The New York Times is reporting that parents are counseling their kids not to enlist. It's about time that the American public is standing up to this war, considering that they let themselves get mislead during the buildup to it and then didn't have the balls to vote Bush out last fall. The US needs to get out of Iraq and a weakened military might be the only way to force them to get other countries to pick up the slack. Iraq obviously still needs help, but the US presence is more of an irritant than a healing factor.
Edit: I just had to add this quote.
"They don't realize that they have a role in helping make the all-volunteer force successful," said Col. Slotwinski, who retired in 2004. "If you don't, you're faced with the alternative, and the alternative is what they were opposed to the most, mandatory service."
I see, sir. Opposing my child's recruitment is going to end up getting everyone drafted, so I should shut up, eh? Sir! Yes! Sir!
How do those who want more religion in domestic civic life yet oppose the notion that other countries can build their governments around their religious beliefs reconcile this hypocrisy and maintain any sense of integrity with themselves? In fact, why is it that so many people, especially in the United States but elsewhere as well, are so quick to embrace a double standard that permits them to do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want while arguing in the same breath that others shouldn't be allowed the same rights and capacities. Today, the President of the United States embraces this doctrine while claiming to be building a movement for democracy around the world with his own country as the model. It only takes 4 picoseconds of consideration to see that this is destined for failure.
This is not just a complaint about human hypocrisy and self-serving shortsightedness. There are serious consequences here. If people around the world embrace democracy and then find that the Godfather wants to clip their wings, they may reject democracy as founded on empty promises.
Double standards work fine if you have no need for legitimacy or desire for respect. But for a nation that seeks to lead and hopes to have its admonishments followed, there is no advantage to such a double standard. Why is this so difficult to accept? Are people so insecure that they can't handle either giving others equal opportunity or ascribing the same limits to themselves? What is there to lose? Continued insistence on preserving the double standard seems to reduce to the maxim of Might Makes Right, which is absolutely true in the physical sense but is unacceptable in a moral one. At least, it should be.
According to some, Bush seems to want to make investment income tax free and place the burden of funding the government entirely on labor. Regardless the accuracy of the intent or expected outcomes of Bush's tax reform plans, this issue nicely raises the question of who should fund the government (and the services the government provides)? Shouldn't everyone contribute?
In California, some businesses pay only $800 annual income tax. WHISKY TANGO FOXTROT!! If corporations are considered to be individuals under the law with regard to free speech or whatever, they ought to be considered individuals within the tax code as well. (Don't ask what happens if we hold corporate behavior to the same standards as actual humans. It isn't as though I believe that just because corporations make huge profits that I expect them to shoulder the entire tax burden. But I do expect them to contribute to the fund that keeps our government capable of providing the services that make the nation one to be proud of.
Religious organizations ought not be tax exempt either. Perhaps we can grant tax exemptions to smaller groups, say those with less than 100 donors or who only accept annual donations from a single entity of less than $1000 or that have less than $100,000 income. Everything over $100K needs to send a bit to the government. This country provides a wonderous environment for religions to flourish in and they ought to nut up a bit to help pay for it.
Paying taxes is noble and right. Yeah, I realize that this statement is going to get zoomed in on and ripped to shreds, but it is an essential attitude. No one likes to play taxes but we all need to because we are all better off for it, assuming the money isn't wasted. But taxes provide essential services, be they national defense, science and technology funding, the arts, education, public health, and international aid.
Tax money shouldn't be squandered or wasted though, and just because I support taxation to fund the country doesn't mean that I'm all for all spending and a huge welfare state. But there are critical functions that only the government (not the market, it just doesn't work that well in some cases) can address and it needs money to do that.
Thus we arrive at the idea that got me started on this: How about we have the people who hold power pay for it? How about a presidential tax that is applied to all registered voters of the party in power? Even better, how about we have everyone (corporations and organizational entities included) who donated to the candidate give the same amount to the nation as a whole. A matching system, only you match what you paid before the election after your candidate wins.
I was lead into this by thinking in terms of the large corporate and investment wealth backers of the President and Republican party who aren't paying for the privilege and are benefitting at exorbitantly self-interested ways. Some may argue that this is only natural to reward those in power, but that's short-sighted to an unacceptable degree. Leadership and support of it are not investments that recoup gains after the election. Civic service should be for the civic body and not one's self-interest. Yet those who so willing paid cash (and if the $800 a year deal is anything to compare by, many of them donated large multiples of what they pay in taxes) to get a guy into White House are unwilling to pay taxes to benefit the country. It's bad as a general issue but it borders on the morally corrupt when the president then goes on to continue to reduce revenue from those who are entirely capable of paying taxes but just don't want to in order to pad their already ample personal fortunes while running up vomitously monstrous deficits.
Of course, if we did have a party tax for the party in power, we might see flight from party registration and since this would impact the primary system, we'd see open primaries as opposed to party-restricted ones (a good thing). This in and of itself makes it an idea worth trying. While I'm on a roll, I think that congressmen and the president should be paid the national average for taxed income, so if investment income becomes untaxable, they would earn the average of the labor and service economy workers. They could perhaps boost that average by taxing investment income.
I understand and even agree with arguments that investment income shouldn't be taxed because it provides the fuel for our economic engine. It's a very simple, to me at least, issue to resolve: As long as the money stays in investments, it isn't taxed. Once it comes out of the investments, it isn't providing fuel for the economy anymore and is serving as disposable income for the investor. Thus, tax it.
If I invest $100, I take $100 of my income (that was already taxed once when I made it) and I give it to someone to help them build a widget. The widget becomes successful and my $100 becomes worth $1000. Now, as long as that $100 investment stays as an investment, I shouldn't be taxed on it. But as soon as I cash it out (assuming it isn't reinvested in a different company) and use it to pay bills or buy goods, it becomes taxable. So I can be the richest man in the world on paper with billions in holdings and pay zero taxes, but only as long as I don't have a penny in cash to live on (and thus I'd be homeless and starving).
Undoubtedly I'm oversimplifying it and proving that I haven't the faintest about how investments and income work, but if so, hopefully someone can set me straight.
The Ig Noble prizes for 2004 were awarded last October but I'm just getting around to reading about them. For those unfamiliar with the Ig Nobles, they are tongue-in-cheek Nobel-ish prizes awarded to funny or strange research projects whose intent, outcome, or very existence may cast the value of the research in question. Sometimes it is just stupid and inane stuff that wins the prizes. I think the group that identified the process by which spilt coffee leaves the distinctive stains won one, but I could be wrong.
