The last person I expected to record a Christmas record


I’d been hearing that this was going to come out, but really wasn’t sure what to say about it. I’m still not sure — a Bob Dylan Christmas album featuring him singing such happy tunes as “Here Comes Santa Claus,” “Winter Wonderland,” “Little Drummer Boy” and “Must Be Santa.”

What to say?

The album is a charity project — as his release says,

All of the artist’s U.S. royalties from sales of these recordings will be donated to Feeding America, guaranteeing that more than four million meals will be provided to more than 1.4 million people in need in this country during this year’s holiday season. Bob Dylan is also donating all of his future U.S. royalties from this album to Feeding America in perpetuity.

Additionally, the artist is partnering with two international charities to provide meals during the holidays for millions in need in the United Kingdom and the developing world, and will be donating all of his future international royalties from Christmas In The Heart to those organizations in perpetuity. Details regarding the international partnerships will be announced next week.

“When we reached out to Bob Dylan about becoming involved with our organization, we could never have anticipated that he would so generously donate all royalties from his forthcoming album to our cause,” said Vicki Escarra, president and CEO of Feeding America. “This major initiative from such a world renowned artist and cultural icon will directly benefit so many people and have a major impact on spreading awareness of the epidemic of hunger in this country and around the world.”

Bob Dylan commented, “It’s a tragedy that more than 35 million people in this country alone — 12 million of those children – often go to bed hungry and wake up each morning unsure of where their next meal is coming from. I join the good people of Feeding America in the hope that our efforts can bring some food security to people in need during this holiday season.”

I still don’t know what to say.

Green issues not likely to be on gubernatorial table

Environmental issues are likely to get short shrift in this gubernatorial race — and not only because the two leading candidates appear stuck in attack mode and willing to focus on the smallest of alleged ethical lapses.

It’s not only because property taxes and the economy are front in center in voters’ minds.

It has to do with a lack of real interest in the environment by either Gov. Jon Corzine or Chris Christie.

Corzine does not have a good environmental record. He has done some good things — boosting alternative fuels, for instance — but his larger record is far from green, as this report issued by the EPA (which is led by his former environmental commissioner) shows.

Christie has some interesting (if vague and modest) proposals on his Web site, but has said little about green issues on the stump — except to slam Corzine for failing to win the endorsement from the Sierra Club (which Christie also failed to earn).

A second group last week also withheld its endorsement — this time of all candidates:

One of New Jersey’s leading environmental groups announced today it will withhold an endorsement in this year’s governor’s race because its leaders have yet to hear substantive environmental plans from the candidates.

“We really think the candidates thus far have done a poor job crafting environmental positions and showing where they stand on the environment,” said Dena Mattola Jaborska, executive director of Environment New Jersey. “Before people go to the polls this fall, we want them to be educated on the candidates positions.”

Basically, neither of these guys has much of a record to stand on when it comes to green issues and neither is going to go out of his way to talk about it.

Church, state and gay marriage

Last week, I wrote of the Episcopal Church’s slow, but seemingly inevitable move toward blessing same-sex marriages — some thing I view as indicative of a positive societal change. The church has not done so yet, but it has opened the door for individual bishops to allow the priests that serve under them to go as far as blessing same-sex unions without calling them marriage.

It is, admittedly, a fine point, a bit of language parsing that was designed to maintain unity with the larger Anglican Union, of which the American church is a part.

Contrast this news story on the Catholic Church in New Jersey:

Catholic bishops in New Jersey have begun a campaign against same-sex marriage in anticipation of a possible vote on the issue by state legislators sometime after the November election.

The bishops directed Catholic priests throughout the state to distribute in parish bulletins last Sunday a 2,300-word letter opposing same-sex marriage. The priests are also expected to speak about the issue from the altar after Labor Day.

“The Catholic Church teaches today and has always and everywhere taught for 2,000 years that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” the letter reads. “This great truth about marriage is not some obscure doctrinal fine point but a fact of human nature, recognized from time immemorial by people of virtually every faith and culture.”

I have no problem with the church holding the view that same-sex marriage violates church law and refusing to sanctify those unions or allow Catholics to participate in the official spiritual life of the church. That is for the Catholic Church and its believers to deal with.

The issue is what comes later in the letter, according to the Ledger:

The letter distributed last Sunday mentions Vatican writings and a verse straight from the catechism of the Catholic Church, a text that spells out official Catholic teachings.

The bishops reason that, given that God “bestowed” the gift of marriage on humanity, “governments, therefore, have a duty to reinforce and protect this permanent institution and to pass it on to future generations, rather than attempt to redefine it arbitrarily for transitory political or social reasons.”

