Progress and the State of Eternal War

Two days ago, President Obama took the public oath of office for the second time. His inaugural speech, as is commonly the case with such addresses, was long on general rhetoric and short on specific policy measures. It was, no doubt, historic on several levels, not least of which was the use of the term “gay” (used to describe individuals of homosexual orientation) for the first time in such an address, and the inclusion of the Stonewall Riots alongside the Seneca Falls Convention and Selma, thus equating the struggle of homosexuals for equal rights under law with those of women and African-Americans.

It was an address that gives hope for the beginning of a truly progressive administration that will at least attempt to start the process of reversing the damage done by nearly 30 years of an almost continually rightward shift in the economic, political and social discourse of the nation. It would, of course, be naïve to think that such changes will be easy or occur quickly, especially with a still largely obstructionist Republican Congress in power.

I would like to focus on one part of Obama’s speech that I think is at the heart of what can be done to redress the failure of previous administrations, including the President’s own first term, to adhere to the values and promise of the United States.

President Obama stated that “We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”

For at least ten years, we have been told, in true Orwellian fashion, that we are at war. Not with a nation, or an economic system, but with an abstract concept that has an ever-changing meaning. We have been told that there is a lurking, nebulous, and existential threat to our well being, and that threat is a word: “Terrorism.”

Let’s leave aside, for now, the hypocrisy of the United States’ documented history of being a state sponsor of “terrorist” groups (both governmental and subversive) when it has suited our own policy agenda. The idea that we can wage a physical war on an abstract concept is both ludicrous and a recipe for that very state of perpetual war the president describes.

If Mr. Obama is serious about what he said in his inaugural address, there are a few steps he can take to make a concrete start if he wants to “win the peace:”

1. Most importantly, the president should immediately, and without reservation, ask the Congress to repeal the “Authorization for Use of Force Against Terrorists,” which was a joint resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2011, and purports to give the president the power to use the military anywhere and everywhere “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Congress specifically granted this power to be in conformity with the War Powers Act in which the Legislative Branch of our government partially relinquished its Constitutional power to declare war. This would be, of course, an act unprecedented in history, as no chief executive has ever willingly relinquished a power granted to him once it had been given. But this one joint resolution puts us, for all intents and purposes, in a state of perpetual war, a war that cannot be won due to the simple fact that it is a war on an abstract concept, and not a specific enemy.

2. The administration should call for the immediate repeal of those portions of the USA PATRIOT Act that expand the government’s powers in contravention of the 1^st, 4^th and 5^thAmendments to the U.S. Constitution. These portions include , but are not limited to: Sections 214, 215, 216 and 218, which expand the government’s power to spy on its citizens by requesting information on citizens from third parties without those citizens’ consent, search private property without notice to the owner of said property, expands the FISA exception to warrantless wire tapping of U.S. Citizens, as well as “trap and trace” searches that purport to gather only address information, but in practice result in the revelation of the content of private messages.

3. The president should explicitly repudiate the so-called “Bush Doctrine” that advocates interference with the domestic politics of foreign powers and encourages the concept of “Preventative War.” He must also publically renounce the use of “enhanced interrogation methods” (i.e. torture), “extraordinary rendition” (i.e. kidnapping) and the use of unmanned aircraft for the purposes of political assassination. These methods have caused possibly irreparable damage to the strength, standing and reputation of the U.S. as a global power that stands for the concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Further, rather than achieving the stated goal of reducing the threat of attack on the U.S. these policies have created the conditions necessary for radical leaders to convince otherwise peaceful people to be complicit in attacks against a United States that is acting in an unjust manner.

4. Mr. Obama should renounce the idea of “American Exceptionalism,” as an outdated, ethnocentric, and anti-democratic concept. We must engage the world on an even footing, recognizing that our nation is, on average, no better or worse than any other, and that other countries have the right to establish and pursue their own policy interests within their own spheres of influence.