Other times though, the research actually is pretty interesting albeit not quite what we may expect from the aura of preeminence academic research likes to dress in. Two of the recent winners struck me in this respect because they are funky projects with interesting and important implications.
The first explored the sociological impact of listening to potentially destructive genres of music. Hip hop and rap get a lot of attention from talking heads due to its perception of inciting violence and moral degradation. This time, though, it was the implications of listening to country music with its infamous emphasis on hardship and suffering in forms undeserved that received formal investigation. It turns out, according to the researchers, that the downtone nature of country music actually does have an effect on listener populations and is capable of being a catalyst for suicide. 51% of the variation in urban white suicides was attributed to country music, indicating that it was enough to push people over the edge.
Actually, using the transitive verb "push" is a bit too much here. Music, video, and other media do not have transitive power to cause action in people. At best (or worst, I suppose), the method would be one of influence or inspiration, rather than causation. If you're feeling low and you partake of activities that enhance that feeling, it isn't surprising that some people will find themselves in a mental space where they decide that suicide is appropriate. That goes for any other state of mind as well. If you're a horned up yout (yes, I said yout) and you listen to funky and energetic beats laced with horned up lyrics, we shouldn't be surprised to find people getting busy with each other. If you're angry at the world and you listen to angry aggressive music, watch angry aggressive television and play angry, aggressive video games, why would we not anticipate people who end up ratcheting themselves into an angry, aggressive rage? Drugs work the same way, be they alcohol or LSD.
The point I'm trying to make is that drugs and music don't cause problems as much as feed into problems that we already have. This research into the complicity of country music in higher suicide rates among listeners doesn't mean that country music causes suicide any more than taking a dump does (I bet if you did the research, you'd find that 100% of those who kill themselves, across all demographics, have bowel movements within 72 hours of offing themselves. Bad shit!). I'm still going to avoid country though (except the upbeat stuff, like Friends in Low Places, I Got It Honest, and Take This Job and Shove It). Human behavior is just that, human behavior. We are influenced by many many factors, biological and social, but we are ultimately the only arbiters of our actions (excepting the obvious cases when we are captives to someone). When people do bad things, it is unproductive to search for causes in the media and music, although it may be worthwhile to ask why this individual, out of the millions of similar people exposed to the same media, chose to respond the way they did.
I suspect that in most of these cases, the root of the problem lies more in what they were NOT exposed to rather than solely what they were exposed to. People with healthy social relationships and rich moral environments (by which I mean environments that teach morality (general) as opposed to any specific instantiation of morality) tend to be able to deal with the world without freaking out and killing themselves or others. There are also cases when the mind seems to be overwhelmed with the reality of the modern world and ends up broken, leading to schizophrenia or depression. But most times, I think, the problems we see are due to more how a person responds to media exposure than causation due to it.
As usual, I've blathered on this topic far longer than I expected, so I'll write about the other Ig Noble (which I think is far more interesting and has greater implications) tomorrow or some close proximity thereof. Thanks for reading and toss your comments here.
Can government pose a threat to a society's way of life? This is a rhetorical question and it is hopefully obvious to everyone reading that yes, government can pose a threat to a society's way of life. Off the top of my head, the three biggest threats are other governments, one's own government, and malcontents like terrorists, subversives, and the like. If one is concerned about the vibrancy of their way of life, they ought to pay attention to the threats posed by these risks and implement security measures appropriate to the risks.
Appropriate to the risks. Those four words are a qualifier that I wrote about the notion of introducing security measures against risks. Right now, as in many times in the past, security of our way of life dominates much of the population's discourse and consideration. But we have strayed into a most threatening arena where the notion of security is unchallenged and unqualified, intentionally so. Many attempts to introduce qualifiers into the discourse of security are rejected outright, even to the point of accusing those who suggest we rethink security as being anti-security or even pro-terrorist!
Security is not a switch that is either on or off. We are not either "secure" or "not secure." It just doesn't work that way. Security, true security and not just window dressing facades that look like security, entails rejecting those ideas that sound or look good but in reality don't really make a difference and choosing those systems that are effective and efficient, regardless of how glamorous they are. This is easy to say, perhaps even easy to agree with, but when it comes time to agree that putting anti-missile defense systems on commercial aircraft is a waste of money or that terrorist watch list-based databases for crossing-checking flyer lists against are bad ideas, let's see how many decision makers have the integrity to do so.
In an infinitely rich economy, such choices (well, the database once is always a bad one, for other reasons) wouldn't necessarily have to be made. But we have a finite amount of money to spend on security so we have to be efficient about it. Yes, Stinger missiles are a theoretical risk, but even in a worst case scenario, they would take down a plane with a couple hundred people in it. No one likes to make decisions with a calculus of human life, but we have to consider it in this way, at least partly. To input such a missile defense system would cost billions. Once we look at the risk of Stinger attacks closer, we realize that while it is a theoretical risk, the actual risks are much much lower. Comparatively, it is unlikely that we would be attacked in such a way when so many other options are available that offer greater likelihoods of success and higher casualties. The billions spent on such systems would be much better spent on other measures that protect against threats with higher probabilities of happening. (Don't believe me on this analysis? Check out what the RAND think tank says about it.)
We can't protect against every attack. This fact itself is the entire reason why anti-terrorist activities should only partly be focused on beefing up security, intel gathering, and interdiction of individuals. As long as there are people who want to attack us, attacks are possible. We need to continue working to build a world were these sorts of people are rarer. Perhaps it is futile or impossible, but it must be tried and tried again. I'm not talking about a "we are the world" utopia either. Just a world built on different principles or the consistent application of the sound principles that modern society is built on. It would not require a radically different way of thinking, just a re-organization of our priorities and a willingness to make adjustments.
But I'm veering totally off course from what I wanted to write about at the beginning, so allow me to just jump back to it. What I wanted to say here before my run-up ran away in other directions was that we mustn't forget that the government poses risks to our way of life, inherently. It is powerful and the ultimate arbiter of the formal structure (legally, at least) of our society and thus the risks are grave if the government should stray off course. We are entrusting our government now to make us safer from terrorists, but we are perhaps forgetting that the government itself can be a risk even greater than the terrorists pose. Terrorism really is not much of a threat at all. I'm not saying it is NO threat, just that it isn't a very big one, at least directly.
