Know Everything”.

The Wrongologist and Ms. Oh So Right are off to China in the morning. The sole purpose of this trip is to visit Shenzhen, where Ms. Oh So Right is making a series of presentations to 3 hospitals and a medical education center. The Wrongologist will be attempting to mingle within the high-tech community, which appears to be quite sophisticated and entrepreneurial. 

Shenzhen’s population is 10 million. About 6 million of
the people are migrant workers, many living in factory dormitories during the
week. Shenzhen is the largest migrant city in China, and it has a very large expatriate community. It also has the highest per-capita income of any city in China.

Photo of Shenzhen

Of note, we will be in China on June 4th, which is the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests. According to a new book by Louisa Lin of NPR, “The People’s Republic of Amnesia“, the current younger generation in China have little or no understanding of what happened when the protests came to a sudden end, since no discussion or acknowledgement of it is sanctioned.

But, China is a land undergoing great change. The Wrongologist is reading Evan Osnos’ book about today’s China: “Age of Ambition” which observes that in 1978, the average Chinese annual income was $200, while in 2014 it is $6000. What is really underway is the collision of  individual aspiration and authoritarianism.

We hope to get a direct view of that, and report on it when we return.

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” – Mark Twain

“I have never been able to think of the day as one of mourning; I have never quite been able to feel that half-masted flags were appropriate on Decoration Day.  I have rather felt that the flag should be at the peak, because those whose dying we commemorate rejoiced in seeing it where their valor placed it.  We honor them in a joyous, thankful, triumphant commemoration of what they did.” – Benjamin Harrison

Every year, the Wrongologist reminds everyone that Memorial Day used to be called Decoration Day. Back then, it was our most solemn holiday. It was established by a military general order issued by Gen. John Logan, the national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic.

It was first observed on May 30, 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The Civil War claimed more lives than any conflict in US history, requiring the establishment of the country’s first national cemeteries. This is from Gen. Logan’s order:

By the end of the 1860s, Americans in towns and cities everywhere had begun holding springtime tributes to these countless fallen soldiers, decorating their graves with flowers and reciting prayers.

Decoration Day became Memorial Day when Congress passed the National Holiday Act of 1971, which moved observing national holidays observed to Mondays, creating three-day weekends.

So, along with parades, picnics and three-day sales, and many thinking that we are celebrating the start of summer, let’s stop and remember the people who died in our wars. Let’s do that irrespective of whether we “believed” in a particular war. Here are a few Memorial Day cartoons.

Remember the real costs this weekend:

Uncle Sam wants U:

Let’s remember that all of the war dead were Americans:

On
Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told the conservative pastors gathered at the
Family Research Council’s Watchmen on the Wall conference:

He
was met with an audible (and understandable) gasp. He earned more gasps when he
warned that this amendment would suppress the political speech rights of the
“citizenry” and “muzzle” pastors in their pulpits.

That
would be huge news if true, but Ace Detective Ted was embroidering. He was talking
about the coming vote by Senate leadership on a constitutional amendment that
would overturn
Citizens United and the
related McCutcheon case, which,
taken together, have steadily eliminated the limits on election spending by
corporations and wealthy individuals. Cruz was talking about the possibility of
losing his corporate money. Whenever a tea-party type talks about the Constitution,
it’s always about the money. Even when it’s about guns, it’s about the money.

Also
this week, Doyle McManus of the LA Times quoted
Grover Nordquist:

The
Tea Party now drives the Republican limo:

The real question is, who co-opted who?

Many Republicans aspire to drive the crazy train, but none can touch Pat Sajak. Yes he’s THAT Pat Sajak:

Tea Party wants Obama to violate the 22^nd Amendment:

And in other depressingly same old, same old, news this week, this week’s vote by Congress doesn’t really put the NSA on a short leash:

The Two Faces of Uncle Sam:

What’s
Wrong Today:

“There are no facts, only interpretation” – Susan Sontag

Last week, we talked about two Supreme
Court decisions, one with a terrible impact and one with a useful impact on
America. The useful and most recent of those decisions, Brown v. Board
of Education, was handed down 60 years ago. It was a 9-0 decision. Despite
the unanimity, there was sustained talk of impeaching the Chief Justice of that
court, Earl Warren, who had been the Republican nominee for
VP in 1948.