The church, basically, wants the government to adopt and abide by church teachings, to acknowledge that marriage was a gift bestowed by god on humanity — something that would privilege the church and other religious denominations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage over Americans who support the legalization of same-sex marriage. (That would be a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits Congress — and, by extension, thanks to the 14th Amendment, the states — from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”)

The dispute, when framed this way, makes it clear that the issue is not necessarily whether government should legalize same-sex marriage, but whether government should be involved in marriage at all and whether it should leave the designation of unions as marriage to the couples involved. Government then could focus on contractual unions between two people, which would be gender-neutral and would cover all of the current 1,000-plus rights and benefits that now go to married couples.

Health care, of course, could be addressed if we were to go with a single-payer system, but loads of others — access to hospitals, all federal benefits — are tied to the marriage label. Even in New Jersey, where civil unions are supposed to confer equal status, gay and lesbian couples have faced arbitrary refusals.

Basically, either government — and I’m talking about Congress and the president and the 45 states who have yet to do so — must legalize same-sex marriage or get out of the marriage business altogether.

The lion sleeps tonight

Sen. Edward Kennedy, in many ways the most talented and influential of a talented and influential band of brothers, succumbed early this morning to the brain cancer that has kept him away from the institution he had been a member of for 47 years.

Kennedy, for many, was a caricature — the disoriented drunk of the Clarence Thomas hearings, the protection of privilege that was at the center of the William Kennedy Smith trial, his womanizing, Chappaquidick — and there is truth in the image.

But Kennedy’s legacy is his commitment to a kind of liberalism that had fallen out of fashion as the ’70s wore on and moved into the ugly, Reaganite 1980s. It was a commitment to universal health coverage, to education for all, to diplomacy and peace.

For decades, Kennedy was at the center of the most important issues facing the nation, and he did much to help shape them. A defender of the poor and politically disadvantaged, he set the standard for his party on health care, education, civil rights, campaign-finance reform and labor law. He also came to oppose the war in Vietnam and, from the beginning, was an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq.

Congressional scholar Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, described Kennedy’s mark on the Senate as “an amazing and endurable presence. You want to go back to the 19th century to find parallels, but you won’t find parallels. It was the completeness of his involvement in the work of the Senate that explains his career.”

The Post said the “list of major laws bearing his imprint … fills pages.”

In 1965, he led the successful Senate floor battle that passed what was popularly known as the Hart-Celler Act, landmark legislation that abolished immigration quotas and lifted a 1924 ban on immigration from Asia.

“This bill really goes to the very central ideals of our country,” Kennedy said on the floor of the Senate. The legislation, the most significant immigration reform in four decades, passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins.

He was long the Senate’s leading voice on civil rights, including the 1982 Voting Rights Act extension, as well as efforts to advance the concept of equality to include the disabled and women in the workplace.

In 1972, he was a key supporter of Title IX, an amendment requiring colleges and universities to provide equal funding for men’s and women’s athletics. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he played an important though indirect role in the 1973 investigation of the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation. In 1996 and again in 2007, he was the lead Senate sponsor of legislation increasing the minimum wage.

In the 1980s, when a Republican president and Senate mounted a major campaign to roll back programs he had championed, he led the fight to save them. Even in the minority, he worked to expand government’s role in providing health care to children, making loans available to college students and extending civil rights to the disabled, among many other embattled initiatives.

He voted against both Iraq wars and challenged the growing militarism.

Health care, however, will be his legacy. While universal health insurance has yet to become a reality, it is because of Kennedy that we are still talking about national health care and are likely to see it come to fruition.

Long before he fell ill, Kennedy made health care a major focus of his career, terming it “the cause of my life.” His legislation resulted in access to health care for millions of people and funded cures for diseases that afflicted people around the world. He was a longtime advocate for universal health care and was instrumental in promoting biomedical research, as well as AIDS research and treatment. He was a leader in the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill — with senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.) — which allowed employees to keep health insurance after leaving their job.

Health care reform is “a defining issue for our society,” Kennedy told fellow senators during a 1994 debate. “Do we really care about our fellow citizens?” It was a question he asked countless times, in one form or another, during his long Senate career. He faced opposition from most Republicans — and more than a few Democrats — who insisted that Kennedy’s proposals for universal health care amounted to socialized medicine that would lead to bureaucratic sclerosis and budget-breaking costs and inefficiencies.

Receiving a diagnosis in May 2008 of a brain tumor, Kennedy rose from his hospital bed that summer and cast a dramatic vote on the Senate floor in favor of legislation preventing sharp cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. Several Republicans were so moved by his presence that they switched their earlier votes on the bill, giving it a veto-proof majority.

It must have pained him to see the inertia that has stricken the Senate — and the obstructionist ways of an opposition party unwilling to work across the aisle to move anything forward.