Terrorists, by definition are weak. They resort to the tactics they use because they do not have the power to engage in military, economic, or cultural warfare. They use the outrageous tactics they do because of the emotional impact of such tactics and the momentum such tactics can impart. I don't know what Osama's desires and intentions are, but I'm fairly certain that he entertained no illusions of killing all Americans or invading our country or waging a bombing campaign that would cause the US population to convert to Wahhabi Islam and cause the Constitution to dissolve. Rather, (again, this is just my conjecture, but I think it is reasonable) he probably hoped to set of a series of events that would cause great divisions throughout the modern world, hopefully drawing the United States into war in the Middle East and weakening the cohesive bonds of western civilization. Divide and conquer. He perhaps hoped to create a climate of fear and uncertainty in the US that would drive the government to enact policies that divide society. OBL doesn't have the power to destroy America; but he has the power (as a potential) to incite us to destroy it for him. It is our obligation to be aware of this and subvert these efforts, even though it means we need to oppose the current policies and good-intentions of the Bush presidency.
Our government has been, is, and will continue to make policies and decisions that are not good for the country, in spite of being touted as such. I have no doubts about the positive intentions of the President and his advisors. But they are part of the government and as such not suitable for analyzing oversteps on their parts. It is their job to push the boundaries and it is our job as citizens to keep them in line. George Bush likes to tout his idea of an "ownership society" with regard to Social Security. I suggest that we realize we currently and always have had such an ownership society because we are the stockholders in our government.
The government is there for us, not the other way around. They are doing their best, but they are blinded to several realities as a result of their positions. They are unable to assess security measures in our current climate because they fear being soft on terrorism or are afraid that the effective measures aren't visible enough or are afraid to admit that some of the measures they've put in place are just window dressing or are unwilling to give up some of the powers that they've taken, even though those powers are antithetical to the role of government in the United States of America we all hold so dear.
It is up to us to change this climate. We need to stop accepting such window dressing. We need to reject the government demands for more power in the name of security. We need to be talking to each other about this. We need to be writing letters to the editors and to our congressmen (real letters in these cases, not email). I want to be safe, but I want to be free even more.
Another way to think of this is to consider that we have to just choose whether we'd rather live free or live under security. Me, I'd rather live free, even if that means it is easier for someone to attack us. For if we subject ourselves to a security state that insulates us from attacks yet in the process deprives us of our freedoms, we hand the terrorists the gold medal with garnish. That's a perverse rationale generated from the same bin as the "burn the village to save it" mantra. If we do not insist on protections of freedoms that are vital to the very causes and way of life we claim to be defending, we will only succeed in destroying ourselves before the bad guys do. "You can't fire me, I quit!" works in a labor economy but it translates into "You can't destroy us, that's OUR job!" in the realm of security run amok. If we do not preserve with every once of our being those freedoms, ideals, and forms of governance (with all its checks on authority and balances and transparency) that make our nations worthy of believing in and fighting for, even if we protect ourselves from future attack, we no longer are protecting what we started to protect. We risk smothering ourselves as we hanging on tighter.
There is nothing wrong with choosing to live freer than more secure. This does not mean that one chooses to be attacked. It simply means that we recognize that terrorists are a threat both internally and externally. Externally as bombers and internally as demonized forces that are used to move society in directions that it doesn't have to be or shouldn't be moved in. I'm not saying that no security improvements should be more nor am I suggesting that we stop trying to capture those who seek to harm us. I am suggesting that we not do them any favors and stop harming ourselves.
We also need to recognize that terrorism just isn't that big of a threat. Abolishing our freedoms affects every single one of us every single day for the rest our lives and the lives of those yet to be born. Bloated government with too much power is a risk for every single citizen and brings us one step close to living in a society very very very similar to those societies we were opposed to during the Cold War. Maintaining our freedoms with securing the obvious weaknesses and strengthening our efforts to stop both the current crop of terrorists as well as conditions that give rise to future terrorists will protect us from almost all attacks. And even if we are attacked again and even if such attacks could have been prevented by rescinding our cultural freedoms, we could proudly and defiantly claim that even if the terrorists can still find ways to attack us from time to time, they cannot destroy that which makes us great. But if we demolish the freedoms that give us pride in our country and submit to a government with absolute power, no transparency, and little accountability, even if we are never attacked again, we have lost the war against the terrorists.
The government is not our enemy. But without careful checks coming from the population, it can overstep and cause problems. A gentle giant, powerful beyond belief and fully capable of doing what we need, but also capable of unintentionally stepping on its masters. Once control is ceded, it is very very difficult to get it back. It is our civic responsibility, passed down over hundreds of years from the Founding Fathers, to resist the temptation to blindly follow the advice of the government. They do not know best. We must fight and protect ourselves against all enemies, both the obvious and the unintentional.
I found out the other day that a guy I've know for three years isn't who I had always assumed he was. I've known him only through our online interactions, primarily IRC chat with some forum interaction. He is a computer programmer by profession and I even use one of his applications. I had always assumed, without really analyzing it, that he was younger than me, of medium build, and white. Turns out he is younger than me, but he's a big black guy. This has really surprised me, as over the years my conception of him had matured to the point of being fairly reliable, in my own mind.
When I first meet people online, I don't really form many hard conclusions about what they look like. I might fill in a few general outlines, say breasts and hips for females, perhaps with longish hair, maybe some age relevant details, but I'm not surprised to find out that someone didn't look like the image I had in my mind if and when I see a picture. They might be fatter or skinnier, have glasses, even be black, red, brown, or yellow, and it doesn't surprise me. I keep my expectations loose and fluid.
But with this recent event, my conception of this guy was pretty well established in my head. It is bothering me because I can't figure out if I've committed some liberal politically-correct crime or if we stumbled into a positive space founded on a distinct lack of importance placed on racial and ethnic identity. I figure I've either made a mistake in uncritically assuming that an online entity that programs computers and hangs out online all day and doesn't talk about their race is white or that detail of his personhood is such a trivial one (which is kind of the goal of a multi-ethnic society, no?) that it never entered our discussions. The only time I've seen a discussion that indicated any racial or ethnic differences was when he was recently talking about his hair-twists coming undone, which clued me in to the notion that he had a different hair style than I was expecting.
Of course, when I saw his picture, my first responses were denial ("that can't be him!") and guilt ("Shit, I've been assuming him to be white the whole time"). I can't escape dealing with at least one of these responses. Either I conclude that the channel is fucking with me and I shouldn't be gullible, or I recognize that I made an erroneous assumption about his identity.