While we have had our share of
controversial decisions in the past 60 years, the real issue has been a shift
to voting by the justices along party or ideological lines. Adam Liptak in the NYT reported
about polarization of the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS): (emphasis by the
Wrongologist)

Liptak
goes on: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

OK,
he forgot Bush v. Gore
in 2000. By contrast, in just the last three terms, there were five major
decisions that were closely divided along partisan lines: the ones on the Voting
Rights Act, campaign
finance, arbitration,
immigration
and strip-searches.
In the current term, last month’s campaign
finance ruling and the Town of
Greece decision on legislative prayer fits the same pattern.

Liptak
reported earlier about a study
conducted by the legal scholars Lee Epstein, Christopher Parker, and Jeffrey
Segal, which showed that Supreme Court justices betrayed “in-group”
bias in their First Amendment jurisprudence — that is, they were more likely to uphold the First Amendment claims of defendants
whose speech they liked:

 

Importantly,
this confirms recent
polling by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps which showed that only
about a third of Americans believe SCOTUS decides cases based on the law alone. According to the poll, Americans believe the Supreme Court justices
are political, letting their personal views sway their decisions — an opinion
held across party lines. The poll tracks with other polling from Pew
and Gallup
showing the court’s favorability at historic lows.

Majorities
of Republican, Democratic, and Independent respondents all told the pollsters
that “the current US Supreme Court justices often let their own personal or
political views influence their decisions” — 54% of Democrats, 62% of
Republicans, and 63% of Independents, for a total result of 60% of respondents
agreeing with the statement.

Only
36% of respondents agreed that “the current US Supreme Court justices usually
decide their cases based on legal analysis without regard to their own personal
or political views.”

Specifically
regarding the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision, 80%
of Americans opposed the decision and 18% supported it. Although Republicans
(72%) were less opposed to the decision than Democrats (82%), and
Independents (84%) were most opposed to the decision.

The
polling is based on a survey of 1,004 Americans over the age of 18, conducted
from April 16–24. It has a margin of error of 3.1% at the 95% confidence level.

The
Week reported:

The
Week indicates that the court’s four most conservative members are among the four most conservative
justices to have served on the Supreme Court since World War II, with the
court’s most liberal current member (Ginsburg) well to the right of Warren Court-era liberals like William
Brennan and Thurgood Marshall. It’s not clear, however, that both parties have
an equal understanding of this: While the Bush administration saw the
confirmation of unapologetically conservative justices like Roberts and Alito,
the Obama administration has worked to nominate those — Sotomayor and Kagan —
who are considered fairly moderate on the liberal spectrum.

Moreover, it is
nearly certain that any nominee selected by a Republican president would be
more consistently conservative than the court’s current swing vote, Justice Kennedy.

The
result going forward is likely to be lurches between periods of consistently
conservative and liberal outcomes rather than producing decisions that tend to
fall within the center of public opinion (as has been the historical norm).

Says
The Economist: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

Nor
should the contraceptive mandate for employers in Obamacare stand or fall
depending on the religious and ideological makeup of the Supreme Court.

Yet, you shouldn’t
be surprised if the Hobby
Lobby and Conestoga
Wood cases are decided on apparently ideological (religious) lines
in the next few weeks.

It
is obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that the Supreme Court today is an
adjunct of the Republican Right. But we pretend that it is an institution
devoted to an honest and impartial adjudication of law. But, ordinary people know 9
times out of 10, how the Supremes are going to vote.

Immediately
after the Constitutional
Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked about what had been decided. He replied that the
constitutional convention “gave you a republic, if you can keep it.”

That
“you” means “we”, and not our federal judges.

If
we don’t elect presidents and senators who are committed to keeping our
constitutional republic, then we can’t expect the judges they appoint to keep
it for us, either.

We
live now with dishonest politics, disinformed, and disinforming media,
disconnected cultures, disjointed economics, dysfunctional communities and
disrespected citizens. Repairing our country will require adding a moral
foundation to our politics.

The
US has become, if anything, meaner, smaller, nastier, and more contentious since
the 1980’s. We see push back against civil rights, the fracturing of the middle
class, the overweaning power of the oligarchy, and the radical right’s burning desire to
inflict pain on the poor, who apparently are transgressors against the American
Ideal.

Should
we talk about Hillary’s health? OK! She hit her head. Is she too old? Was
Reagan too old? Was W. too incurious? Was Bill too needy? Was Gore too
arrogant? Is Obama too arrogant? Too aloof? Too tyrannical? Too much a
pushover? Take
your pick, anyone can play! And everybody does!