5. The president must immediately close the gulag located in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and those detained there should either be charged with crimes in Federal Courts of competent jurisdiction where the evidence allows, or returned to the countries from which they were taken.

If the president is serious about ending the state of perpetual war, these actions are indispensible, and can only serve to enhance the security and standing of the United Sates.

Notice that Mr. Obama used the phrase “We the People,”when discussing the issue of perpetual war. This entails that it is incumbent upon us, U.S. Citizens, to remember the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and that if they are to have meaning, they must apply to everyone, across the board. Terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States, unless we, the people, make it one. We do this every time we compromise our core values in the name of “security” or some nebulous concept of revenge. I have never been more ashamed to be American than the night the death of Osama Bin Laden was announced, as I watched Americans dancing in the streets, waving flags and celebrating the end of another human being’s existence. The pictures could have been taken straight from some middle eastern countries celebrating the September 11 attacks. Is this what we are as a nation now? A screaming mob howling for the blood of other people, and celebrating the extra-judicial killing of a man who posed no imminent threat to our individual selves? I don’t pretend to know whether it was possible for Bin Laden to be taken alive to face due process of law. It is very possible he would not allow himself to be captured. What I do know, is that an operation that was an obvious violation of Pakistani sovereignty and resulted in the death of a human being, no matter how we, as individuals felt about that human being, is cause for sober reflection on the state our nation is in, not a wild celebration. If we truly believe in the rule of law, than we should never be happy when the law is eroded.

Perhaps our president can help lead us to these conclusions; but in the end, it is up to us to realize, that in the words of the band Rush: “Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world, than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled.”

A Modest Proposal for The Donald

It has come to my attention that many Americans are unaware of the huge threats facing our country today. What with the gay agenda, run-away government spending on useless programs like headstart, medicare, and social security, and the fascist attempt to turn us all into socialists by giving people access to healthcare, coupled with the constant threat of Middle-Eastern terrorism in our own country which has only been staved off by sending our people to be killed in other countries, the American way of life is in more danger now than in any time in our great nation’s history.

This why it is more important than ever that we thoroughly vet those who might possibly try to attempt to lead us. I understand that Donald Trump is exploring the possibility of running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. I applaud Mr. Trump for his past contributions to the economy and culture of our country, and for his desire to enter the public service. I do have one concern however.

You see, I read on the internet that Mr. Trump’s grandparents emigrated from Germany. I also heard, somewhere, that our country was at war not once, but twice, with that country as recently as last century. Therefore, I have to wonder about Mr. Trump’s eligibility for the presidency. Please understand that I’m not saying he’s a German enemy combatant; I’m simply asking the question.

So I am proposing that Mr. Trump release a copy of his long form birth certificate to the citizens of the United States. Now, an on-line posting is fine and good for some things, but, let’s face it, sometimes people lie on the internet. That is why I propose that Mr. Trump send a certified hard copy of his birth certificate to every registered voter in the U.S. Now, this should be easy, as registered voter lists are public record, and I’m sure Mr. Trump has a certified long-form birth certificate handy at all times, like all good Americans. But, to be generous, I’ll give him a month to complete the mailings. After all, we Americans are entitled to know the truth.

In fact, since the popular current thought is that government should be run like a business, I think, that as Mr. Trump’s prospective employers, the American people need a completed W-4 and I-9 from him, along with the 2 types of acceptable identification as indicated on those forms. After all, if we are going to hire him to run the country, we have to make sure he’s not part of the illegal immigrant menace that threatens to destroy life as we know it.

So, Mr. Trump, I know that after thinking about it, you will agree that this is best for the country. I await your correspondence with confidence. After all, it’s the least you can do if you want to hear those magical words: “You’re Hired.”

Johnny Dangerously and The American Right.

John McCain has stepped back. We'll see how long it lasts, but after TV and radio ads run by his campaign that have accused Barak Obama of being "dangerous" and a"liar," McCain actually tried to douse some of his supporters' fire by saying that Obama is a "decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of as President of the United States." These remarks came at a "town hall"-style campaign rally that, like many others recently, featured heated rhetoric by the questioners, along with shouts of "traitor," "liar," "terrorist," and even "off with his head." So what are we to make of these outbursts? Frightened citizens wanting to protect their families, or desperate attempts by jaded Republicans to strike up some electoral fervor?

