For many years, executives being laid off from major corporations have been offered so-called golden parachutes, generous severance packages designed to ensure that no management personnel goes away angry or impoverished because the company has fallen on hard times. These multi-million dollar arrangements drew widespread criticism because rank and file workers were often given little more than 2 weeks notice when their contracts were terminated.
Those days are over.
The Ford Motor Company - since its creation a pioneer in labor relations - has once again bucked the trend, this time by offering generous optional buyouts to some 75,000 hourly workers as it downsizes.
Ford has been hit hard by competition in the U.S. market, and in an effort to cut costs and slough off unneeded capacity, it has started closing plants. Many feared that these firings would mean financial ruin for thousands of workers, particularly those who were approaching retirement and were too old to relocate and find new work. Without getting into the structure of the buyout program, the bottom line is that Ford has been able to significantly downsize without leaving families in the gutter. In fact, many workers were positively ecstatic about the opportunity to go back to school or start their own business with the money and support they received from Ford.
Downsizing is a serous challenge for any large organization. People plan their lives around their jobs, and pulling the rug out from under thousands of families can have effects that ripple across the economy. Moreover, the political and commercial consequences of such decisions are such that many organizations continue to operate with large numbers of obsolete or unnecessary workers rather than face the media firestorm.
In my opinion, our beloved government is one such organization. It is the nation’s largest employer with something like 20 million Americans on the payroll at the local state and federal levels. Despite labor saving information technologies and the rise of private firms offering to perform traditional government services for profit, the size of the government has continued to swell.
Even the most “small government” administrations have proved incapable of popping this pimple because firing people is just plain unpopular. We have entered an era when government not only provides public goods but also secure jobs paid with public funds. This “make work” mission, largely a product of the New Deal, has infected our civil service corps with a sense of entitlement instead of a sense of responsibility.
I believe that job security and just compensation are important to attract the best people to government, but when it becomes impossible restructure the public workforce, political reform itself becomes impossible.
This idea of the “silver parachute,” selective, attractive, optional buyouts that leave both workers and taxpayers better off, may be a powerful tool to enact the kinds of public sector reforms that our country so obviously needs.
When it comes to governments, that which does not evolve is dying.
Thursday
Friday
History II
The document posted below was found in stack of papers from the U.S. Army General Staff, and although it was probably written sometime during 1944, I rather wish it had been circulated in 2003 as the country prepared to invade Iraq. Many of the observations could apply verbatim to our current ill-fated war.
I challenge you, oh my loyal readers, to provide a single historical example of a foreign army conquering another on its home soil only to be greeted as liberators. I don't care how bad the regime was, that's just not how human beings work, particularly when you consider that a sizeable group profited enormously from the corrupt regime. Most of Iraq may be happy the old bastard is gone, but to believe that they would treat us as anything but the occupying force we are is insane.
We were simply unprepared for the demands of a full scale occupation. The initial disorder, looting, reprisals and the subsequent insurgency were utterly foreseeable, and in fact were foreseen by the planners that Rumsfeld and his deputies dutifully ignored.
As I stood in the audience of a rock concert last week and turned to notice Paul Wolfowitz standing beside me in all his portly glory, I was torn between the desire to engage him in a knock down drag out debate on foreign policy or give him a big sloppy Wet Willy for his foolishness. Then I remembered that he probably had security with him.
I challenge you, oh my loyal readers, to provide a single historical example of a foreign army conquering another on its home soil only to be greeted as liberators. I don't care how bad the regime was, that's just not how human beings work, particularly when you consider that a sizeable group profited enormously from the corrupt regime. Most of Iraq may be happy the old bastard is gone, but to believe that they would treat us as anything but the occupying force we are is insane.
We were simply unprepared for the demands of a full scale occupation. The initial disorder, looting, reprisals and the subsequent insurgency were utterly foreseeable, and in fact were foreseen by the planners that Rumsfeld and his deputies dutifully ignored.
As I stood in the audience of a rock concert last week and turned to notice Paul Wolfowitz standing beside me in all his portly glory, I was torn between the desire to engage him in a knock down drag out debate on foreign policy or give him a big sloppy Wet Willy for his foolishness. Then I remembered that he probably had security with him.
Wednesday
What was that thing about history repeating itself?
My weekly trip to the National Archive in College Park, MD turned up this document:
SECRET
The Secretary of War after reading the following memo commented "this is a remarkably good paper" and directed that it be circulated.
Memorandum For:
Subject: Observations on Post Hostilities Policy Toward Japan
1. To be realistic, post hostilities policy toward Japan must be based upon:
a. Recognition of the probable reaction of the American public over a period of time. A policy which does not win the continuing support of the American public is doomed to failure.
b. Recognition of the lessons taught by history with respect to relations between the conqueror and the conquered.
2. The most important points to be noted in connection with a and b above would appear to be the following:
a. The American public will unquestionably become restive under a prolonged occupation of Japan by American forces. It will not wish to assume the burdens of governing Japan over an extended period. Demands for withdrawal are likely to begin within 6 months after the surrender of Japan and thereafter to build up increasing political pressure to that end.
b. Even under the most just and equitable administration, resentment against a conquering nation exercising direct political and military control over a vanquished nation inevitably tends to increase over a period of time. Difficulties arise which present the ruling nation with the alternative of either EXTENDING AND TIGHTENING CONTROL OR WITHDRAWING WITHOUT accomplishing THE DESIRED OBJECTIVES.
c. The conquering nation CANNOT IMPOSE ITS FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IDEALS OR WAY OF LIFE EXCEPT BY PERMANENT MILITARY OCCUPATION AND IMMIGRATION.
3. The formulation of our policies toward post hostilities Japan, therefore, requires the highest degree of statesmanship. We must look forward as well as backward. We must:
a. Avoid to the maximum extent possible policies dictated by current war hysteria which subsequently the American public will repudiate or which will involve commitments which the American public will be unwilling to fulfill.
b. Attempt to accomplish the maximum degree of progress towards the regeneration of Japan in the minimum amount of time. Our degree of success in accomplishing this objective will depend upon the intelligence with which we approach the problem of the relations between victor and vanquished.
...
5.b. Allied Mlitary Gvernment is bound to be bungling, undiplomatic, and inefficient. We must give full recognition to the fact that we do not have sufficient personnel with the proper vision training and ability to carry out the task effectively.
(caps mine)
SECRET
The Secretary of War after reading the following memo commented "this is a remarkably good paper" and directed that it be circulated.
Memorandum For:
Subject: Observations on Post Hostilities Policy Toward Japan
1. To be realistic, post hostilities policy toward Japan must be based upon:
a. Recognition of the probable reaction of the American public over a period of time. A policy which does not win the continuing support of the American public is doomed to failure.
b. Recognition of the lessons taught by history with respect to relations between the conqueror and the conquered.
2. The most important points to be noted in connection with a and b above would appear to be the following:
a. The American public will unquestionably become restive under a prolonged occupation of Japan by American forces. It will not wish to assume the burdens of governing Japan over an extended period. Demands for withdrawal are likely to begin within 6 months after the surrender of Japan and thereafter to build up increasing political pressure to that end.
b. Even under the most just and equitable administration, resentment against a conquering nation exercising direct political and military control over a vanquished nation inevitably tends to increase over a period of time. Difficulties arise which present the ruling nation with the alternative of either EXTENDING AND TIGHTENING CONTROL OR WITHDRAWING WITHOUT accomplishing THE DESIRED OBJECTIVES.
c. The conquering nation CANNOT IMPOSE ITS FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IDEALS OR WAY OF LIFE EXCEPT BY PERMANENT MILITARY OCCUPATION AND IMMIGRATION.
3. The formulation of our policies toward post hostilities Japan, therefore, requires the highest degree of statesmanship. We must look forward as well as backward. We must:
a. Avoid to the maximum extent possible policies dictated by current war hysteria which subsequently the American public will repudiate or which will involve commitments which the American public will be unwilling to fulfill.
b. Attempt to accomplish the maximum degree of progress towards the regeneration of Japan in the minimum amount of time. Our degree of success in accomplishing this objective will depend upon the intelligence with which we approach the problem of the relations between victor and vanquished.
...
5.b. Allied Mlitary Gvernment is bound to be bungling, undiplomatic, and inefficient. We must give full recognition to the fact that we do not have sufficient personnel with the proper vision training and ability to carry out the task effectively.
(caps mine)
Tuesday
The Lost Generation
I fear that my generation, a cohort still struggling to define itself, is paralyzed by the hugeness of the changes we have witnessed. In our short lives, the tidy if dangerous geopolitical landscape of our fathers has simply decomposed. How are we to make sense of the world when all we have known is the deepening confusion of the people in charge? How are we to move with any sort of resolve through the shifting sands of this new era?
We came into a world shadowy with the communist threat, the biggest arms race in history peaking as we put away our first memories. At the tender age of 7, we were introduced to a newly democratic and capitalist world without war. At 8, we watched “smart bombs” turn Iraqi tanks inside out for the first time.
Our parents struggled through recession amid talks of decline. Just a few years later, they were building big houses in the suburbs with the dividends from their stock portfolios.
We were the first children to use the internet, the first students for whom its resources were indispensable. We have watched it evolve from a formless free-for-all of nerds and hackers to the most useful tool since fire.
At 17, the towers came down and the new nightmare began. We were just old enough to form ourselves under the image of Old America, the strong and beneficent champion of freedom. As a result, we felt most keenly what was lost when we were forced to accept the New American Empire and the security apparatus that accompanied it.
As we sat glued to the television news through the attack, the invasions, and the insurgency, we asked ourselves, who are these people and why do they want to destroy us? In the subsequent months and years, we would learn the answer to that question and many more we would never have thought to ask.
Our view of the world as a friendly and open place is shattered, yet with each year it becomes more important for us to be good global citizens. If we retreat within ourselves and the fortified borders of our state, we will never reverse the tide of provincialism and violence.