Pay no attention to these toxic
buffoons.

Policy
questions? Why? You can’t have policy questions if the legislature is
paralyzed! Is this a form of ideological paralysis, or strategic paralysis? Ooh
wait! Strategy! Now let’s talk about strategy instead of policy! Is getting
your way by fooling the electorate a BAD thing, or a GOOD thing? Discuss!

You
must keep score! Who’s on first? Where are we? My head hurts, I must have hit
it on something.

Pay
no attention to toxic buffoons like Rove:

Or toxic buffoons like Marco Rubio or other Deniers:

Or, toxic buffoons like the “Select” Committee on Benghazi:

Or, buffoons in the media who keep selling the same thing:

Or, buffoons who stand on principle:

Or, bureaucrat buffoons who cook the books:

What’s
Wrong Today:

The
anniversary of two Supreme Court decisions that changed America occur this
week, and neither were by John Roberts or Antonin Scalia.

The
first decision did not change the country for the better. That decision was Plessy v. Ferguson. It was decided 118 years ago, on May 18, 1896. The
decision set the precedent that “separate” facilities for blacks
and whites were constitutional as long as they were “equal.” The
court interpreted the 14th Amendment in such a way that equality in the law
could be met through segregated facilities.

The
“separate but equal” doctrine was quickly extended to cover many
areas of public life, such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public
schools. Unfortunately, the separate facilities and institutions accorded to
African Americans were consistently inferior to those provided to
the White community and contradicted the vague declaration of “separate
but equal” institutions issued after the Plessy decision.

Plessy is regarded as one of the most
notorious Supreme Court rulings in US history, often grouped with Dred
Scott v. Sandford (which held that people of African descent are not
protected by the Constitution). But
where it took a civil war and subsequent Constitutional amendments to overturn Dred
Scott, Plessy was reversed only after another Supreme Court decision,
Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

This
week (May 17) is also the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court
decision in Brown v. The Board of Education. In Brown, the Court found that
separate is inherently unequal – even if the school facilities and
teachers are of equal quality – because
the segregation policy itself is usually interpreted as denoting the
inferiority of the [African American] group.

Ironically,
announcement of the Brown decision came on the 58th
anniversary of Plessy v. Ferguson, the very case Brown overturned.

After
Plessey, Jim Crow laws were passed
throughout the South. They established separate facilities for Blacks and
Whites in everything from schools to restrooms, drinking fountains to witness
stands in courtrooms. African American community leaders who had achieved political
success during the Reconstruction era lost any gains made when their voters
disappeared.

Historian
Rogers Smith wrote about the Jim Crow laws in Civic
Ideals:

The
Civil Rights movement during the first 50 years of the 20th Century
accepted this policy of “separate but equal” in its struggle to gain access for
people of color into the society. They fought in many communities for equal pay
for teachers and for equal school facilities. It fought for equal libraries,
recreational facilities, and health services.

For
more than 50 years, Plessy defined
the terms of that struggle.

Although
many believe that the case of Brown v.
Board of Education actually overturned Plessy,
the Cornell Law School reports that the
opinion of the case clearly stated that Brown
found Plessy to be inappropriate only in the area of public education.

Plessy v. Ferguson was never overturned by the Supreme
Court; codified and legal segregation was finally banned by the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.

For
some, the Brown decision allowed proponents for better opportunities for
Blacks to fight for positive gains and full equality. But the fact that there
were few means to implement these decisions became clear when it became obvious
that few gains were achieved. By 1960, a new student-led Civil Rights movement
was formed.

Where
the Supreme Court’s Plessy majority
ignored a plea for empathy and was unwilling (or unable) to consider the case in
its full social and historical context, the Supreme Court in Brown listened, and offered an effective
rebuttal to Plessy’s reliance on abstractions. In Brown, the Supreme Court expressly grounded its reasoning in the world
in which it, and the parties lived.

In
other words, the reasoning in Plessy and
Brown can be divided along the lines
of context and empathy, with Plessy a
failed decision made in an intellectual vacuum, and Brown as the rejection of judicial decision-making in a vacuum.

Sound
like today’s Court to you?