It seems to me that making such a mistake about someone's identity in a blind environment isn't really something that I should feel bad about. Or is it? Is there something unjust or discriminatory in assuming that a programmer is white or that a black person wouldn't be doing what this guy is doing? Yet, i never assumed that, and had I been privy to such a detail early on in the relationship, it wouldn't have fazed me at all. It is only because my assumptions, which typically begin loose and flexible, had morphed over time into rather hard conclusions that I unconsciously had found confirming evidence for. If the initial assumptions are not challenged over a long enough period, their accuracy becomes more reliable. This is just common psychological functioning, I think.
I think it would be a greater error to exercise extreme skepticism and disbelieve that the picture I saw is real. The comments about his hair seemed wholly casual and legitimate and I see no evidence of deceit by the cohort of friends who hang out together online. The only reason to conclude that he is white but trying to fool me into thinking he is black is that it is the only way to protect my assumptions. It would be more disrespectful and discriminatory to refuse to believe this than to have made the error of assumption in the first place. He had never made mention of his race, and I filled in the blank eventually based on stereotypes and statistical probabilities. But was that wrong? If someone never mentions or gives clues as to their ethnic identity, is it morally, philosophically, or intellectually askew to assume that they are thus white (or part of the dominant ethnic group)? Are minorities expected to have to make it clear to avoid people conceiving of them as something other than they are? Is it important for us to constantly keep our conceptions of people open to adjustment until we get some evidence, be it political or religious ideas, ethnic background, country of origin, sexual preferences, or tastes in music? Or if racial identity isn't a matter of importance to a person, is there no harm in making unintentional assumptions? If something is important to someone's identity, can we expect them to make it salient in interactions?
So with all of this whinging as a background, I'm lead to wonder what kind of assumptions minorities make in similar circumstances. I suspect that most everyone with any experience in online interactions probably refrains from making a lot of assumptions about the identity of others they meet until they get some confirming details. Obvious exceptions are if you are involved with a crowd or community that inherently has identifying characteristics, be it an AARP (assume everyone is old), Rainbow Coaltion (Everyone is gay, or wants to be), or goth (everyone is immature and suffering from the unraveling of the fabric of human society). But if you are in a community with non-identifying characteristics of membership, if someone fails to mention that they possess a particular characteristic over a 3 year period, do minorities assume they are straight, white, men or do they project a mirror image of themselves and assume the other is like them?
President Bush gave a grand inauguration address that stressed liberty and freedom while shifting away from his typical emphasis on terror and fear. Rather shrewd, actually, to win the election by fear mongering and essentially telling the electorate that unless they elect you, they'll die, only to mark the historical record at the inauguration with a statement on freedom and liberty, photogenic ideals that inspire rather than dark emotions that intimidate. It was a good call, I agree.
I disagree with a couple implications of the speech though. Many Americans appear to have responded to it extremely favorably, pretty much as was intended. They didn't seem to understand that many nations and peoples outside of America's borders saw it as intimidating and threatening though. President Bush provide vague calls to action in support of freedom and liberty for people around the world and pulled out the gauntlet (if not throwing it down) in front of regimes and governments that do not provide for their people the expected freedoms. Essentially, Bush warned the world that it was their choice as to who set up the freedom in their countries. Like it or not, it was coming, and everyone had to choose whether to establish it themselves or let America come in and install it for them. Remote political administration of sorts.
I support the express statement in support of liberty, freedom, and self-rule. I think that America should take an ideological stand in this regard and seek to build and nurture wider democratic governance throughout the world. Is there really anyone in the US or Europe (and of course many other countries) who disagrees with this? It is uncontroversial to support democracy and strive to change the world in a way that empowers more people, offers them a better way of life, and ends up giving them at least some modicum of control over the way their lives are governed.
I believe that one of the best ways the United States can advance this cause is by assuming the mantle of freedom and liberty itself. Actions speak louder than words regardless of language and culture (indeed, actions are all we speak with to many people who tend to ignore speeches and promises and treaties). The United States needs to become a freer society that truly offers its citizens liberty to live their lives as they see fit.
Yet this is not possible now. In the United States, you are not free from indefinite incarceration without a trial. In the United States, you are not free from intrusion by the government into the personal choices you make in regard to how you wish to live your life. In the United States, you are not free from invasive surveillance, government raids, secret dossiers, and no-knock searches of your home. In the United States, you are legally forbidden from marrying your partner if your lifestyle doesn't fit the mold. In the United States, you are not free from harrassment based on your ethnic heritage. In the United States, you are not allowed to eat certain plants because the government has decided it disproves of the way ingesting them makes you feel. In the United States, you are not free to protect your personal and commercial interests as you see fit. In the United States, you will go to prison for years for possession of less than a fingertip sized amount of intoxicants yet you can steal millions and be home earlier. In the United States, women are currently destined to work for less pay than their relative male counterparts. In the United States, you can mismanage a company and squander billions of investor dollars and retire for $300,000 a month for the rest of your life. (Okay, these last few don't have squat to do with liberty but I couldn't help myself.)
The President has laid out an ambitious agenda that in general I support and applaud. But before we go about killing others in order to force liberty on them (Freedom is on the march!!), let's establish a free society at home first. The President (perhaps without realizing it) is arguing for a pluralistic, tolerant society, yet we have yet to succeed in establish that at home. The President has lofty dreams of fledgling democracies with emergent civic virtues, yet our own nations civic involvement has atrophied to a whiff of a shadow of what we had generations past.
As I wrote this, the amount of freedoms we DO have was brought into stark relief, almost to the point of making me feel a bit guilty about bitching about the freedoms we don't have. Yet as the President himself makes clear, there is nothing greater than a people free to live their lives according to their standards.
My point is not that the United States sucks; far from it. It is the greatest nation the known universe has produced. But greatest in its current form should not satisfy those of us with pride in our nation and pride in its ideals. The US can and should do better, especially if it is going to execute a strategy that establishes itself as the final arbiter of justice in a libertine sense.
Before we force others to live free, we ought to be doing the same ourself. Liberty does have limits, of course, but those limits ought to be prescribed according to how much permitting one activity results in limiting others. Choice is a good thing for the heart and mind, although it does require more effort. Freedom can best be protected by policies that permit the widest choices and impinge on people's options the least. If it doesn't hurt someone, allow it. If it excludes people, deny it. Gay marriage hurts none and empowers many; legal abortions preserve rights, outlawing it bans them; official prayers in schools exclude the non-sectarians, personal moments of silence permit all to reflect upon one's situation as they best see fit. The list is endless.