Though deeply flawed, our country still contains within it the seeds of something great. The revolutionary ideas that we embody as a nation – that we try to embody, pretend to embody – will outlast our corrupt politicians and our drowning bureaucracies if our generation can keep the ideas vibrant.
The intellectual will required to renew the world’s governments is not a simple thing to muster however. Repeating the tired words of the founding fathers as if they were gods is not enough anymore. New scholarship, new writing, and new compromises are necessary to make freedom, peace and prosperity real in this world. We the youth of America have the power to resist the agonizing slide into mediocrity, the power to resist the temptations of apathy, the power to resist those who would make us free people in name only.
Our generation is engaged in a struggle for clarity and understanding in a world of mixed messages and bad data. The battle for the future begins in our minds, and so far we are losing.
We came into a world shadowy with the communist threat, the biggest arms race in history peaking as we put away our first memories. At the tender age of 7, we were introduced to a newly democratic and capitalist world without war. At 8, we watched “smart bombs” turn Iraqi tanks inside out for the first time.
Our parents struggled through recession amid talks of decline. Just a few years later, they were building big houses in the suburbs with the dividends from their stock portfolios.
We were the first children to use the internet, the first students for whom its resources were indispensable. We have watched it evolve from a formless free-for-all of nerds and hackers to the most useful tool since fire.
At 17, the towers came down and the new nightmare began. We were just old enough to form ourselves under the image of Old America, the strong and beneficent champion of freedom. As a result, we felt most keenly what was lost when we were forced to accept the New American Empire and the security apparatus that accompanied it.
As we sat glued to the television news through the attack, the invasions, and the insurgency, we asked ourselves, who are these people and why do they want to destroy us? In the subsequent months and years, we would learn the answer to that question and many more we would never have thought to ask.
Our view of the world as a friendly and open place is shattered, yet with each year it becomes more important for us to be good global citizens. If we retreat within ourselves and the fortified borders of our state, we will never reverse the tide of provincialism and violence.
Though deeply flawed, our country still contains within it the seeds of something great. The revolutionary ideas that we embody as a nation – that we try to embody, pretend to embody – will outlast our corrupt politicians and our drowning bureaucracies if our generation can keep the ideas vibrant.
The intellectual will required to renew the world’s governments is not a simple thing to muster however. Repeating the tired words of the founding fathers as if they were gods is not enough anymore. New scholarship, new writing, and new compromises are necessary to make freedom, peace and prosperity real in this world. We the youth of America have the power to resist the agonizing slide into mediocrity, the power to resist the temptations of apathy, the power to resist those who would make us free people in name only.
Our generation is engaged in a struggle for clarity and understanding in a world of mixed messages and bad data. The battle for the future begins in our minds, and so far we are losing.
Thursday
Well, the Votes Are In
Nothing to say I haven't said already, but everyone keep your fingers crossed for an uneventful lame duck session.
Tuesday
The Roll of the Dice
On the eve of the election, let’s take a moment to consider the possibilities and what they would mean for the country.
Scenario 1: The Republicans get destroyed.
All the truly contested districts go to the Democrats, who will now hold majorities in both houses of Congress.
As they have argued to the public, these incoming representatives and senators view the election as a referendum on President Bush. In order to satisfy their constituents, they will issue a wave of subpoenas to key Administration officials. If the gritty details of the country at war are half as interesting as I expect, the resulting media circus and the opportunity for windbaggery it provides will keep the Democrat-controlled Congress from doing anything but talk. They may enact some punitive and purely symbolic legislation aimed at taxing rich people more heavily or regulating drug prices, but these measures will be unhesitatingly vetoed by the President.
If all this comes to pass, I believe the Republican Party will actually emerge stronger. Americans will get a snoot full of the Democrats and they won’t like it. The leadership will look mean when they yell at the administration officials, and they certainly won’t have any legislative accomplishments to speak of in 2008. The Republican Party will be renewed and motivated by its defeat as the election will serve as a purge for the corrupt and worn out members who have allowed the party to drift away from genuine conservatism. I have placed this possibility first because it holds my great hope: that the libertarians and traditional conservatives will realign against the Neocons and the crazy Christians to articulate a more sensible and measured policy than the “permanent revolution” of today’s leaders.
Scenario 2: The Democrats get destroyed.
All the seats that were in play go to the Republicans, and they maintain control of both houses.
This will come as a surprise for Republican lawmakers who have been dodging a new scandal every 2 weeks since summer. If the Democrats are unable to take at least one house of Congress tomorrow, they are finished. It shows that they will never be able to shake the caricature of them drawn by Newt Gingrich and his new Republicans during the 90’s. If they can’t win now, they can’t win ever.
With that said, the Republican party will not be invigorated by a victory, and will face determined obstructionism from the other side of the aisle. There will be no momentum conferred because the same old guard with the same old ideas will remain in Congress. They may attempt some legislative reforms, they may take a stab at some oversight, but the acts will be half-hearted and unconvincing. There will be nothing to talk about but the presidential race, a prospect that I find quite depressing. However, a contest between two utterly bankrupt parties offers the first real opportunity for a third party candidate in many many years.
Scenario 3: It’s a toss up.
This one is the tricky one. The Democrats capture one or both houses of Congress by a slim margin, have no clear mandate, and are forced to govern in cooperation with the Republicans or not at all.
This outcome signals continuing dissatisfaction with both parties and very little slack for political games.
In this case, there are two possibilities. If the leadership of both parties is stupid, there will be total gridlock, daily wild accusations from one corner or the other, and a 2 year period so totally enraging that the American people will be ready to elect anybody, provided he can make Congress shut up. Dissatisfaction not with the politicians of the moment but with politics in general has historically preceded the emergence of authoritarian leaders, and if another large scale terrorist attack takes place the polity will be in a very dangerous position.
If the leaders of Congress asses the situation with some uncharacteristic sobriety, they will realize that the price of continued partisan bickering will be felt in ’08 by the party deemed most responsible. In this case, they will come to negotiating table and play nice. The Republicans will have no choice but to distance themselves from Bush and agree to sideline their more inflammatory social legislation. In return, the Democrats will leave the tax cuts alone and try to refocus the populism that made them a national party in the first place by “doing something for the middle class.”
Predictions anyone?
Scenario 1: The Republicans get destroyed.
All the truly contested districts go to the Democrats, who will now hold majorities in both houses of Congress.
As they have argued to the public, these incoming representatives and senators view the election as a referendum on President Bush. In order to satisfy their constituents, they will issue a wave of subpoenas to key Administration officials. If the gritty details of the country at war are half as interesting as I expect, the resulting media circus and the opportunity for windbaggery it provides will keep the Democrat-controlled Congress from doing anything but talk. They may enact some punitive and purely symbolic legislation aimed at taxing rich people more heavily or regulating drug prices, but these measures will be unhesitatingly vetoed by the President.
If all this comes to pass, I believe the Republican Party will actually emerge stronger. Americans will get a snoot full of the Democrats and they won’t like it. The leadership will look mean when they yell at the administration officials, and they certainly won’t have any legislative accomplishments to speak of in 2008. The Republican Party will be renewed and motivated by its defeat as the election will serve as a purge for the corrupt and worn out members who have allowed the party to drift away from genuine conservatism. I have placed this possibility first because it holds my great hope: that the libertarians and traditional conservatives will realign against the Neocons and the crazy Christians to articulate a more sensible and measured policy than the “permanent revolution” of today’s leaders.
Scenario 2: The Democrats get destroyed.
All the seats that were in play go to the Republicans, and they maintain control of both houses.
This will come as a surprise for Republican lawmakers who have been dodging a new scandal every 2 weeks since summer. If the Democrats are unable to take at least one house of Congress tomorrow, they are finished. It shows that they will never be able to shake the caricature of them drawn by Newt Gingrich and his new Republicans during the 90’s. If they can’t win now, they can’t win ever.
With that said, the Republican party will not be invigorated by a victory, and will face determined obstructionism from the other side of the aisle. There will be no momentum conferred because the same old guard with the same old ideas will remain in Congress. They may attempt some legislative reforms, they may take a stab at some oversight, but the acts will be half-hearted and unconvincing. There will be nothing to talk about but the presidential race, a prospect that I find quite depressing. However, a contest between two utterly bankrupt parties offers the first real opportunity for a third party candidate in many many years.
Scenario 3: It’s a toss up.
This one is the tricky one. The Democrats capture one or both houses of Congress by a slim margin, have no clear mandate, and are forced to govern in cooperation with the Republicans or not at all.
This outcome signals continuing dissatisfaction with both parties and very little slack for political games.
In this case, there are two possibilities. If the leadership of both parties is stupid, there will be total gridlock, daily wild accusations from one corner or the other, and a 2 year period so totally enraging that the American people will be ready to elect anybody, provided he can make Congress shut up. Dissatisfaction not with the politicians of the moment but with politics in general has historically preceded the emergence of authoritarian leaders, and if another large scale terrorist attack takes place the polity will be in a very dangerous position.
If the leaders of Congress asses the situation with some uncharacteristic sobriety, they will realize that the price of continued partisan bickering will be felt in ’08 by the party deemed most responsible. In this case, they will come to negotiating table and play nice. The Republicans will have no choice but to distance themselves from Bush and agree to sideline their more inflammatory social legislation. In return, the Democrats will leave the tax cuts alone and try to refocus the populism that made them a national party in the first place by “doing something for the middle class.”
Predictions anyone?
Thursday
My Television Has Betrayed Me
If I see one more trashy, poorly shot, lying, weasel faced attack ad I will throw my television out a window. I am seriously considering unplugging it for the next week just so I don’t have to hear any more about how Webb is a misogynist or Allen is a racist or Joe Smith is a dirty terrorist-loving spendthrift who will kick your granny off Social Security and give Bush weekly blowjobs.
I DON'T CARE! IF I DIDN’T KNOW ALREADY I CERTAINLY SUSPECTED AS MUCH.