There
will be millions of words analyzing the Brown decision this week. Some, like
the Wall
Street Journal see a triumph:

Others
see an unfinished job. The WaPo’s WonkBlog
reports
that 60 years on, Brown v. Board of Education has largely yielded parallel
progress and disappointment:

WaPo
says that since the 1970s, integrated schools have actually
been disappearing, while residential
racial segregation in the US has
steadily declined, segregation among school-aged children has increased. So, in
the communities where they live, black and white children, as well as the poor
and non-poor, are more isolated from
each other than adults in the US population at large.

Further, UCLA’s
Civil Rights Project report, Brown
at 60 shows that relying on Brown
may not be enough:

And
it’s no longer just a black-and-white issue:

• Latinos
  are now the largest minority group in public schools, surpassing blacks. And
  about 57% attend schools that are majority Latino

• In
  New York, California and Texas more than half of all Latino students go to
  schools that are 90% minority or more

• The
  South now is the least segregated section of America. Outside of Texas, no
  Southern state is in the top five in terms of most segregated for black students

• In
  New York, Illinois, Maryland and Michigan black students attend schools where
  90% or more are minority

While
racial discrimination remains a factor, other forces are in play. Educated
parents with means have flocked to suburban districts and schools with the best
reputations for decades. In the South, many school districts encompass both a
city and the surrounding area, and that has led to better-integrated schools.

Still,
around the country, only 23% of black students attended white-majority schools
in 2011. That’s the lowest number
since 1968, despite the WSJ’s
feel-good thinking.

At
the same time, there’s been a demographic change in public schools. Between
1968 and 2011, the number of Hispanic students in the public school system rose
495%, while the number of black students increased by 19% percent and the number
of white students dropped 28%, according to the Education Department.

Segregation
will always exist.

Some
segregation today is self-imposed. Some occurs because of the end of busing to achieve
racial balance. Some is driven by economic circumstances.

58
years after Plessy, the Brown decision was a
triumph for a civil society.

Today, it hardly seems to have been enough for our
minority student populations.

What’s Wrong Today:

The level of ambivalence in Europe regarding what to
do about Ukraine and Russia’s actions continues to grow. Bloomberg reported that the EU added
13 people to its list of sanctioned Russians and, for the first time, added a
few companies. However, the companies were two Crimean energy companies that were
expropriated from Ukraine by Russia.

Are these actions proof that the EU is ready to
endure much of the self-inflicted pain that effective economic sanctions against
Russia would involve?

Not really.

French President Francois Hollande confirmed
on Monday that France will sell to Russia two Mistral
Class helicopter carriers worth €1.2 billion ($1.64 billion). You might
have thought that this sale would have been canceled, since the vessels enable
Russia to quickly deliver air power and tanks to potential battle zones in the
Black Sea area, (think: Odessa, Moldova and Georgia). In fact, the second
carrier is named “Sevastopol”, after the Crimean seaport. Russian sailors will start
training on board the first ship next month, and will take delivery in October.

France
24 reported that, despite tensions between Russia and the West reaching
their highest point since the end of the Cold War, French President Hollande
invited Vladimir Putin to attend the commemoration of the landing at Normandy by
the allies on June 6. Russia’s ambassador to France, Alexander Orlov:

France 24 quoted President Hollande:

Hollande said in an interview with France 2 that the Normandy
landings were only possible because of the Soviet Army’s effort in the east, while
French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said:

Bloomberg quotes
German Chancellor
Angela Merkel: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

The June 6 commemoration will mark the first time
Putin and Western leaders will come face-to-face since the outbreak of the
crisis in Ukraine. Mr. Obama will be at the Normandy Commemoration, but Josh Earnest, a White
House spokesman, said there were no plans for Obama to have a separate meeting
with Putin.

It may be appropriate for the parties to separate
the war commemorations of WWII from the current geopolitical conflict, and it
seems that the US was in agreement about Putin attending the ceremonies.

But the Ukraine situation continues: On Tuesday, days
after Ukraine received the first $3.2 billion tranche from an International
Monetary Fund (IMF) aid package, Russia’s Gazprom sent Ukraine a $1.6 billion bill for pre-payment of June’s gas deliveries, at $486.50 per
thousand cubic meters (the highest in Europe, and up from $268.50 before
Ukrainian President Yanukovych was deposed). Failure to pay, Gazprom said, will mean
that supplies will be cut off starting June 3.

Mr. Putin says Russia wants to see Ukraine’s future
resolved through dialogue, that it didn’t want Sunday’s independence referendum
in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, and that it is withdrawing
troops from Ukraine’s border. But, he then endorsed the referendum results, and
hasn’t moved his troops away from the boarder.