Lest we get too excited about freedom and liberty, we mustn't forget that equality is the first casualty of freedom. But it's clear to me that the President is less concerned about equality than he is freedom. I'm not prepared to sacrifice all equality, as some limitations on freedom are necessary to ensure freedoms for all (unless we subscribe to the maxim Might Makes Right?), but in general I agree with the President. The world needs more freedom. More freedom of being, more freedom of thought, more freedom of action. Let's be sure to take advantage of it for ourselves too.
You've got the freedom to make comments. Take advantage.
I just read a New York Times editorial about George Bush's proposal for "tort reform" in the United States and two issues of deception aimed at swaying people to a position stood out. First of all, the Times is guilty of portraying the president's proposal as an attempt to deny compensation to those deserving of it and the President is guilty of conflating dissatisfaction with the political implications of court decisions (e.g. striking down Ten Commandments in public places, etc) with malpractice suits and reform. He fans the flames of American dissatisfaction with the Constitution (his sneering use of "activist judges") to get people hot on the idea of reforming the courts and then suggests that we start with tort reform, which doesn't really address the activist judges issue but gives the impression that something was done just the same. I don't know if its done intentionally or not, but it's pretty despicable to manipulate people's perceptions like that. Make the case cleanly or don't make it at all.
But back to the Times. The editor writes that the President's proposal would limit "non-economic damages" $250,00 and that this would deny deserved compensation to those who truly deserved it after a doctor's negligence leaves them blind or brain dead or whatever. The Times then adds that oh yeah, that amount is hardly punishment either.
But what I think is wrong with this representation of the issue (I'm the first to point out that I could be wrong here) is that I think the President is seeking to limit punitive damages to a quarter million, not actual damages. There are two aspects of a financial decision in a malpractice or negligence (perhaps in a civil suit [or is that all these malpractice and negligence suits are?]), the actual damages and the punitive damages.
Actual damages are awarded to compensate a victim for losses they've suffered. Perhaps they cannot work any longer and actual damages will compensate them for future earnings. Depending on the injury, this can be very very high or comparatively low. The issue of punitive damages was developed to provide an avenue of punishing the guilty party when the actual damages are small enough that the guilty party can afford to pay them easily. The theory goes that without a punitive damages system, deep-pocketed companies can afford to be willfully negligent and just pay the meager actual damages.
The tobacco industry is a good example of this. Many people tried to sue them for damages and most were unsuccessful. Even those that were successful in receiving a damages award were only give a few million dollars at most in actual damages (as most damages were calculated as lost future revenue, I think, and most of these people would only gross a couple million at most in their middle class or manual labor jobs). The tobacco industry can afford to pay this every few years when a case slips through their defense, so there were given massive punitive damages (I think on plaintiff was awarded a few billion dollars, but I might be confusing the industry settlement with a specific case).
The point is that punitive damages have to be punitive, that's the whole point. Whenever we hear about the huge payouts that people win in these suits, those are punitive damages we are reading about. The President (and his lobbyists) argue that these are out of control and are driving malpractice insurance rates up and in turn driving doctor's out of business which then has the unfortunate consequence of depriving people of health care. Even when doctor's stay in business, the inflated insurance premiums raise the costs for the patient. Tort reform is the way to fix this, he suggests.
The Times is opposed to this suggestion and understandably so for the reasons I just laid out. However, it is unacceptable for the Times to present the President's proposal in a way that makes it look like he is suggesting that the maximum amount of damages anyone can ever recoup for any injury is merely $250,000. Perhaps that is true and I'm running off in the wrong direction here, but I don't think so. The president likely supports the idea that if you make $100,000 a year and have 15 wage earning years left until retirement, if a drunk doctor amputates your legs instead of removing the ingrown toenail, you deserve 1.5 million in inflation adjusted wage compensation. But the President seems to be saying that he thinks the doctor would only be liable for a $250,000 levy as punishment.
This clearly isn't the correct answer either. Punitive damages shouldn't be limited as a dollar amount. If a limit on damages is the goal, a percentage of gross income would be a better indicator, as a $250,000 payout by a tobacco company is chump change but would destroy an independent practitioner. The goal of punitive damages shouldn't be to put people out of business but it should punish them for their mistakes in an manner reflective of the degree of the mistake made.
Perhaps a different solution would be to create a patient's fund for punitive damages that all awards for punitive damages are paid into. The goal of punitive damages is to punish the offending party as opposed to compensate the victim, so nothing is "denied" to victims under this system. The fund could be used to fund research into medicines that don't have the financial incentive needed for big pharmaceuticals to get interested. Cures for diseases that have only a few sufferers or are primarily problems in developing countries (i.e. those that can't pay for medicines) would benefit from this.
Knowing that victims aren't going to be receiving the money would help delineate the conceptual confusion between actual and punitive damages, perhaps reducing punitive damages to a level more in tune with the intent rather than as influence by the emotional impact of a severely disabled person waiting for a judgement.
Please post comments here.
There are many problems with the way the democratic republic in the United States is working. Many pundits, bloggers, and regular people have been talking about reforming the electoral college or bemoaning the failure to energize voters to get to the polls. Most of these complaints are focused on structural deficiencies or strategic shortcomings. I think there is a an even larger hidden problem lurking out there though in the form of massive voter ignorance in two essential realms: the nature of America and their own desires. I'm not ready to take on the former topic yet and want to focus on ignorance of one's own political desires.
I'm not calling people stupid here; I'm saying that most people don't know what they want from a politician or a president. Now this obviously isn't scientific, but based on an impression that I have from the last couple of elections. It doesn't seem that many people pause to figure out what it is that they want in their leader and then go find a candidate that fits that. No, they look at (just) the two main candidates and find ways to de-emphasize the shortcomings of their preferred party's candidate while emphasizing the problems in the other's.
The entrenched two party/ one coin system doesn't have much incentive to change this pattern because it favors them. Many Americans aren't aware that there are many other candidates for president every election. They end up looking at the two main contenders and then vote against the one they dislike the most or they don't vote at all.
There is a third way. If you consistently accept whatever is offered to you and don't ask or demand for something different, you'll never get but what is offered to you. We need to vote for those parties that offer us something other than being less worse than the other main candidate.
All those people who voted for John Kerry in a vote against George Bush wasted their vote in the purest sense of the word, as did all those who voted for Bush out of hatred for John Kerry. Look what it got you, Kerry voters. You got an incumbent president and nothing to show for it. You didn't vote for a candidate you believed in and the parties that might offer that to you continue to languish.