First off, lets identify those making these kinds of comments. One gentleman, shaking with rage, implored McCain to attack Obama strongly in the next debate because the "Socialists are taking over our country." This person obviously didn't know that the very man he was talking to had "suspended his campaign" to try to push through the biggest government buyout of the private sector since the 1930s. It doesn't get much more socialist than that. This may have been an appropriate sentiment at a Ron Paul rally. But the Republican party is no protector of free markets unless it suits them financially.

In another episode, a lady said "I don't trust Obama, I have read about him. He's an Arab." (I didn't hear the audio of the incident, but one can just imagine that it was pronounced ai-rab.) This woman apparently knows nothing about either physical or ethnic geography, not to mention nationality standards. In case she happens to read this, I'll explain:

Barak Obama's father was from Kenya. Kenya is a country in sub-Saharan East Africa. Obama's father (whom he was named after) was raised a muslim, but it is unclear if he remained active in that faith when he went to college in the U.S. The elder Obama was what is sometimes (and overly simply) termed, a "Black African." The Arabs, a long time ago, enlaved many Black Africans, just as the Europeans did. That is why many black Africans are Muslims today, just as many of African descent in the U.S. are christian. The Arabs and the Black Africans historically do not get along. You may have heard of a place called Darfur, where Arabs have been killing and raping Black Africans for a number of years, mostly because they can. Obama's mother was of European descent. Therefore, even if it was in any way meaningful, you are incorrect in your assertion that Obama is an Arab.

Sorry about the digression, but as you can see, we are not dealing with the sharpest bulbs on the porch here. Senator McCain and his campaign bear some responsibility for these kinds of sentiments. You run campaign commercials to convince people of your position. If your position, at least in your advertisements, is that someone is "dangerous" or a "liar," you are estopped, I think, from claiming to be surprised that some people believe it. It is possible that Senator McCain did not understand the visceral anger and hatred that these sentiments would elicit in people. But, if he was paying attention, he should have.

And now we come to the real culprits in this situation: the religious and reactionary right. I'm speaking of people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly. These individuals, and the organizations that support and give air to their views have constantly poisoned the public discourse with hateful and spite-filled rhetoric, not to mention half-truths and outright lies. They have told Americans time and again that their very "way of life*" is being threatened. They have warned that the fall of American Society, nay, Western Civilization itself, is imminent, that the "end is near**" and that it is all because of the liberals, and progressives, and homosexuals, and socialists, and their bosom buddies, the "activist judges***." So what is a partially-educated, red-blooded American who believes in god, mom, Chevrolet (or Ford), and apple pie to do?

Well, when a respected Senator, a war-hero, approves a message calling his opponent in the election "dangerous," our above hypothetical citizen takes him at his word. After all, it's just what all those "smart" people on the radio, TV, and the "intertubes" have been saying. If this Obama guy is the leader of all those things that are going to end with the destruction of everything these people hold dear, why wouldn't they be angry, and scared, and ready to do anything to stop him? It is the conservative movement, including behind-the-scenes movers like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, that have set the stage for this kind of behavior. When you play on the basest emotions of people, on their fear, their uncertainty, their biological predisposition to dislike that which they don't understand or is not like them, then that is what you get. The basest reaction.