So, if we look at actions, rather than just what has
been said, the Europeans also continue to show their deep ambivalence regarding
Putin’s words and actions in Ukraine. Europe wants the conflict to just go away,
while Kiev has no ability to respond to its citizens’ need for protection, or
to the moves of its Eastern citizens toward independence.

According to The
Jamestown Foundation: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

Putin has executed a smart tactical maneuver by
playing to the business/political interests in the West that say Ukraine isn’t
worth a confrontation. He also continues to use Russia’s economic clout with
Europe to stifle any unified and severe sanctions response from the EU.

Russia is also closely involved with several of Mr. Obama’s
top foreign policy priorities, even negotiating alongside Washington in talks
aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program.

All of this leaves the US without much leeway to act.

Despite the results of the Eastern referendum, the diplomatic initiative could remain in
the hands of Ukraine. The presidential elections on May 25th
could rescue Ukraine from being a failed state if turnout is high, and the
results undisputed.

A reconstituted Ukrainian state would see Russia as
an existential threat, so “winning Crimea, but losing Ukraine” is the best
Putin could achieve, if the elections were to be a unifying event for the
country.

Instead, civil war, is a real possibility. The Jamestown
Foundation reports that nearly half of Russians now see civil war as the most
probable outcome of the Ukrainian crisis (up from 22% in early March). Mr. Putin
could be the loser if there is a brushfire civil war, since any Russian intervention
might trigger unity in Europe against Moscow.

Whether
it is a successful election or civil war, the US should not do more. Europe
doesn’t want to do more, Russia doesn’t want to do more. Ukrainians can’t do much more. All of these actors have to want to do more than the US if we are to be an effective broker in the region.

America’s
neo-cons want us to get involved. We hear them shout: “appeasement” and “Obama
is another Chamberlain” (That’s Neville, not Wilt).

Why
is it in our interest to listen to them?

What’s
Wrong Today:

According
to Turkish media, on May 29, Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan will attend a
symbolic prayer in the orthodox temple of Hagia Sophia,
on the anniversary of the siege of Constantinople by the Ottomans.

From
the Economist:
Prime Minister Erdogan plans to lead prayers in the building to mark the 561st
anniversary of the conversion of the Sophia to a mosque:

Bulent
Arinc, a deputy Prime Minister, has already overseen the conversion of two
other Hagia Sophia churches: one in Iznik in 2012 and another in Trabzon in
2013. The Economist quotes Arinc:

Since
1935, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul has been a museum, not a church or a mosque.
This was the solution devised by Kemal Ataturk, one of the 20th century’s great
statesmen, to resolve competing claims by the Muslim and Christian communities
in Turkey. The Sophia was built by the Romans in 360. The dome visible in the
photo below was added in 537. Constantine made it the home of the Roman church
(and named the city, Constantinople). It was an Eastern Orthodox Church for a
short period, and from 1453 to 1931, it was a mosque. Here is a photo of the Hagia
Sophia taken last March:

Photo by the Wrongologist

The
Sophia shows the additions and subtractions as its religion changed from
Christian to Islam. Following the building’s conversion into a mosque in 1453,
many of its mosaics were covered with plaster, due to Islam’s ban on
representational imagery:

Photo by the Wrongologist

This is one of the Deësis mosaics that date from 1261. It was commissioned to mark the
end of 57 years of Roman Catholic use and the return to the Orthodox
faith. It is the third panel situated in the imperial enclosure of the
upper galleries. It is widely considered the finest in Hagia Sophia,
because of the softness of the features, the humane expressions and the
tones of the mosaic. Here is a detail from the mosaic:

Photo by the Wrongologist

These mosaics were uncovered in the 1930s by a team from the Byzantine Institute of America led by Thomas Whittemore. The team uncovered all major mosaics. Since
then, there has been a continuing effort to partially restore the provenance of
the building.

The threat to the
Sophia’s museum status emerged in December 2012 when a local court ruled in
favor of the General Directorate of Pious Foundations, the government body
responsible for the country’s ancient mosques. It declared that the mosque was
an “inalienable” part of the legacy of Mehmed II, who conquered Istanbul in
1453 and converted the church to a mosque in 1453. The Sophia was the personal
property of Mehmed II (the title deed survives). And in his will, Mehmed II
decreed that it should remain a mosque “until Judgment Day.”