I hope that this election hurt enough people who wasted their votes like this to get them to think about other options for improving the future of our nation. We mustn't give up and quit voting though! I urge everyone, from this day forward, to begin to build a movement to raise awareness about other political options in this country. Every time this election comes into conversation, talk about third parties. Do some basic research and find out about the alternatives, then share this information. There are political parties out there that aren't beholden to big money donors, that aren't into global hegemony via military interventions, that are keen on human rights issues for our nation such as working conditions, health care, environmental sustainability, and energy independence. These are issues that I believe in and that I believe these other parties believe in.
It has to start on the bottom. Individuals like you and me have to get other people like you and me to start thinking about this. We have 4 years to begin raising awareness. At the next election, we'll have to vote for marginalized parties, but those votes will strengthen those parties and elevate their status in the media. Within a couple more election cycles, we will be able to broaden the nature of political discourse in this country.
Don't let the time frame discourage you. It we had done this in 2000, we've had two elections under our belts and our parties would be much more well-known by now. And if we'd built on the progress made by Perot 12 years ago, I have no doubt that we'd be having 4 or 5-way presidential debates now.
We have to do this. We have to urge people to think of what they want for leadership and then find and vote for leaders that do that. There are people who do this already and they've selected George Bush as our president. Do we want to concede our nation and our future to them?
I'd love to hear your comments.
There comes a point in political discussions where it seems that there isn't any more than can be said. I've been stuck there for quite a while now, but since political thoughts also occupy everyone's attention, there wasn't much for me to talk about here. The problems with George W. Bush as president of my country are so incredibly obvious I am truly stunned that more people are not in opposition to him. I'm beginning to be convinced that most voters today are aren't voting for any candidate as much as they are voting against one. If true, I sure hope that this is the last election where that mindset dominates.
Me, I didn't vote this time. I wanted to and intended to but didn't get my absentee ballot. I'm not conspiratorial about it; had I sent in my request earlier, I'm sure the faithful civic servants of the great state of Idaho would have sent it to me. Had I received it, I would have voted for the Green party candidates across the board except when they weren't on the ballot, in which case I'd vote for the Libertarian candidate or whatever other non-Democractic/Republican candidate was in the race. I'm ashamed that I failed to keep track of the time involved in requesting, receiving, and submitting an absentee ballot, but I'm not going to pretend that I voted when I didn't.
I'm ashamed of it because I know that my vote would have mattered. It wouldn't have swung Idaho away from Bush and it sure wouldn't have helped the Greens take the White House. But it would have helped advance the banner of alternatives to the current two party system. The United States needs stronger parties outside of the current paradigm and the only way they are going to get stronger is if we vote for them. Voting for independent and third party candidates isn't a wasted vote, it is a vote for a better democracy in our country.
This election campaign sucked in other ways because of its focus on swing states as well. We need to reform the electoral college in at least two fundamental ways. First, the winner-take-all aspect of the electoral college needs to be abandoned immediately and electoral votes should be split accordingly. If a candidate wins 70% of the votes in a state, he or she should get 70% of the electoral votes. This aids third party candidates as well who actually have a chance of getting a few electoral votes then, which would raise awareness and eventually, representation.
We also need to develop standards for determining a winner in the electoral college. One idea (but not the only one, of course) would be to establish a couple premises that have to be met for a candidate to be declared the winner. They'd have to get over half of the electoral votes AND they'd have to get 15 (10, 20?) more electoral votes than the other guy. Or we could just give it to whoever gets the most electoral votes. But one other element that I think would be nifty would be to give whichever candidate wins the popular vote 5,10,15 electoral votes. This would help ensure that voters intentions are properly recognized in the outcome of an election.
We need to fix electronic voting in obvious ways. First, take them offline. This may reduce them to expensive pencils, but we can afford it. Use a computer terminal to register a vote, confirm a vote, and then print out out a scan-tron type ballot with the votes on it that are then counted in a traditional counting way (and the paper ballot is retained in case of a recount). Either this or go to a true civic system whereby volunteers hand-count the ballots. It might take a little longer but what is a matter of a few hours if it builds civic ties and ensures a trusted election result?
Anyway, in typical fashion I'm all over the place here but these are important points. But most of all I hope that people work to build a system in the US that offers voters candidates that they can vote FOR rather than one that fails to do anything better than offer a candidate "less shitty" than the other. Why are we satisfied with a system that continuously gives us nothing but the option of the lesser of two evils?
But election day 2004 has dawned and hope that you get out and vote. If you don't like Bush and you don't like Kerry, go vote for someone else. You'll feel good knowing you voted FOR something, for a better future for your country and better options for yourself in the next election rather than using your vote to just spin damage control.
Lastly, I'm predicting a Kerry win. Statistically, Bush needs to win both Ohio and Florida to stay in power. Since Kerry and Bush are 50-50 in both states, Bush has a 1 in 4 chance of winning both (as does Kerry). But since Bush needs both and Kerry needs just one to win, Kerry has a 75% chance of winning.
That, and the Washington Redskins lost their last homegame before the election, which, with the last 60 years as precedent, predicts an incumbent loss. Looks like like a lock.
Feel free to vote on me by posting a comment here
Thomas Friedman recently provided an analysis of President Bush's war and reelection campaigns according to the notion of the Powell Doctrine (Hit 'em hard enough to win easily and decisively) and the Rumsfeld Doctrine (Hit 'em with just enough force for us to lose). According to Friedman, the Powell Doctrine was forgone in Iraq in favor of Rumsfeld flawed ideas but is effectively being wrought against John Kerry in the reelection campaign. If only Bush had gone after anti-American forces in Iraq as voraciously as he's attacking Kerry, Friedman suggests, we might have a different situation on the ground there.
Bush's campaign plans combined with the dismal state of his war plans are combining into a domestic situation with such appallingly serious international implications that I can't believe what I'm about to say isn't the main speaking point on all the political talk shows (eh, it probably is and I'm just out of the loop). People in the United States are uneqivocably split over the war in Iraq and the general response to the threat of terrorism. This split is exacerbated by the admittedly inherent tendency for political campaigns to split the electorate. (That being said, it does seem that the era of centrist politics that Bill Clinton ushered in and GWBush ran on in his first term is dead.)
Bush, Kerry, and the American population in general is failing to distinguish the domestic and foreign situations and the result is that we are divided from inside out. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Ponder: A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Iraq is a mess. The president failed to adequately prepare for the aftermath of the war and his conduct in the pre and actual war phases alienated (some say isolated, or even freed) us from allies who would otherwise help. Sympathy and support against Al Qaida from around the world has been squandered and since evaporated. The status quo is not on a trajectory for success. Even if elections are held in Iraq next January, there is little reason to be optimistic that they will help the situation. What is most likely is that either portions of the country will not be stable enough to conduct voting in (thus nullifying the nation-wide effectiveness and legitimacy of a vote) or the best organized parties (namely the insurgency and anti-American or Islamist groups) will win. I suppose there is a subset option to the latter scenario whereby the U.S./Interim Iraqi Government bans or blocks particular parties from running. But even granting this third option, we are left with pretty crappy post-election options.