Let me be clear. I am not calling for a move to silence any of the above individuals, or anyone like them. The greatest right the U.S. Constitution grants us is to say stupid, mean-spirited, even ridiculous, things. But, we, as a society, as a public, should hold them accountable for the atmosphere they create. Call them names, laugh at their silliness, pity how small their thought. But always point out that it is they that are dangerous. If American society is going to fall, it is the conservative movement that will be the death of it. Because it is the conservative movement that doesn't understand what is good and right about America. That tolerance is not a political catch-word used when you find something distasteful but don't want to alienate. That you can disagree with someone's ideas, but not be physically threatened by them. That diversity, not homogeneity, is, and has been, the strength of America for over two-hundred years. That there is no "traditional family," only people trying to live as families, which is what has always been the case. That America is not, nor has it ever been a "christian nation," just a secular republic, founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment, that allowed christianity to attain the influence it now has. And that the American people will not always follow those base instincts of fear and hatred.

Perhaps John McCain has come to understand the danger of his rhetoric. I hope so. Because as the original Johnny Dangerously said: "I never should have picked a name like that. A name like that you gotta live up to."

Too true.

Legend:
* "Way of life" means a mythical nirvana where every set of two attractive (white) heterosexual parents raised two children, who grew up to be a doctor and a lawyer and took care of their parents in their golden years.

**The end is near" must be interpreted in light of the bible, in which near can mean any time between Jesus' death and whenever god gets around to it.

***an "activist judge" is defined as any judge who won't change the ideas found in the Constitution to agree with those set out by a tribe of bronze age nomad goat herders.

GOP and McCain: Panderers or Hypocrites? The Answer May Surprise You (But Probably Won't)

If anyone had any doubts as to whether the Republican Party is the party of hypocrisy and pandering, the recent Republican National Convention and the days following should have dispelled them completely. First, we have the selection of unknown Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin to be John McCain's running mate. No, sorry, she's more than that: she's (in his words) his "soulmate." So Mr. Maverick, agent of change that he is, nominates a woman with political views that track, almost exactly, those views of the reactionary religious right that have held sway in the White House for the past eight years.

Ms. Palin (she probably hates being called Ms.) is anti-choice, even in cases of incest and rape. She is however, "proud" of her pregnant, unmarried 17-year-old daughter's "decision." We observers can only assume Sarah means her daughter's decision to engage in teenage, pre-marital sex that results in pregnancy, as it is clear bringing the baby to term is not a choice. Further, Ms. Palin is shocked, shocked I say, that the media has covered anything about her daughter's situation. It is "a matter that should be left to the family."

Take your time and re-read that last paragraph, I'll wait. Yes, you got it. In the governor's eyes, the government is entitled to deny the right to choose abortion under any circumstances to everyone, but is indignant that anyone might meddle in the affairs of her family. Kids, can you say cognitive dissonance? It is exactly this kind of compartmentalisation of thought that is encouraged by Christianity in particular and religion in general. But that is a different rant.

Speaking of religion, Hockey-Mom-in-Chief Palin believes that the war in Iraq is, to paraphrase the Blues Brothers, "a mission from God." Apparently, God's plan was to have the United States be the cause of over 1 million deaths, including both Americans and Iraqis, not to mention untold legions of the physically and mentally maimed, for the purpose of the aggrandizement of the Bush Administration's world view. (Of course, anyone who's read the Bible wouldn't be surprised; this kind of thing is God's M.O., after all.) Sarah, you really need to watch all this "maverick" thought, it might get you into trouble.

Well at least she stands up to Washington and those petty bureaucrats that want to hand out free money to the states. Except when she proposed, in 2008, that her state's senator request $197 million in federal "earmarks," more, per capita, than any other state. But it's probably because Alaska is needy, what with all the avalanches and polar bear attacks, right? Well, it seems Alaska took in $10 billion in revenue, twice what it did last year, and swelled the coffers enough that Palin got the legislature to approve a $1200 payment to every Alaskan. This is in addition to the customary payment of $2000 given to every Alaskan annually out of the oil-wealth savings account, known as the Permanent Fund. Apparently Iraq isn't the only place with an oil-based surplus. The Permanent Fund now contains $35 billion, thanks in part to oil tax hikes that Palin signed into law last year.

Now, you may ask: "Hasn't Palin accused Obama of wanting to raise taxes in every speech she has made?" Of course not silly, she only said it in one speech, it's just that she gives the same one every time. Besides, who cares as long as she has all that foreign policy experience by living in the state closest to Russia.