Tell me why I should elect YOU, Candidate X. Tell me, in 100 words or less, how your presence in Washington will do anything but maintain the status quo. Tell me how you will evict the money changers from the temple of democracy. Tell me how you are nice to your pets and enjoy reading erotic fiction. Tell me anything that demonstrates that you are a real human being and not an animatronic doll being operated from off-screen by some Karl Rove wannabe.
But enough of this.
I’m going to let you all in on a secret, oh my loyal readers: I am a conscientious objector in this fight. That’s right, I don’t vote. And do you want to know why?
I have yet to see a candidate for national office that I would trust to fix my car much less run my country. Not in my district anyway.
I refuse to cast the “lesser of two evils” vote because it gives the impression that I support somebody whose character I find flawed and whose platform I abhor. That vote just contributes to the myth that we live in a functioning republic.
Now call me naïve, but I define a functioning republic as an institutional structure that selects the best and most capable people for public office. Our political system fails in this regard not because good people cannot get elected. It fails because the best people realize the senselessness of going into politics.
Who would make a career of banging his head against a wall? Who would willingly undergo the public scrutiny? Who would submit to the financial and psychological punishment entailed in running for office?
People who make this leap fall into three categories: hopeless idealists, remorseless profiteers, and shameless megalomaniacs. The truly successful ones are a bit of each. They cling to the camera, make friends with everyone who has deep pockets, and decry with convincing vocal tremors the injustices perpetrated by the Other Guy.
With each catastrophe that our leaders prove unprepared to confront, they confirm that we live in a demagoguery not a democracy.
I DON'T CARE! IF I DIDN’T KNOW ALREADY I CERTAINLY SUSPECTED AS MUCH.
Tell me why I should elect YOU, Candidate X. Tell me, in 100 words or less, how your presence in Washington will do anything but maintain the status quo. Tell me how you will evict the money changers from the temple of democracy. Tell me how you are nice to your pets and enjoy reading erotic fiction. Tell me anything that demonstrates that you are a real human being and not an animatronic doll being operated from off-screen by some Karl Rove wannabe.
But enough of this.
I’m going to let you all in on a secret, oh my loyal readers: I am a conscientious objector in this fight. That’s right, I don’t vote. And do you want to know why?
I have yet to see a candidate for national office that I would trust to fix my car much less run my country. Not in my district anyway.
I refuse to cast the “lesser of two evils” vote because it gives the impression that I support somebody whose character I find flawed and whose platform I abhor. That vote just contributes to the myth that we live in a functioning republic.
Now call me naïve, but I define a functioning republic as an institutional structure that selects the best and most capable people for public office. Our political system fails in this regard not because good people cannot get elected. It fails because the best people realize the senselessness of going into politics.
Who would make a career of banging his head against a wall? Who would willingly undergo the public scrutiny? Who would submit to the financial and psychological punishment entailed in running for office?
People who make this leap fall into three categories: hopeless idealists, remorseless profiteers, and shameless megalomaniacs. The truly successful ones are a bit of each. They cling to the camera, make friends with everyone who has deep pockets, and decry with convincing vocal tremors the injustices perpetrated by the Other Guy.
With each catastrophe that our leaders prove unprepared to confront, they confirm that we live in a demagoguery not a democracy.
Monday
Accountability Anyone?
As the November election approaches, it is tempting to believe that we can simply “throw the bums out” to make everything right in Washington. Unfortunately for America, the root of our political trouble is much deeper than a Republican Congress that has been in power a few terms too long.
Putting these people out of jobs may flush the toilet, so to speak, but it’s not going to stop the next Congress from leaving more steaming floaters for us to deal with next January.
The legislative process itself - the unwritten laws of doing business in Washington - are untouched by a change of party. The powerbrokers may be new, the channels of influence flowing through different K Street offices, but the culture of patronage remains intact.
The fate of a bill still depends not on its implications for American society but on the personalities of its proponents. Good law cannot be produced by such a system because legislators have no incentive to pay attention to the text of the bills they pass. In fact, they couldn’t even if they wanted to.
Congress frequently resorts to the use of omnibus bills that are hundreds of pages long, contain amendments added without debate, and remain unavailable in final form to rank-and-file member and the public until after the voting is done.
It should be no surprise that these votes split along party lines and that the bills themselves are incoherent, vague, and riddled with custom made loopholes and special appropriations.
Regardless of party affiliation, Americans can unite behind initiatives that make the legislative process more transparent and that compel Congressmen to review the laws they pass. Only clear and unambiguous legislative reform can return Congress to its rightful place as a respected deliberative and representative body.
To this end, an organization called Downsize DC has drafted a proposal for a new law called the “Read the Bills Act.” This bill would require that each piece of legislation, with all its amendments, must be read aloud to a quorum of physically assembled Congressmen. This would also apply to all bills up for renewal and to the full text of bills being amended. In addition, the final text of the bills along with the list of members in attendance for their reading would be published on the websites of the House and Senate for public review one week before a scheduled vote.
This delay would allow time for careful consideration of new legislation and for the public to voice its concerns before bills become law. It would also make it more difficult to pass the convoluted and nonsensical bills that currently tie up legions of lawyers and judges in a vain attempt to determine what exactly Congress intended.
The only intention I can make out from today’s Congress is the intention to look busy when election time rolls around. Well, the act isn’t working.
As President Bush tells us, “We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws.” Fair enough, but that old saying would be much more comforting if somebody, somewhere could tell us what those laws are.
Putting these people out of jobs may flush the toilet, so to speak, but it’s not going to stop the next Congress from leaving more steaming floaters for us to deal with next January.
The legislative process itself - the unwritten laws of doing business in Washington - are untouched by a change of party. The powerbrokers may be new, the channels of influence flowing through different K Street offices, but the culture of patronage remains intact.
The fate of a bill still depends not on its implications for American society but on the personalities of its proponents. Good law cannot be produced by such a system because legislators have no incentive to pay attention to the text of the bills they pass. In fact, they couldn’t even if they wanted to.
Congress frequently resorts to the use of omnibus bills that are hundreds of pages long, contain amendments added without debate, and remain unavailable in final form to rank-and-file member and the public until after the voting is done.
It should be no surprise that these votes split along party lines and that the bills themselves are incoherent, vague, and riddled with custom made loopholes and special appropriations.
Regardless of party affiliation, Americans can unite behind initiatives that make the legislative process more transparent and that compel Congressmen to review the laws they pass. Only clear and unambiguous legislative reform can return Congress to its rightful place as a respected deliberative and representative body.
To this end, an organization called Downsize DC has drafted a proposal for a new law called the “Read the Bills Act.” This bill would require that each piece of legislation, with all its amendments, must be read aloud to a quorum of physically assembled Congressmen. This would also apply to all bills up for renewal and to the full text of bills being amended. In addition, the final text of the bills along with the list of members in attendance for their reading would be published on the websites of the House and Senate for public review one week before a scheduled vote.
This delay would allow time for careful consideration of new legislation and for the public to voice its concerns before bills become law. It would also make it more difficult to pass the convoluted and nonsensical bills that currently tie up legions of lawyers and judges in a vain attempt to determine what exactly Congress intended.
The only intention I can make out from today’s Congress is the intention to look busy when election time rolls around. Well, the act isn’t working.
As President Bush tells us, “We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws.” Fair enough, but that old saying would be much more comforting if somebody, somewhere could tell us what those laws are.
On What Authority?
Disclaimer: I have never gambled online, nor do I enjoy gambling in general.
This week, Congress passed and the President signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, a bill that has already caused several publicly traded companies to pull out of the U.S. market. This bill was slipped in as an amendment to some unrelated port security legislation without serious debate and without a chance for the people impacted to make a case to their representatives. Before the bill, the industry generated $12 billion dollars a year worldwide, half of that in the U.S. Assuming the courts uphold the ban, that revenue will disappear.
The stocks of internet gambling companies are held by law abiding Americans, and millions have chosen to wager their hard-earned money on the websites.
On what legal basis were these people denied their income and entertainment? What is it about internet gambling as a transaction that makes it uniquely subject to regulation and prohibition? I can think of no meaningful distinction.
The prohibition of gambling, like the prohibition of drugs and alcohol and pornography and prostitution before it, is another example of Congress trying to impose its distinctly prudish, sober, straight-laced morality on the rest of us. Apparently this morality is good for us proles, its stiff confines shaping us in to productive citizens, but it obviously does not apply to Congressmen themselves who feel free to fuck children and fill their pockets.
I ask again, where does the authority to enact such legislation come from? What makes legislators believe they have the right to tinker with our lives?
This is the heart of authoritarianism: legislators claim the right to enact any legislation they choose because they are legislators. This logic is circular; it is not the truth and we must ban it from our brains.
This bill has nothing to do with gambling, everything to do with power. It is about the “law and order” types reasserting control over the internet and control over our lives.
To keep us paying our exorbitant taxes and believing that their control is necessary, the government must root out all eccentricity, it must attack at the source all things exciting, risky, bohemian and addictive. Where will we be if too many people start to think “I don’t believe I want 2.3 children, a house in the suburbs, and an 8-6 job working for some asshole”? The racy, sexy and utterly satisfying acts of life must remain taboo, denied to us (so they say) because they are dangerous.
It is your duty as Americans on this week marking yet another defeat for human freedom to do something boldly reckless and senselessly destructive, just for kicks. Go out to the street and feel the blood in your veins. Such action is the only antidote for the stupefying fog being pumped into you living room. I’ll see you out there.
This week, Congress passed and the President signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, a bill that has already caused several publicly traded companies to pull out of the U.S. market. This bill was slipped in as an amendment to some unrelated port security legislation without serious debate and without a chance for the people impacted to make a case to their representatives. Before the bill, the industry generated $12 billion dollars a year worldwide, half of that in the U.S. Assuming the courts uphold the ban, that revenue will disappear.