So Iraq isn't going to be getting better any time soon, but that is simply untenable. It is as dangerous now as the bedsore that ultimately led to the unfortunate death of Christopher Reeve; it's bad, but it is going to lead to wider infection and perhaps eventually total systemic failure.
So what to make of all of this? I'd have to say that as far as the so-called war on terror is going, if we look at what our goals and what Osama Bin Laden's goals are, we aren't winning the overall strategic game. Osama wanted to destroy us, reducing our power, influence, hegemony, and effectiveness. (He has wider goals for control of Saudi Arabia, but I've digressed all over the place enough for today.) We've scored some tactical victories that have resulted in personnel losses for Team Qaeda, but they are closer to their goal than we are. It is an ideological war and they've got the momentum.
He wants us weak, fractured, ineffective, unfocused, and eventually irrelevant. We aren't close to the irrelevancy yet, but we aren't on course to avoid it either.
American effectiveness is weak right now. We have incredible capabilities and capacities that we simply are not able to use or rely on right now. Our leadership has failed us. We aren't winning hearts and minds: we are actually converting them to the enemy's side!
I'm not really all the optimistic that John Kerry is going to do much better. He would likely end up being too afraid to chart his own course and end up doing what his critics demand in order to placate criticism and deny them the opportunity to paint him in a worst case scenario. We need leadership with a much wider vision of the challenges facing us. We need an electorate willing to work together when needed. Coming together behind flawed policy isn't the right way either. We need leadership that truly understands the nature of the threat and what needs to be done to fix it.
PS: Go check out the Friedman column I linked at the beginning here, especially the comments at the end. Ha! Post your comments here.
So Russian has stepped back from the brink of democracy almost completely now. Under the leadership of ex-KGB top dog Vladimir Putin, the free press has been stymied, political opponents (at least those with enough personal wealth to be viably engaged in national dialogue) have been jailed, and now we see that democratic elections of local and regional leaders have been rescinded. Putin's analysis of democracy is that it is unstable and thus unsuited for Russia. He also claimed that democracy is not dead, just not deployed in particular areas of the country, although how democracy can be considered to be active in a nation with central selection of leaders rather than local voting is beyond me. Watch the language used.
Russia is desperately trying to hang on to Chechnya and the Chenchnian people are increasingly resorting to higher stakes asymmetrical warfare, be it theater hostage taking, apartment bombing, bus explosions, airplane bombings or school assaults. The Chechnians are clearly unhappy with being under the thumb of Russian central leadership; Russia is clearly unwilling to entertain the thought of giving them breathing room.
The specifics of autonomy vs. independence in this case are unimportant. I'm not sure if autonomy would be acceptable to either party. But in a democracy, it should be. A nation as large and diverse as Russian virtually demands a federal system that provides a stable center for political society but also allows for the diverse regions to set local policy as suits their wants, needs, and desires, be they religious, linguistic, or political.
But Putin appears to believe that it is the people's job to please the government by accepting whatever the government imposes rather than the government's job to please the people by fulfilling their desires. Apparently in his view, the government commands people to live a certain way rather than the people demand the government to execute itself in certain ways. He rejects democracy because of this. He doesn't seem to understand how the government is accountable to the people. He forces the facts to fit his worldview.
This is ideology trumping reality.
Sadly, we have it in our own country. The current US president is intent on forcing his perception of the world, the ideas of what he wants the world to be, onto the reality of what it really is. President Bush sees no utility in intelligence gathering as reflections of reality. Intelligence information is to be used when it fits his preconceived notions and rejected when it doesn't. There is nothing that can reach inside Bush and get him to change his mind or adjust his thinking. He rejects and ignores anything that challenges him and embraces anything that supports him, even if it doesn't have any merit or validity. It is horribly depressing that we cannot produce a leader that actively seeks to understand more and aims to constantly refine their conception and preception of the world.
I'm not saying that President Bush is the same as Putin in their notions of governance. I think that the threats to the democractic process in Russia is in severe danger and that their governor doesn't really understand or believe in democracy as a system. I think that George Bush does appreciate democracy but he might not understand the value of vibrancy and robustness in democracy and the vital need for wide discussion of views. Of all of his shortcomings however, President Bush's insistence that adjusting one's perception according to new information is a sign of weakness and that by consistently parroting one's positive position everything will work out okay is his worst. It says to me that it is a person out of touch with reality and afraid to deal with it.
Conviction and leadership, compunction to stay the course, and a willingness to bear the costs of difficult decisions are the hallmark of a good leader. But ignoring reality for the sake of appearances, especially when it continues to weaken and push one out of position to deal with the problems, is shameful and weak. And that is the biggest indictment of all for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.
Please post a comment here.
I'm really not interested in keeping up the political focus on the blog but since it is such a pressing issue, I can't avoid coming back to it. A friend of mine pointed out three substantial newspaper endorsements for John Kerry that independently offer concise and substantial critiques of George Bush. The Seattle Times endorsed GWB in 2000 and the Iconoclast is from Crawford, Texas (yes, THAT Crawford, TX). Check them out, maybe even print them out and share them with people. They do a good job of putting it all in perspective.
Crawford, TX's Iconoclast endorsement I like this one the best, maybe.
Lastly, it is kind of old news, but 10 Nobel prize winning economists endorsed Kerry too. If money means anything to you, they're opinions ought to count for something.
Please feel free to post any comments here.
To me, the most refreshing thing about the first presidential debate was John Kerry's vow to secure the nuclear material currently rocking loose in the world. Bush rhetoric about WMD in the run up to the Iraq war was unfortunately used solely to justify the war in Iraq, but a lot of what was said is obviously accurate: the world is less safe with WMD in the hands of people willing to use it. George Bush's failure to embrace this as a principle and follow through with the implications of such a principle as a guide indicate to me that his true priorities were war in Iraq first, non-proliferation second, rather than a belief that non-proliferation is the goal and the war in Iraq follows from that priority.