I could go on for ages about our soon-to-be vice-MILF, but let's turn to the rest of the party, shall we? If you doubt that the McCain camp is pandering to the right wing of the party in its selection, consider this: Palin is being endorsed, enthusiastically, by the likes of James Dobson and Focus on the Family. Mr. Dobson declared earlier this year, on the Dennis Prager Show, that he "can not and will not vote for Senator John McCain." Focus on the Family has been taking women to task for years for "abandoning" the family unit and going to work. Yet here we have a mother with five children, one of whom has special needs (not to mention the 17 year-old who's getting ready to have one), and Focus on the Family is endorsing her to work in the second-highest office in the land. The word here kids is "hypocrite." But again, what can we expect from an organization that is "bible-based," considering the bible itself is a seething mass of contradiction.

Further evidence of pandering has cropped up in the newest attack ads from the McCain Campaign. These accuse Sen. Obama as being for "sex-education for kindergartners." This stance is gleaned, according to McCain's ad, from Obama's support of Illinois SB0099, which was debated in the Illinois legislature while Obama was a member. Although the ad touts this as Obama's "legislative accomplishment," he didn't sponsor it, and the bill was never passed (it was tabled in 2003 before coming to a vote, and is, for all intents and purposes, dead.) That's lie #1. Lie #2 is that the bill was meant to teach "comprehensive sex education to kindergartners." The text of the proposed bill mentioned "grade k" twice, the most relevant mention of which was:

"Sec. 27-9.2. Family Life. (a) If any school district provides courses of instruction designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological, hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life, then such courses of instruction shall include the teaching of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related to unintended pregnancy, appropriate to the various grade levels; and whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K through 12, then such courses also shall include age appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. " (Stricken portions omitted.)

The other mention is here:

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." (Stricken portions omitted.)

Now, Mr. Dobson, Focus on the Family, and, one can presume, Mistress Palin, may have issue with this proposed bill because it mentions sex education and the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, which are anathema to the "God Squad" crowd. But to name it a call for sex education for kindergartners is not a Fox-news style "interpretation" or an issue upon which reasonable minds can differ. It is an outright lie. I imagine Karl Rove had his fingerprints on this, but the responsibility rests with John McCain. After all he "approved this message." There are no two ways about it; John McCain is a liar.

From the above, I think it is apparent that the answer to the titular question of this post is a trick one: the GOP and John McCain are both hypocrites and panderers. They are also liars. But again, this should surprise no one who has been paying attention to the last 8 years of Republican rule.

Expectations of Privacy

Donald Kerr is confused. As deputy director of national intelligence, Kerr testified before Congress as it considers the "new and improved" Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act that it amended last year so as to allow the government to eavesdrop on communications inside the United States without a court order, as long as one end of the communication is believed to be outside the U.S. Lawsuits have been filed against large telecommunications companies alleging that the government is actually copying every call, e-mail and Internet site access that goes through some telecom centers. Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration, and people like Mr. Kerr, want a bill that gives the telecom companies immunity from such lawsuits, so that the overreaching of this government in its misguided attempts to "protect us" go unscrutinized.

At an October intelligence conference in Texas, Mr. Kerr said he finds it "odd" that people are concerned about government eavesdropping when they are willing to allow "a green-card holder at [an Internet service provider] who may or may not have been an illegal entrant" to handle their data. He also pointed out that millions of people participate in social networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook, and allow information about themselves to be published in those fora.

Leaving aside the irrelevant misdirection regarding immigration status contained in the above quote, it is obvious that Mr. Kerr is in need of some quick lessons in the difference between choosing to release information, and having all one's conversations copied into a central database. Further, he may want to brush up on the difference between private entities and the government.