The stocks of internet gambling companies are held by law abiding Americans, and millions have chosen to wager their hard-earned money on the websites.
On what legal basis were these people denied their income and entertainment? What is it about internet gambling as a transaction that makes it uniquely subject to regulation and prohibition? I can think of no meaningful distinction.
The prohibition of gambling, like the prohibition of drugs and alcohol and pornography and prostitution before it, is another example of Congress trying to impose its distinctly prudish, sober, straight-laced morality on the rest of us. Apparently this morality is good for us proles, its stiff confines shaping us in to productive citizens, but it obviously does not apply to Congressmen themselves who feel free to fuck children and fill their pockets.
I ask again, where does the authority to enact such legislation come from? What makes legislators believe they have the right to tinker with our lives?
This is the heart of authoritarianism: legislators claim the right to enact any legislation they choose because they are legislators. This logic is circular; it is not the truth and we must ban it from our brains.
This bill has nothing to do with gambling, everything to do with power. It is about the “law and order” types reasserting control over the internet and control over our lives.
To keep us paying our exorbitant taxes and believing that their control is necessary, the government must root out all eccentricity, it must attack at the source all things exciting, risky, bohemian and addictive. Where will we be if too many people start to think “I don’t believe I want 2.3 children, a house in the suburbs, and an 8-6 job working for some asshole”? The racy, sexy and utterly satisfying acts of life must remain taboo, denied to us (so they say) because they are dangerous.
It is your duty as Americans on this week marking yet another defeat for human freedom to do something boldly reckless and senselessly destructive, just for kicks. Go out to the street and feel the blood in your veins. Such action is the only antidote for the stupefying fog being pumped into you living room. I’ll see you out there.
Tuesday
The Moderate Revolution
Why is it that being a moderate in this country has become a radical position? People who know me or read this site will also know that my views about government tend to be anti-establishment, anti-bullshit, and anti-war. Is that really so out there?
While my personal feelings tend toward the anarcho-capitalist/libertarian end of the spectrum, I am the first to admit that if the U.S. Government put up a “Sorry We’re Closed” sign tomorrow morning there would be blood in the streets. As much as I think the occasional revolution might be good for keeping the politicos in line, chaos and widespread violence are not among my political goals.
I do not think that massive dislocations, the destruction of old modes of life and production, or the extermination of whole classes of people are necessary or desirable.
I do not favor a sudden inversion of the social hierarchy, merely its evolution toward a more just one.
I oppose the exercise of coercive power over innocent individuals, whatever its source. I respect the freedom of my fellow men to live whatever lifestyle they choose. I refuse to be brainwashed by politicians, academic institutions and the media when they try to spread hate and fear.
Are these radical ideas? Respect for human rights, a suspicion of authority, and desire to exercise control over my own life?
The parties that have shared power for the last century are the true radicals, committed to violent expansionism outside the country and state control of everything within. They are the ones with grandiose plans and visions for reforming humankind in the image of gods or “good citizens.” They are the big government “progressives,” the big business shills, the secret inheritors of Marx and Trotsky and Machiavelli and Rousseau.
Find me a true liberal in today’s government, a person of moderation, learning, and reason, a person dedicated to public service above his own career. They have been driven out by the hyenas.
The American center has been hung out to dry for too long. The 12% at either political extreme is the most important base for each party, but the vast majority of us are neither socialists nor oligarchs. We are interested in a government that is responsive and responsible, that respects us enough to ignore our most ill-conceived demands, that acts with deliberation and caution in times of peace, power and persistence when attacked.
We demand good government, reasoned reform, safe streets, and the opportunity to make a living. These are the demands of the silent majority across the globe, but the radicals are louder, angrier, and sharper in their rhetoric. How long will we let them dominate the debate before we reclaim the radical centrism of our fathers?
While my personal feelings tend toward the anarcho-capitalist/libertarian end of the spectrum, I am the first to admit that if the U.S. Government put up a “Sorry We’re Closed” sign tomorrow morning there would be blood in the streets. As much as I think the occasional revolution might be good for keeping the politicos in line, chaos and widespread violence are not among my political goals.
I do not think that massive dislocations, the destruction of old modes of life and production, or the extermination of whole classes of people are necessary or desirable.
I do not favor a sudden inversion of the social hierarchy, merely its evolution toward a more just one.
I oppose the exercise of coercive power over innocent individuals, whatever its source. I respect the freedom of my fellow men to live whatever lifestyle they choose. I refuse to be brainwashed by politicians, academic institutions and the media when they try to spread hate and fear.
Are these radical ideas? Respect for human rights, a suspicion of authority, and desire to exercise control over my own life?
The parties that have shared power for the last century are the true radicals, committed to violent expansionism outside the country and state control of everything within. They are the ones with grandiose plans and visions for reforming humankind in the image of gods or “good citizens.” They are the big government “progressives,” the big business shills, the secret inheritors of Marx and Trotsky and Machiavelli and Rousseau.
Find me a true liberal in today’s government, a person of moderation, learning, and reason, a person dedicated to public service above his own career. They have been driven out by the hyenas.
The American center has been hung out to dry for too long. The 12% at either political extreme is the most important base for each party, but the vast majority of us are neither socialists nor oligarchs. We are interested in a government that is responsive and responsible, that respects us enough to ignore our most ill-conceived demands, that acts with deliberation and caution in times of peace, power and persistence when attacked.
We demand good government, reasoned reform, safe streets, and the opportunity to make a living. These are the demands of the silent majority across the globe, but the radicals are louder, angrier, and sharper in their rhetoric. How long will we let them dominate the debate before we reclaim the radical centrism of our fathers?
Wednesday
This Party is Boring
Everyone bitches about the partisanship here in Washington, and while the “red team blue team” game gets old fast, the real problem is not so much that people have strongly partisan policy preferences. It’s rather that most have no beliefs at all other than the bone-deep conviction that the other party is evil and wrong. Politicians and voters alike suffer from this syndrome.
Surveys of the American electorate show that, while opinions are nearly impossible to change, most people have stunted political ideologies that extend little beyond party preference. The sad fact is most Americans don’t even know what their own parties stand for. Party preference has almost nothing to do with objective self interest, nothing to do with reasoned assessments of evidence. It has everything to do with how your parents voted and what they told you as a child.
This is not to say that the Average Joe is stupid for not knowing all about political economy or the things his representatives do in office. This information is actually quite boring and difficult to obtain. Far from stupid, Americans are by and large skilled and knowledgeable people who hold highly specialized jobs that other Average Joes would be totally incapable of doing.
Making thoughtful judgments about complex policy issues takes time that people don’t have, energy that they can’t spare. Anybody see where this argument goes yet?
Why don’t we just let the worker bees be worker bees and us natural born leaders will make sure the hive keeps humming along. Most people can’t be expected to know what’s best for them. Just leave it to the experts.
Ok, so every totalitarian movement in the history of the world has made this argument. Politics are dirty. What’s the solution? We’re going to do away with them!
I only go down this intellectual road because the totalitarians, however wacky, really are responding to a fundamental human need. All of us need to be guided and mentored and formed; we are incomplete and incompetent in so many ways.
However the state is just another group of people with all the corresponding flaws – only these people declare their own infallibility and claim the right to shape us as they see fit.
Now we don’t live in a single party totalitarian state (yet) but take a look at the current political parties and try to sort out their philosophies of government, the values that define them. Look inside the cardboard boxes labeled Republican and Democrat and there are lots of odds and ends, but one artifact dominates the jumble.
Both ruling parties (and the bureaucracies and the mainstream media) are absolutely and totally committed to the preservation of the institutional framework of the U.S. Government. It sends them paychecks, it confers power and prestige, it is their forum, their life, their air.
Any group, coalition, person or organization that seriously questions “business as usual” will be crushed from all sides as a traitor or a madman.
While the status quo has always been powerful and there are good arguments for not rocking the boat without a reason, the status quo tendencies of any party are reinforced the longer it stays in power. If the result were mere stasis, I wouldn’t have such a problem.
However, the result of firmly entrenched and evenly opposed parties is much more insidious. It is a sort of decay, both in the quality of policy and in the ability of the population to think critically about it.
I fear our polity is inching toward its demise so slowly that we won’t even be able to identify the moment when it was definitively screwed. We need new parties, fresh blood, clear thinking, and for GOD SAKE some people in office who aren’t career politicians.
Rant off.
Surveys of the American electorate show that, while opinions are nearly impossible to change, most people have stunted political ideologies that extend little beyond party preference. The sad fact is most Americans don’t even know what their own parties stand for. Party preference has almost nothing to do with objective self interest, nothing to do with reasoned assessments of evidence. It has everything to do with how your parents voted and what they told you as a child.
This is not to say that the Average Joe is stupid for not knowing all about political economy or the things his representatives do in office. This information is actually quite boring and difficult to obtain. Far from stupid, Americans are by and large skilled and knowledgeable people who hold highly specialized jobs that other Average Joes would be totally incapable of doing.
Making thoughtful judgments about complex policy issues takes time that people don’t have, energy that they can’t spare. Anybody see where this argument goes yet?
Why don’t we just let the worker bees be worker bees and us natural born leaders will make sure the hive keeps humming along. Most people can’t be expected to know what’s best for them. Just leave it to the experts.
Ok, so every totalitarian movement in the history of the world has made this argument. Politics are dirty. What’s the solution? We’re going to do away with them!
I only go down this intellectual road because the totalitarians, however wacky, really are responding to a fundamental human need. All of us need to be guided and mentored and formed; we are incomplete and incompetent in so many ways.
However the state is just another group of people with all the corresponding flaws – only these people declare their own infallibility and claim the right to shape us as they see fit.
Now we don’t live in a single party totalitarian state (yet) but take a look at the current political parties and try to sort out their philosophies of government, the values that define them. Look inside the cardboard boxes labeled Republican and Democrat and there are lots of odds and ends, but one artifact dominates the jumble.