The court held that
the Ministry of Culture that manages the Sophia, had been “illegally occupying”
the building.  

However,
the recent push for conversion back to a mosque seems to be another game playing
out between Mr. Erdogan, his AKP party and Fethullah
Gulen, the Pennsylvania-based preacher whom Mr. Erdogan has accused of
seeking to overthrow his government.

According
to Al-Monitor,
several columnists from the Fethullah Gulen community had launched a campaign
calling for the Sophia to be turned to a mosque and opened to Muslim
worship. Apparently, they are using Twitter intensively to spread the message.
From the Turkish paper Hurriyet, an article by Ertugrul
Ozkok:

Some think
that with this move, the Gulen Movement is trying to restore its political
credentials. Mr. Gulen had tried to discredit the government through a
corruption probe launched by his disciples in the judiciary. Regardless of the
truth of that, you can read the Wrongologist’s report here.

Now it may
be that Mr. Gulen is attempting to wedge Mr. Erdogan by putting him into
difficulty about his religious position, which previously had been against any
change in the Sophia’s status. Even Mr. Arinc, who wants the Sophia to be a
mosque, did not take the bait, declaring that a conversion of the Sophia was “not
on the government’s agenda”. Bulent Turan, an AK deputy said: (brackets by the
Wrongologist)

Here is a
photo taken inside today’s Sophia that demonstrates the multicultural history
of the building:

The medallion on the right
represents Allah, while the medallion on the left is for Mohammad.

Behind the
medallions is the nave of the original church, with the middle window pointing
to Jerusalem. The lighted arch in the nave was added when the building became a
mosque, and it points toward Mecca.

Turkey
currently has about 85,000 mosques, around 10,000 of which have been built
since the AKP came to power in 2002. A huge mosque is currently being
constructed on the highest hill overlooking Istanbul.

But there
have been no efforts to take working churches away from Christian communities
and turn them into mosques.

Photo
by the Wrongologist

In 2011, the government ordered the return of
property confiscated decades ago to the dwindling Christian and Jewish
communities in Turkey, which number less than 200,000 people in a country of 75
million.

Turkey has been
held up as proof that the Islam is perfectly compatible with multiparty
democracy, a pro-Western foreign policy, and healthy economic growth.
Re-converting the Sophia to a mosque would make many in the West rethink that
view.

Yet today, politics
may lead the Sophia, and Turkey, in that different direction.

This magnificent
temple that was designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1985, inspires
its 3+million annual visitors as an example of tolerance and pluralism in a world
rapidly moving away from these concepts.

It should
remain open to all.

“Just
because an organization has the power to do something doesn’t mean it should” – Seth
Godin

Seth is
talking about power, policy and public
perception. Consider these overreaches in the pursuit of more money:

• Car
  dealers working to stop Tesla
• The
  NFL refusing to pay sales tax
• Amazon
  trading customer satisfaction for concessions
• Power
  utilities working to stop net metering by solar panel homeowners
• Telecom
  companies working behind the scenes to get the FCC to abandon
  net
  neutrality

Or,
consider Boko Haram stealing female students:

Or, consider Republicans climbing Mount Benghazi (again):

Or, consider the Supreme Court’s focus on prayer at town meetings:

A majority of voters now support reforming the Supreme Court. According to a new survey by the polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, wide majorities disagree with the Court’s recent string of 5-4 party-line rulings:

• The landmark Citizens United ruling is opposed by a whopping 80-18 margin.
• The more recent McCutcheon decision, which lifted caps on total campaign spending, was said by a 51% to be likely to create more corruption, while 8% suggested it would lead to less.
• By a 60-36 spread, those surveyed said that Supreme Court justices were more likely to be carrying out a personal or political agenda than working to render a fair and impartial judgment, an opinion that cut across party lines.

Overall approval of the Supreme Court has been falling ever since its 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000, according to a different survey by Gallup.

Or, consider the continuing denial of climate change:

Or, consider the VA scandal in Phoenix and how badly we have treated returning Vets:

The VA is underfunded and suffers from most of the problems associated with being a fairly low priority Federal bureaucracy. What reportedly happened in the Phoenix VA may or may not be an anomaly. The care at VA centers seems to be good, but once soldiers get home and are out of the service, they are pretty much written off.

Power, Policy and Perception. How often do we get to be wrong about them?