What Mr. Kerr may have forgotten in the course of his civil service, is that the government wields enormous power over the lives of its citizens, a power even the largest and most well-organized corporations could only dream of having (yet). This particular government, furthermore, has shown it has no qualms at all about utilizing that power against anyone it deems a threat, regardless of Constitutional limits or international law. There is also, again, the issue of choice. In case Kerr is unfamiliar with the process, he should know that neither Myspace, nor Facebook, or any other social networking site requires anyone to publish their information. A choice to do so should not, in any way, lead us to the conclusion that that person, let alone all of society, has completely given up his privacy rights.

What I find odd is that Mr. Kerr seems unaware of these distinctions. The mere fact that a member of the government, a deputy director of intelligence no less, can make such statements with a straight face shows how far we have allowed this administration to go in shaping public discourse and obfuscating the most basic issues of civil liberty. Congress must not cave in to these types of tactics and grant further power to a government that is, and has been for some time, beyond the pale of basic decency in its dealings with those that disagree with it, both abroad and here at home.

The American people would do well to remember the quote usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither."

Why We Fight

The term "Culture Wars" in its present connotation was probably coined by James David Hunter in his book of the same name. Hunter used it to describe a polarization of American political discourse into two camps: one with an impulse towards "progressivism" and the other with an impulse towards "Orthodoxy."

While Hunter used these terms in very specific ways, "Culture War" has taken on a broader meaning, and has been used by Patrick Buchanan and Charlton Heston in speeches meant to rally people to their particular causes. The idea now seems to encompass the entire struggle between "Conservatism" and "Liberalism" (as modernly defined,) for the very "soul of America."

More particularly, it is the struggle between those that believe a certain set of specific moral and ethical codes, derived from the somewhat vague "Judeo-Christian" tradition should be paramount in all decisions informing government and society, and those that believe society is better served by keeping religious beliefs in the private realm and holding fast to the Enlightenment ideals which were the basis of much of the founding of the United States over 230 years ago.

The last paragraph likely indicates to the reader where I personally stand on the issue, and I will be up front about the fact that I belong to the latter camp.

As examples of what prompted me to begin this blog, I give you the following selections from some groups which threaten the ideas and values which have made the U.S. stand apart for two centuries:

"The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the
foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of
society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human
life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God
is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian
worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society. "

These folks want to make sure that your family "institution" is agreeable to their particular religious view.

"The American Family Association represents and stands for traditional
family values, focusing primarily on the influence of television and other media
– including pornography – on our society. AFA believes that the
entertainment industry, through its various products, has played a major role in
the decline of those values on which our country was founded and which keep a
society and its families strong and healthy. For example, over the last 25 years
we have seen the entertainment industry "normalize" and glorify premarital sex.
During that time we have suffered a dramatic increase in teen pregnancies,
sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS and abortion as a means of birth
control. We believe in holding accountable the companies which sponsor programs attacking traditional family values. We also believe in commending those
companies which act responsibly regarding programs they support."

These people are under the impression that alleged increases in teen pregnancy, STDs, and abortion are the media's fault. Apparently, the "institution" of family is not strong enough to withstand assault from the likes of Britney Spears.

"Concerned Women for America: The mission of CWA is to protect and
promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then
education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the
decline in moral values in our nation."

These ladies are concerned that there are not enough "Biblical values" influencing our society. I wonder whether they support enslavement of defeated populations, human sacrifice, and the stoning of adulterous women and "rebellious" children.

And finally, straight from the horse's mouth:

“We need common sense judges who understand that our rights are derived
from
God. Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the
bench.” --President George W. Bush

Assuming Mr. President is speaking of the biblical god, I suppose that means we derive the right to have our cities destroy by fire and sulphur, and be turned into pillars of salt if we displease this god. I am eager to see Mr. Bush's appointees enforce such edicts.

The exaggerations in the above comments are meant to point out that picking which religious tenets to follow and which to reject is fraught with peril for a civilized society. It seems much better to lean on the philosophy of human rights and responsibilities in governing a modern nation.

This is why I oppose these groups and their ilk, and the attempts to subvert the U.S. Constitution to serve there own supernatural agendas.