Both ruling parties (and the bureaucracies and the mainstream media) are absolutely and totally committed to the preservation of the institutional framework of the U.S. Government. It sends them paychecks, it confers power and prestige, it is their forum, their life, their air.
Any group, coalition, person or organization that seriously questions “business as usual” will be crushed from all sides as a traitor or a madman.
While the status quo has always been powerful and there are good arguments for not rocking the boat without a reason, the status quo tendencies of any party are reinforced the longer it stays in power. If the result were mere stasis, I wouldn’t have such a problem.
However, the result of firmly entrenched and evenly opposed parties is much more insidious. It is a sort of decay, both in the quality of policy and in the ability of the population to think critically about it.
I fear our polity is inching toward its demise so slowly that we won’t even be able to identify the moment when it was definitively screwed. We need new parties, fresh blood, clear thinking, and for GOD SAKE some people in office who aren’t career politicians.
Rant off.
"Winning the Long War" and Effective Counterterrorism
I attended a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation this morning, and while normally these events are filled with uber-conservative bobble head dolls, this talk was actually pretty good. It had to do with the emerging intellectual effort intended to balance the needs of homeland security with those of the people who must actually live in the homeland.
James Carafano, author of the recent book "Winning the Long War" moderated the session and gave short pitch for his work. His basic thesis is that, in the early years of the Cold War, the academy and government cooperated closely to create the toolbox necessary to defeat the
The only problem is, we're still fighting that war; we didn't win it. The third world was and continues to be the battleground between western liberalism and a variety of frighteningly radical political movements. We managed to beat back the Soviets, but once we asserted our hegemony we didn't really know what to do with the billions of people who were now looking to us for hope and help. Throughout the Cold War, we kept telling everyone we had the answers. Unfortunately, our answers were the same ones the Soviets had: huge cash transfers to friendly states and a huge troop presence in the unfriendly ones.
Oops.
The panelists this morning came from military and civilian backgrounds, but their primary gripe was the "stovepipe" problem. This is the notion that solutions, plans, ideas and knowledge about the world are contained within distinct and often antagonistic organizations that are unable to cooperate with one another to achieve shared goals. Department of State, Department of Defense, USAID, Department of Agriculture, FBI,
The panelists believe that new legislation and an overhaul of the executive are needed to fix this problem, but in the meantime, they suggested an extension of professional training in "homeland security" at the undergraduate and graduate levels. These programs would combine training in terrorism, counterinsurgency, human rights, intelligence, conflict resolution, and law enforcement in an effort to create a new generation of thinkers and bureaucrats wrestling with the most important issues in the field.
There's just one problem. The panelists did not seem conscious of the fact that the biggest gap in our knowledge about terrorism is HOW TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BECOMING TERRORISTS. We know how to kill people really really well. We are so much better at it than they are it's not even funny. What we don't know how to do is save ourselves from the necessity of killing them. We don't know how to actually keep them from wanting to kill us. Until we figure that out, there will still be attacks, there will still be suicide bombings, and there will still be lines of disillusioned young people lining up to be killed until we run out of bullets or our trigger fingers get tired.
That is not how anybody wants this conflict to work out, so put your thinking caps on.
Monday
It Could Be Worse
I realize that my posts in the last few weeks have painted a somewhat dark picture of the world. I would like to take a moment to pull my loyal readers back from the brink of suicide.
We’re not all sheep:
A survey conducted in North Carolina during the fall of 2002, the golden age of W’s approval ratings, asked respondents “How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right - just about always, most of the time, only some of the time, or almost never?”
Nearly 2/3 replied “only some of the time” or “almost never.” Approval ratings for the President hover near their all time low, and Americans trust in Congress has been on a downward slide for a generation. In other words, people do notice when their government is corrupt, inept, and – dare I say it – evil. The question is how to channel this dissatisfaction into a meaningful reform movement. Good ideas and good marketing have historically and can still change the world. The revolution is not dead.
We’re in this together:
Somalia, one of the poorest places in the world and a country without an officially recognized government had some 500000 cell phone users in 2004. As borders are broken down by satellite media, the internet, and cellular phones, people all over the world become instantly aware of distant events and act to shape their outcomes. The power of information can help move resources where they are needed both through charity and through commerce. Person to person contact, even mediated by our gadgetry, forces us to recognize that people are people wherever they are.
When a tsunami hits South Asia, video feeds from survivors hit our screens in a matter of hours. In a few hours more the flow of money and relief supplies is already underway.
In ages past, genocides and atrocities went unnoticed by all but the killers and the killed. Today, few despots can afford to ignore the court of international public opinion.
The worse the better:
As much as it pains me to borrow an observation from Lenin, it seems that real political change is only possible at times of crisis. We don’t have to go communist though. In a recent panel at the Cato Institute, Jim Gwartney and Simeon Djankov, both noted economists and advocates of political reform in the developing world were asked to describe the background conditions most favorable to successful reform. Their nearly simultaneous answer: desperation.
Politicians just seem to work better with a mob banging at the door.
While the pep-talk is an art form I have not yet mastered, I think we still have reason to refrain from slitting our wrists. There are millions upon millions of scary brilliant people running around this globe; we just have to get them talking to each other.
We’re not all sheep:
A survey conducted in North Carolina during the fall of 2002, the golden age of W’s approval ratings, asked respondents “How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right - just about always, most of the time, only some of the time, or almost never?”
Nearly 2/3 replied “only some of the time” or “almost never.” Approval ratings for the President hover near their all time low, and Americans trust in Congress has been on a downward slide for a generation. In other words, people do notice when their government is corrupt, inept, and – dare I say it – evil. The question is how to channel this dissatisfaction into a meaningful reform movement. Good ideas and good marketing have historically and can still change the world. The revolution is not dead.
We’re in this together:
Somalia, one of the poorest places in the world and a country without an officially recognized government had some 500000 cell phone users in 2004. As borders are broken down by satellite media, the internet, and cellular phones, people all over the world become instantly aware of distant events and act to shape their outcomes. The power of information can help move resources where they are needed both through charity and through commerce. Person to person contact, even mediated by our gadgetry, forces us to recognize that people are people wherever they are.
When a tsunami hits South Asia, video feeds from survivors hit our screens in a matter of hours. In a few hours more the flow of money and relief supplies is already underway.
In ages past, genocides and atrocities went unnoticed by all but the killers and the killed. Today, few despots can afford to ignore the court of international public opinion.
The worse the better:
As much as it pains me to borrow an observation from Lenin, it seems that real political change is only possible at times of crisis. We don’t have to go communist though. In a recent panel at the Cato Institute, Jim Gwartney and Simeon Djankov, both noted economists and advocates of political reform in the developing world were asked to describe the background conditions most favorable to successful reform. Their nearly simultaneous answer: desperation.
Politicians just seem to work better with a mob banging at the door.
While the pep-talk is an art form I have not yet mastered, I think we still have reason to refrain from slitting our wrists. There are millions upon millions of scary brilliant people running around this globe; we just have to get them talking to each other.
Tuesday
Truth, Justice and the American Way
The United States Government has a fetish for large political communities. Its actions in the world demonstrate a belief that big is beautiful; we cajole our friends and enemies alike to align in ever larger groupings, federations, unions, blocs.
This is perhaps a consequence of our attachment to the highly profitable status quo. Large and established groupings almost necessarily abandon radicalism, they are less costly to negotiate with or deter, and the U.S. still believes that it can maintain economic and military primacy in a world of great powers.
These explanations do not go far enough to explain our obsession however. The real reason has to do with the core functions of the state, functions that are at odds with the political philosophy that shapes American thought on so many issues.
We can talk abstractly about the state as a guarantor of rights, a purveyor of public goods, a benevolent and civilizing force in the world, but these noble goals ignore the reality that the primary tool of the state is violence or the threat thereof. The cognitive dissonance that results from these facts – particularly under an American government founded on the idea of natural rights and which selectively and consistently ignores them – can only be calmed by a “great cause,” a purpose more important than the hopelessly violent rat race of human existence.
Call this mythical purpose God, call it Manifest Destiny, call it Democracy or the American Way, it is psychologically necessary if the nation is to persist. The large state and its great cause reinforce one another, they are complementary and inseparable.
And yet, stripped of its regional coloring and ideological twists, the nationalist lie is essentially the belief that “we” are different from “them.” That is to say, it is right and just and good that certain freedoms are exercised by patriots but denied to non-believers.
A political community is a responsible (justice must be left aside for this discussion) user of coercive power only to the extent that respect for natural human rights is central to decision-making and that its institutions provide for transparency and accountability when abuse invariably takes place.
Large political communities like the United States become dangerous on all three accounts when they begin to believe their own propaganda. The grand lie is used to justify widespread use of force and coercion. The fiction of the homogeneous and unified nation is used to silence dissent. The distance between the people and their agents obscures responsibility.
Individual citizens of the United States are carefully insulated from the violence committed on their behalf. Our television anchor men drone on about the trials and tribulations of war, but the networks are practically forbidden from showing glimpses of its true horror. We see cannons firing into the air, we see bombs explode from a distance, we see tanks rolling through the street. All very impressive, all calculated induce the catatonia of trust and security.
What we do not see however is where the shells land, the scene after the smoke clears, the human faces crushed beneath the tracks of the M-1. We do not see the smoking piles of human meat, we do not smell blood spray in the air, we do not watch the howling families tearing at mangled corpses.
When we hear of “bad guys” being tortured, we are not permitted to watch as the masked and ghoulish men that WE EMPLOY attach car batteries to their screaming victims.
We cannot see, we do not kill, our hands our clean . . . or so our government tells us.
The truth is at your fingertips if you can bear to look.
This is perhaps a consequence of our attachment to the highly profitable status quo. Large and established groupings almost necessarily abandon radicalism, they are less costly to negotiate with or deter, and the U.S. still believes that it can maintain economic and military primacy in a world of great powers.
These explanations do not go far enough to explain our obsession however. The real reason has to do with the core functions of the state, functions that are at odds with the political philosophy that shapes American thought on so many issues.
We can talk abstractly about the state as a guarantor of rights, a purveyor of public goods, a benevolent and civilizing force in the world, but these noble goals ignore the reality that the primary tool of the state is violence or the threat thereof. The cognitive dissonance that results from these facts – particularly under an American government founded on the idea of natural rights and which selectively and consistently ignores them – can only be calmed by a “great cause,” a purpose more important than the hopelessly violent rat race of human existence.
Call this mythical purpose God, call it Manifest Destiny, call it Democracy or the American Way, it is psychologically necessary if the nation is to persist. The large state and its great cause reinforce one another, they are complementary and inseparable.
And yet, stripped of its regional coloring and ideological twists, the nationalist lie is essentially the belief that “we” are different from “them.” That is to say, it is right and just and good that certain freedoms are exercised by patriots but denied to non-believers.
A political community is a responsible (justice must be left aside for this discussion) user of coercive power only to the extent that respect for natural human rights is central to decision-making and that its institutions provide for transparency and accountability when abuse invariably takes place.
Large political communities like the United States become dangerous on all three accounts when they begin to believe their own propaganda. The grand lie is used to justify widespread use of force and coercion. The fiction of the homogeneous and unified nation is used to silence dissent. The distance between the people and their agents obscures responsibility.
Individual citizens of the United States are carefully insulated from the violence committed on their behalf. Our television anchor men drone on about the trials and tribulations of war, but the networks are practically forbidden from showing glimpses of its true horror. We see cannons firing into the air, we see bombs explode from a distance, we see tanks rolling through the street. All very impressive, all calculated induce the catatonia of trust and security.
What we do not see however is where the shells land, the scene after the smoke clears, the human faces crushed beneath the tracks of the M-1. We do not see the smoking piles of human meat, we do not smell blood spray in the air, we do not watch the howling families tearing at mangled corpses.
When we hear of “bad guys” being tortured, we are not permitted to watch as the masked and ghoulish men that WE EMPLOY attach car batteries to their screaming victims.
We cannot see, we do not kill, our hands our clean . . . or so our government tells us.
The truth is at your fingertips if you can bear to look.
Wednesday
The Legitimacy Problem
It is amazing to me that a country called into being by cries of “no taxation without representation” can be so oblivious to the international implications of its actions.
To justify a policy by the mechanism which produced it is to go against the skeptical rationalism of the Enlightenment and to cast aside the notion of a limited sphere of legitimate state action. The very core of our democracy is the idea that certain rights are fundamental and inherent in human beings regardless of their class or location.
The fact that people happen to reside outside the borders of the
We cannot yet afford to forget what the liberal mission was about.
If we accept that our power confers license to act as we please, we do not just profane the name of democracy. We may also discover to our great misfortune that power used is power lost.
Sunday
Truth and Politics
A professor of mine, an avowed anarchist and 1960’s activist, once said to me “politics is the battle over the definition of reality.” At the time, this struck me as a profound observation, but years and experience have changed my understanding of the matter.
Tuesday
Monday
The Next World War
Let us for a moment concede that World War III is real. None the less, the interpretation of the conflict that
What we are seeing is not the “Islamo-Fascists” against the “Free World.” These terms themselves are devoid of content; the vocabulary is purely persuasive rather than descriptive.
Fascists evil. Terror bad. Islamists wrong.
Freedom good. War necessary.
Ya, ya, we all get it already.
The forces arrayed against the United States Government certainly do reject the “
The statist/nationalist bent that infects the
This is a vulnerable and hypocritical position. The problem as I see it is not that the “
Thursday
Can You Say Gerrymandering Boys and Girls? There, I Knew That You Could.
In this era of shrill partisan bickering, the one issue that draws the politicians of this country together, the one task that is confronted with true bipartisan effort, with sustained and focused attention is not securing the nation’s borders, not Medicare reform, not even increasing Congressional salaries.
Wednesday
Mysticism and "The Light at the Center"
As reported by Fox News and others last week, a recent study conducted at Johns Hopkins University found that psilocybin, the active hallucinogen found in some types of mushrooms, induces profound mystical experiences in certain takers. I for one am happy that the American academy has made this “discovery” even though people have known it for thousands of years. This recognition by the scientific community - and the federal funding that made it possible - are a huge departure from the beliefs and practices of the last 30 years. The “War on Drugs” made the therapeutic use of these drugs and detailed research about their effects impossible, and that's a damn shame.
Tuesday
True Conspiracy: You Could Go To Jail For Googling Certain Keywords. It Almost Happened Before
Another blog points out more ways to be watched by the government. Sweet.
Monday
My Favorite Obscure Books - Installment 1
I will now quote from The Light at the Center by Agehananda Bharati:
"For our purpose, one theme in [R.D] Laing's work is central: that the true schizophrenic, or more widely, the person labeled mentally ill by any clinical terminology, can make a recovery in clinical terms not by the various professional therapies, but by dismantling his whole person and recreating it from scratch. We have a notable parallel to this in the successful LSD experience. A good trip may not be a strong trip; but trips that are good and strong do just this to the perceptive taker - he casts off all he is, his cognitive, affective, orectic "personality;" his persona, his "mask" or masks are shed one by one. If he sustains the process without capitulating to the alternative, horror and pain, he re-assembles the bits and pieces that make up the total person in the normal state to which he returns - but the bits and pieces have been washed, rinsed, and dried as it were. The world looks different, for a blessed little while at least - not because it its different, which it isn't, but because the instruments by which he perceives it have been cleaned and oiled" (196).
"One of the main objections to Leary's and Alpert's experiments with psilocybin was that they refused to program the participants on medically acceptable lines, in a laboratory setting. Now Leary and Alpert insisted - not yet as prophets and cult leaders, but as scholars - that the laboratory setting was totally dysfunctional, and that it led to "bad trips" almost invariably; that a warm, loving, supportive atmosphere is essential in order to obtain the maximum benefit of the psychosomatic substance. But it was quite clear that such terms as "warm," "supportive," and particularly "loving" were outside the laboratory and research rules – and it was obviously Leary’s and Alpert’s initiatory action that catapulted them into disaster, and into the discontinuation of the Psilocybin Project. Leary and Alpert wrote “the goal of the research sessions run by the Harvard IFIF group was not to produce and study frightening disturbances of consciousness, which was the goal of most psychiatric investigation of model psychoses, but to produce ecstatic experience, to expand consciousness, to provide the subject with the most memorable, revelatory, life-changing experience of his life . . . from the beginning of our research, our attention was directed to the engineering of ecstasy, the preparation for, the setting for, the achievement of ecstasy” (210).
Friday
Violent Crime: Not Just for Brown People Anymore
Just last week, Police Chief Charles Ramsey declared a "crime emergency" in my home town, our lovely nation's capitol. Fortunately for me and my irrational desire to be on the streets late at night, this city is no longer the murder capitol of the country, but it is still filled to the brim with crackheads and gangsters. It is right and proper that the city government takes 14 murders in as many days very seriously, but I have some nagging concerns about the reaction.
First, the primary response to the crime wave was to lower the curfew for teenagers to
Second, the city government enacting these policies is the same one that just this year violently opposed Congressional discussion of repealing DC's gun ban. Firearms are illegal in this city and yet many of the recent murders were committed with them. What does this tell us? That criminals have access to guns through the same black market connections that buy their stolen wares and provide them with drugs. Us law abiding (more or less) citizens are left unarmed, and the criminals know it. Rather than paying for more man-hours and police cruisers, we could allow the city's citizens to defend themselves. I always carry a blade when I go out, but as a wise man once said, "Never bring an knife to a gunfight." I dread the day some junkie decides he likes the look of my watch or my woman and I am powerless to stop him.
Finally, the only reason that these murders are big news is that some of the more brazen slayings occurred outside the poor and rundown black and Hispanic neighborhoods. They took place in the popular bar districts of Adams Morgan and
Electronic Surveilance and You: A Police State of Our Own
Major U.S. news outlets recently broke a number of stories about covert electronic spying on U.S. citizens, and I, like many Americans, am concerned that the government will soon discover all of the illegal things I do and put me in jail . . . No but seriously, I am not happy about these programs, and I fear that, while benign for the moment, they will be used to repress home grown political organization and dissent at some time in the future.
It is clear that the NSA has been monitoring calls between Americans and foreigners with Muslim names. It is not clear how much data mining from domestic sources has been taking place. If you have a computer, use email, or carry a cell phone, you are at risk of surveillance. There is nothing you can do to stop it, and no way to know if you are being watched at any given moment.
Due to widely documented security vulnerabilities in cellular encryption and cooperation with phone and internet service providers, it is possible and in fact quite likely that the NSA monitors millions of phone calls and emails a day without warrants or disclosure.
Although these surveillance programs are highly classified, we do know a bit about how the most basic ones work. Computers known as "dictionaries" are first programmed with a list of words, phrases, voice signatures, email addresses, IP addresses, or telephone numbers. Using speech or pattern recognition software, these machines can scan huge streams of data, marking and recording the correspondence that matches the programmed parameters. The flagged conversations are then forwarded to a human operator who must determine if the conversation constitutes actionable intelligence.
It is also possible for people to determine where a cell phone (and therefore its owner) is at any time, regardless of whether a call is being placed.
Imagine a world where government agents are tracking your online activity, your correspondence, your friends (through social networks and calling behavior) and your whereabouts. Imagine the innocent little lens and microphone on your cell recording and transmitting real time audio and video. Imagine that your worst enemies can find you any time they please.
Join me in opposing the extension and legalization of electronic surveillance before they have us by the short hair.
Monday
Cuba Part 2: Life in a Police State
First things first: the U.S. Department of State classifies Cuba as a totalitarian police state and has no formal diplomatic relations with the government of Fidel Castro. However, the U.S. does still operate an “Interest Section” which is housed in the same building as the old embassy (we “gave” it to the Swiss to avoid being thrown out). The building is surrounded by Cuban troops 24 hours a day, and anybody seen loitering around, walking too close, or gazing into the building is promptly shuffled off by armed men. Nobody gets in or out without showing a passport and having his information recorded and forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior.
The Ministry has its own police force, and when our group arrived on the island, we were introduced to our case officer. We were also issued Cuban identification papers which had to be presented for even the most basic transactions (changing currency, using the library, catching a cab). Our little brown booklets marked us as foreigners while Cubans held a variety of colors to indicate party status and rank within the government.
Our case officer explained that he was responsible for knowing more or less what we were doing and where to find us, and he also told us about the rules of our stay. We were to notify him through our program director any time we left Havana, we were to leave the country as soon as classes were over, and we weren’t allowed to have Cubans anywhere near our living spaces or in our building after 10pm. During the day, they could enter our common area, but they had to present ID and be registered. While these rules were ostensibly for our protection, they allowed the government to keep tabs on us and all the people we associated with.
Out and about in the city, there were uniformed police in kiosks at all major intersections and on almost every corner downtown. I can only speculate as to the presence of plain-clothes officers, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Trucks filled with soldiers rolled through the streets frequently, but they represented just a tiny fraction of the island’s defense force. Cuba’s government requires 2 years compulsory military service from all able bodied 18 year olds, and so practically everyone has been trained and prepared to fight in the event of an invasion. Tunnels, fortifications, and weapons caches litter the city, and drills are held periodically so that everyone knows where to report for duty.
Government offices and facilities (the University where I studied for example) have their own command posts, and employees and students on site when the alarms sound are expected to defend these areas.
In the neighborhoods and apartment complexes, the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution handle the mobilization.
The CDR has houses on each block across the country, and they are staffed by an elected neighborhood delegate. They organize social and service events in each community, and these events, while "voluntary," are best attended to avoid being singled out for special surveillance or punishment.
In the early days of the revolution, the CDR network was used extensively to enforce ideological conformity and identify potential counterrevolutionaries. I must say that the CDRs I visited seemed quite benign (my local delegate was a friendly and drunken old man), but it is difficult to tell from the outside how active they still are in reporting dissent and policing the population.
With the state presence so ubiquitous it’s hard to imagine anything slipping through the cracks, but the illegal migrants, squatters, unregistered taxi drivers, prostitutes, drug dealers, and black marketeers are living testaments to the fact that it is impossible for a government to be everywhere and control everything. To put it bluntly, human beings are smart enough to know what they can get away with under any system.
In Cuba, the enforcement of the government’s complex and absurd laws is quite sporadic. If you are unlucky enough to be stopped at one of the main check points surrounding Havana, if you are careless enough to draw official attention to your business, if you do not tow the party line in conversations with strangers, bad things may well befall you.
However, so many people are employed by the government that it is impossible for an impending crackdown to be kept secret. When something serious is about to happen, the news is spread quickly by word of mouth, and people take action to avoid detection.
I remember one fine day it was impossible to catch a taxi. That’s because the government had decided to start randomly checking licenses. Most of the illegal drivers had gotten wind of it, and they wisely decided to take the day off. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t get the memo, and so I ended up having to pay some jerk five times the normal rate for a lift home.
It may not be easy, but people survive, people work around the law to live their lives. The vast majority of casual dissidents, law breakers, and petit capitalists are never caught.
This is the reality of every state.
When governments attempt to change the fundamental behavior of their citizens, they are ignored by most, obeyed by some, and supported by those whose natural behavior happens to align with official policy. The state can play its whack-a-mole enforcement game indefinitely, but it cannot change us.
At the very worst of times, we can be cajoled into apparent acquiescence, displays of allegiance, acts of conformity, but the state can never silence the rebellion that takes place inside our minds when our rights our violated.
In the end, I was struck by the similarities more than the differences when I went to Cuba. Family, work, romance, and rest are at the core of life – and oppression and resistance define every society, even our own star spangled paradise.
The Ministry has its own police force, and when our group arrived on the island, we were introduced to our case officer. We were also issued Cuban identification papers which had to be presented for even the most basic transactions (changing currency, using the library, catching a cab). Our little brown booklets marked us as foreigners while Cubans held a variety of colors to indicate party status and rank within the government.
Our case officer explained that he was responsible for knowing more or less what we were doing and where to find us, and he also told us about the rules of our stay. We were to notify him through our program director any time we left Havana, we were to leave the country as soon as classes were over, and we weren’t allowed to have Cubans anywhere near our living spaces or in our building after 10pm. During the day, they could enter our common area, but they had to present ID and be registered. While these rules were ostensibly for our protection, they allowed the government to keep tabs on us and all the people we associated with.
Out and about in the city, there were uniformed police in kiosks at all major intersections and on almost every corner downtown. I can only speculate as to the presence of plain-clothes officers, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Trucks filled with soldiers rolled through the streets frequently, but they represented just a tiny fraction of the island’s defense force. Cuba’s government requires 2 years compulsory military service from all able bodied 18 year olds, and so practically everyone has been trained and prepared to fight in the event of an invasion. Tunnels, fortifications, and weapons caches litter the city, and drills are held periodically so that everyone knows where to report for duty.
Government offices and facilities (the University where I studied for example) have their own command posts, and employees and students on site when the alarms sound are expected to defend these areas.
In the neighborhoods and apartment complexes, the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution handle the mobilization.
The CDR has houses on each block across the country, and they are staffed by an elected neighborhood delegate. They organize social and service events in each community, and these events, while "voluntary," are best attended to avoid being singled out for special surveillance or punishment.
In the early days of the revolution, the CDR network was used extensively to enforce ideological conformity and identify potential counterrevolutionaries. I must say that the CDRs I visited seemed quite benign (my local delegate was a friendly and drunken old man), but it is difficult to tell from the outside how active they still are in reporting dissent and policing the population.
With the state presence so ubiquitous it’s hard to imagine anything slipping through the cracks, but the illegal migrants, squatters, unregistered taxi drivers, prostitutes, drug dealers, and black marketeers are living testaments to the fact that it is impossible for a government to be everywhere and control everything. To put it bluntly, human beings are smart enough to know what they can get away with under any system.
In Cuba, the enforcement of the government’s complex and absurd laws is quite sporadic. If you are unlucky enough to be stopped at one of the main check points surrounding Havana, if you are careless enough to draw official attention to your business, if you do not tow the party line in conversations with strangers, bad things may well befall you.
However, so many people are employed by the government that it is impossible for an impending crackdown to be kept secret. When something serious is about to happen, the news is spread quickly by word of mouth, and people take action to avoid detection.
I remember one fine day it was impossible to catch a taxi. That’s because the government had decided to start randomly checking licenses. Most of the illegal drivers had gotten wind of it, and they wisely decided to take the day off. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t get the memo, and so I ended up having to pay some jerk five times the normal rate for a lift home.
It may not be easy, but people survive, people work around the law to live their lives. The vast majority of casual dissidents, law breakers, and petit capitalists are never caught.
This is the reality of every state.
When governments attempt to change the fundamental behavior of their citizens, they are ignored by most, obeyed by some, and supported by those whose natural behavior happens to align with official policy. The state can play its whack-a-mole enforcement game indefinitely, but it cannot change us.
At the very worst of times, we can be cajoled into apparent acquiescence, displays of allegiance, acts of conformity, but the state can never silence the rebellion that takes place inside our minds when our rights our violated.
In the end, I was struck by the similarities more than the differences when I went to Cuba. Family, work, romance, and rest are at the core of life – and oppression and resistance define every society, even our own star spangled paradise.
Sunday
Fatherland or Death: A Cuba without Castro
As one of the few American students who managed, despite pain-in-the-ass Treasury Department regulations, to spend a semester studying in Cuba, I put my time to good use asking everybody I met, "What on earth is going to happen when Fidel dies?” During my four months at the University of Havana, I assaulted students, professors, taxi drivers, girls in clubs, and strangers on the street.
The answers I received ranged from “I would rather not stick around to find out,” to the more common “No es fácil” (It ain’t easy) - typically followed by a forlorn headshake and a rambling discourse on the various factions within the National Assembly or some similarly depressing theme.
One professor said to me during a conversation after class: “How can you as a foreigner understand Cuba when we don’t understand it ourselves?” She went on, “Why do hundreds of thousands turn out for marches they don’t care about? Why do we all speak one way about the government in our homes and another way in our offices and on the street? There is no hope for you.”
And yet I keep trying.
Don’t be fooled by people who tell you that they know exactly what will happen when the Máximo Líder ends his career as the world’s longest reigning head of state. One thing is certain however: even Castro cannot suspend biology.
The problem for pundits is that, by design, the Cuban system renders impossible the political forecasting that we practice in the United States. Public opinion polls are illegal and rank-and-file Cubans are prohibited from owning all practical methods of information dissemination.
These and other methods of social control certainly annoy the more politically aware Cubans I encountered, but not everyone is as “counterrevolutionary” as some Americans seem to believe. I heard dozens of Cubans exclaim, “You don’t have to like Fidel, but you can’t help but respect him.” To many, he is still a hero, a liberator, a larger-than-life, imperialist-dog-stomping badass.
He is admired as much as he is feared, and this is why he can hold on to power.
Fidel holds back the various fights that could flare up over differences of ideology or class on the island. When he is gone, there is no telling what factions will emerge. In the end, there will be no choice but some sort of market opening, however controlled and limited it might be. The official economy is badly broken, and the black market has stepped in to fill the significant gap between monthly rations and the necessities of life.
As it stands, the extent of the informal economy in Havana is astounding considering the vigorous official discouragement. Professionals and educated people are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the inverted wage structure that dramatically favors black marketeers, the tourism sector, and farm workers while leaving doctors and engineers to subsist on the scraps.
One important point for Americans to consider when trying to imagine a post-Castro Cuba is the perception on the part of many Cubans that free universal health care and education, the core promises of Castro’s government, are every bit as important as the freedoms of speech and press enjoyed by residents of the United States. Any party that attacks these "rights" will be wildly unpopular in Cuba, at least in the immediate aftermath of Castro’s departure.
This statist bias is reinforced by the powerful nationalism that pervades the island. Cubans are deeply committed to self-determination regardless of their feelings about the current activities of their government. Cubans of all political stripes view the U.S. embargo as nothing short of economic war whose implied goal is re-colonization, not liberation.
Remember, we did attempt to invade the island during the lifetime of many Cubans. Americans should not believe that the U.S. Government will exert the sort of influence seen in post-Soviet Eastern Europe as Cuba undergoes its transition from Castro.
In fact, a high-profile U.S. government presence during the transition in Cuba could endanger reforms because conservative elements would be able to paint progressive Cubans as U.S. stooges, just as they have since 1959. If we forget about this history, the knee-jerk rejection of U.S. backed policies may doom real reform.
Cubans have no desire to go back to the 1950’s when Americans interests ruled Cuba and the streets of Havana were lined with casinos and hookers instead of clinics and bureaucrats.
The answers I received ranged from “I would rather not stick around to find out,” to the more common “No es fácil” (It ain’t easy) - typically followed by a forlorn headshake and a rambling discourse on the various factions within the National Assembly or some similarly depressing theme.
One professor said to me during a conversation after class: “How can you as a foreigner understand Cuba when we don’t understand it ourselves?” She went on, “Why do hundreds of thousands turn out for marches they don’t care about? Why do we all speak one way about the government in our homes and another way in our offices and on the street? There is no hope for you.”
And yet I keep trying.
Don’t be fooled by people who tell you that they know exactly what will happen when the Máximo Líder ends his career as the world’s longest reigning head of state. One thing is certain however: even Castro cannot suspend biology.
The problem for pundits is that, by design, the Cuban system renders impossible the political forecasting that we practice in the United States. Public opinion polls are illegal and rank-and-file Cubans are prohibited from owning all practical methods of information dissemination.
These and other methods of social control certainly annoy the more politically aware Cubans I encountered, but not everyone is as “counterrevolutionary” as some Americans seem to believe. I heard dozens of Cubans exclaim, “You don’t have to like Fidel, but you can’t help but respect him.” To many, he is still a hero, a liberator, a larger-than-life, imperialist-dog-stomping badass.
He is admired as much as he is feared, and this is why he can hold on to power.
Fidel holds back the various fights that could flare up over differences of ideology or class on the island. When he is gone, there is no telling what factions will emerge. In the end, there will be no choice but some sort of market opening, however controlled and limited it might be. The official economy is badly broken, and the black market has stepped in to fill the significant gap between monthly rations and the necessities of life.
As it stands, the extent of the informal economy in Havana is astounding considering the vigorous official discouragement. Professionals and educated people are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the inverted wage structure that dramatically favors black marketeers, the tourism sector, and farm workers while leaving doctors and engineers to subsist on the scraps.
One important point for Americans to consider when trying to imagine a post-Castro Cuba is the perception on the part of many Cubans that free universal health care and education, the core promises of Castro’s government, are every bit as important as the freedoms of speech and press enjoyed by residents of the United States. Any party that attacks these "rights" will be wildly unpopular in Cuba, at least in the immediate aftermath of Castro’s departure.
This statist bias is reinforced by the powerful nationalism that pervades the island. Cubans are deeply committed to self-determination regardless of their feelings about the current activities of their government. Cubans of all political stripes view the U.S. embargo as nothing short of economic war whose implied goal is re-colonization, not liberation.
Remember, we did attempt to invade the island during the lifetime of many Cubans. Americans should not believe that the U.S. Government will exert the sort of influence seen in post-Soviet Eastern Europe as Cuba undergoes its transition from Castro.
In fact, a high-profile U.S. government presence during the transition in Cuba could endanger reforms because conservative elements would be able to paint progressive Cubans as U.S. stooges, just as they have since 1959. If we forget about this history, the knee-jerk rejection of U.S. backed policies may doom real reform.
Cubans have no desire to go back to the 1950’s when Americans interests ruled Cuba and the streets of Havana were lined with casinos and hookers instead of clinics and bureaucrats.
Thursday
Finally a use for treason
Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution limits the definition of treason to those acts that "consist only in levying war against [the United States ] or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid or Comfort." However, in the modern world of well-funded and powerful non-state actors, the face of war has changed. As we have learned at such great cost the last few years, our enemies need not be foreign governments.
They are just as likely to be transnational or domestic agents who seek to pervert this nation's democratic processes for their own ends. In the most basic sense of the word, these agents wage war on our country, though their weapons and tactics are more refined than the enemies of old. Islamist terrorism is the most stunning and public form of this new war, but it is conducted on many fronts and without regard for race or creed.
In light of this new reality, the Abramoff scandal – a matter that to our collective shame has been fading from public attention – bears implications that go far beyond the bribe taking and corruption of a few dozen Congressmen. The scandal is another piece of evidence demonstrating that our political system is penetrable by moneyed and motivated interests that would usurp the formidable powers of our state.
The powers to tax, confiscate, imprison, appropriate and put to death are so dangerous in their misapplication that our forefathers erected an intricate institutional structure intended to tightly constrain the behavior of government officials and safeguard against abuse.
And yet, for all the "checks and balances," all the oversight, all the required disclosures, the ultimate and only safeguard against corruption is a solemn oath taken before God and country. It is the sacred honor of our legislators and leaders which defends our state from its enemies.
When this honor is compromised, when the oath of office is broken for the benefit of some special interest or other, an official has committed the most heinous crime our country recognizes. It is the only offense thought important enough for inclusion in our founding document, and it is punishable by imprisonment and even death.
The acts of these officials damage our society more than cold-blooded murder, a crime for which we execute hundreds each year. These official traitors hide behind their offices while causing and permitting the machinery of the state to grind countless innocents to dust. The violation of the public trust is more perverse than any rape because, far from a momentary act of weakness, it is a continued, conscious, and calculating disregard for the rights of all citizens.
People, where is your outrage? Are your legislators above the laws they create for you?
When these criminal parasites feed on the guts of a democracy that millions have died to protect, will you leave them with slaps on the wrist?
The power that state officials exercise requires them to be spotless in their honor, steadfast in their commitment to good government. They must be held to a higher standard.
This means that they must be tried and convicted for the crimes they commit. When they violate their oaths, when they violate our trust, when they are guilty of treason, they must be publicly and swiftly punished.
Proponents of the death penalty speak of its deterrent effect for violent crime, a claim that is difficult to verify and complicated by the fact that the truly brutal criminal seems to bypass the moral and rational faculties required to respond to such disincentives.
The Congressman or bureaucrat has a much more refined sense of self-preservation and, one would hope, a more rational mind than the violent criminal. For these leaders, the knowledge that corruption is equivalent with treason and that they will be executed if they are caught might actually accomplish the deterrent function that is intended by the death penalty.
Perhaps this measure appears extreme, but the honor system has not been working particularly well of late (in case you hadn't noticed).
This much is certain: we must put our own house in order before we can continue telling other states how to manage their affairs. These politicians of ours leave us with no choice.
They are just as likely to be transnational or domestic agents who seek to pervert this nation's democratic processes for their own ends. In the most basic sense of the word, these agents wage war on our country, though their weapons and tactics are more refined than the enemies of old. Islamist terrorism is the most stunning and public form of this new war, but it is conducted on many fronts and without regard for race or creed.
In light of this new reality, the Abramoff scandal – a matter that to our collective shame has been fading from public attention – bears implications that go far beyond the bribe taking and corruption of a few dozen Congressmen. The scandal is another piece of evidence demonstrating that our political system is penetrable by moneyed and motivated interests that would usurp the formidable powers of our state.
The powers to tax, confiscate, imprison, appropriate and put to death are so dangerous in their misapplication that our forefathers erected an intricate institutional structure intended to tightly constrain the behavior of government officials and safeguard against abuse.
And yet, for all the "checks and balances," all the oversight, all the required disclosures, the ultimate and only safeguard against corruption is a solemn oath taken before God and country. It is the sacred honor of our legislators and leaders which defends our state from its enemies.
When this honor is compromised, when the oath of office is broken for the benefit of some special interest or other, an official has committed the most heinous crime our country recognizes. It is the only offense thought important enough for inclusion in our founding document, and it is punishable by imprisonment and even death.
The acts of these officials damage our society more than cold-blooded murder, a crime for which we execute hundreds each year. These official traitors hide behind their offices while causing and permitting the machinery of the state to grind countless innocents to dust. The violation of the public trust is more perverse than any rape because, far from a momentary act of weakness, it is a continued, conscious, and calculating disregard for the rights of all citizens.
People, where is your outrage? Are your legislators above the laws they create for you?
When these criminal parasites feed on the guts of a democracy that millions have died to protect, will you leave them with slaps on the wrist?
The power that state officials exercise requires them to be spotless in their honor, steadfast in their commitment to good government. They must be held to a higher standard.
This means that they must be tried and convicted for the crimes they commit. When they violate their oaths, when they violate our trust, when they are guilty of treason, they must be publicly and swiftly punished.
Proponents of the death penalty speak of its deterrent effect for violent crime, a claim that is difficult to verify and complicated by the fact that the truly brutal criminal seems to bypass the moral and rational faculties required to respond to such disincentives.
The Congressman or bureaucrat has a much more refined sense of self-preservation and, one would hope, a more rational mind than the violent criminal. For these leaders, the knowledge that corruption is equivalent with treason and that they will be executed if they are caught might actually accomplish the deterrent function that is intended by the death penalty.
Perhaps this measure appears extreme, but the honor system has not been working particularly well of late (in case you hadn't noticed).
This much is certain: we must put our own house in order before we can continue telling other states how to manage their affairs. These politicians of ours leave us with no choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)