The September 11, 2001 attacks made it instantly obvious that there were people who were willing to do anything they could to inflict damages on the United States and other nations actively plotting and executing their plans in the world today. The only successful strategy for dealing with this newly recognized (but long existing) threat must include an immediate response to those currently engaged in attacking us but must also involve, perhaps to a greater degree, plans to reduce the appeal of such an ideology and to increase the difficulties surrounding attempts to attack. Reliance on any one of these elements or failure to adequately and appropriately deploy them in an integrated assault will at best prolong the conflict and at worse exacerbate it.
Reducing the availability of highly lethal weapons is imperative. Establishing a complete registry and secure repository of existing nuclear weapons material is essential, the sooner the better. President Bush may have increased funding for securing Russian stockholds of nuclear and radioactive materials, but if his plan means that it will take 13 years to fully secure those materials, it obviously is inadequate. His response in the first debates of the 2004 election campaign to Kerry's pledge to lock up the material in 4 years was to tout his own increased spending and question how Candidate Kerry would pay for it. One easy answer is that the costs would be borne internationally. President Bush doesn't like that solution because he can't get any help from the rest of the world after he thumbed his nose at them.
But locking up current materials is not enough. Candidate Kerry went further and pledged to end the current plans to develop new nuclear weapons in the United States. I wish he would go further and pledge to get rid of our entire nuclear arsenal. There is no need for nuclear weapons any more, not even as deterrents. It is impossible to deploy nuclear weapons, even so called "small" tactical weapons. What, are we going to drop nuclear warheads on Pyongyang if they were to launch at us or allies (or provide weapons for someone else to detonate)? I do not see how vaporizing thousands or even hundreds of thousands of North Koreans (or Iranians or Syrians or Saudi Arabians or Russians or ....) is going to make things better and thus I don't see them being used. The money that would be saved from developing and maintaining nuclear stocks could be reinvested in conventional weapons and forces that could be used in devastating response to a nuclear attack. Besides, it is highly unlikely that a nuclear event is going to be initiated against the United States by another nation-state; if it happens it is probably going to be an Al-Qaeda-esque organization, an organization that by its nature makes responding tit-for-tat impossible.
The United States needs to decide what the priorities are and then lead based on those priorities. President Bush felt that invading Iraq was a priority and set about creating policy based on that priority. That was a mistake. Securing and reducing weapons is a plausible and realistic priority that would serve to guide policy. The United States could easily take the lead in ending all research, development, and maintenance of weapons of mass destruction. This would earn the respect of allies and make a powerful statement to enemies who fear our hypocrisy. We would make the statement that we don't need nukes to defend ourselves and that we'd be able to deal with any threat without them.
I'd like to hear any comments you may have.
A great many people on both sides of the red/blue split believe that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000. Democrats and Bush-bashers hate him for it; Republicans love him. These animosities and affinities are in greater form in the runup to the next election because we are so painfully aware of how close a presidential election can be, how close this one is shaping up to be, and what effect Nader can have. There have been accusations that Republicans and conservative PACs have been supporting Nader in hopes that he will edge Bush over the finish line and further vitriol aimed at him from Democrats for allowing himself to be taken advantage of this way. Considering that most polls that include Nader indicate that John Kerry gets fewer votes with Nader on the ballot, this appears at first glance to be a legitimate complaint. Of course, whether this pans out at the ballot box or not remains to be seen: just ask Howard Dean about discrepancies between polls and results (Check out this analysis for a sharp perspective on what went wrong with Dean and his supporters, namely the internet and social software).
I (currently) believe that the hatred of Nader is misplaced and rather infantile; I've actually seen people blame him for the war in Iraq! (i.e. if Nader hadn't run, he wouldn't have cost the election, Gore would have been in power and Bush et al wouldn't have been able to go to war, blah, blah, blah. C'mon!) Without bothering to address this sort of nonsense, arguing that Bush's victory was Nader's fault ignores a host of other much more relevant and important points. Did we forget about the eligible voters who were stripped from voting rolls by a partisan Florida Attorney General? What about voters who were turned away from polling stations for fraudulent and disingenuous reasons? And I guess no one is going to try to remember and take responsibility for the idiotic ballot structure that caused so much confusion. Had that ballot been properly organized, there never would have been any question. Finally, are we going to let Al Gore (or George Bush, for that matter) off the hook for their failure to mobilize barely more than half of the voting public? It's pretty sad that no one has the integrity to actually focus on the issues that would have made a real difference. Hell, every single one of us should take responsibility for not doing more to get out the vote. If you really care, organize a votingpool and head down to the polls together.
Ralph Nader is doing what he believes is best for American democracy. There is no reason why you have to agree with his vision of what our country should be like, but if you care about vibrancy and robustness in politics, you should welcome his and all other third party platforms. They broaden the debate and offer alternatives, some of them good, some implausible. Options are a good thing and additional parties can have effects by focusing on one issue and raising public awareness about it. Imagine if a third party candidate gained national prominence and attention and focused all of the parties energy on campaigning, for example, on ending our dependence on oil in lieu of cleaner, sustainable energy. Clean energy is such a no-brainer than everyone would quickly get behind such an idea and the major power parties would be forced to address it. Individuals often feel powerless (and for good reason, since we are!) in the political process since lobbyists and political action committees dominant the attention of elected officials. Third parties give voters an additional voice.
Third parties as they stand now are so small they must pay closer attention to their support bases and they must focus their message on salient issues. Just as a small person can throw a larger one with proper deployment of force and leverage, smaller parties can affect national trends and currents by strategic deployment of communication. They are more responsive and people who become involved in them can feel that they are part of the party rather than just a faceless mark on a ballot every election cycle. Smaller parties are more nimble, which serves the public interest as well.
Some people have observed the similarities between the Republicans and Democrats as parties. There are differences indeed, but even so-called conservatives such as Reagan and Bush have ballooned the cost of governing and liberals such as Bill Clinton brought us under fiscal control. There is so much overlap on so many issues (and in so much funding) that the similarities between the two are not so far off. Domestically especially, the major issues are gay marriage and snow mobiles in national parks. Pretty amazing convergence going on there that puts us in such a climate.
There are differences, but they are nowhere near as substantial as the differences between Republicans/Democrats and say the Greens, the Libertarians, or the Natural Law party. I'm not suggesting that we need to abandon the tried and tested 2 parties we are accustomed to; I'm saying we would all benefit from the wider perspectives and added vibrancy and robustness that would develop from including other parties in national debates. One potential flaw in a two party system that we have seen emerge from the shadows of potential into the realm of the real is vicious partisanship that destroys flexibility and politicking in the Capitol. We have gone from a two-party cooperative system to a one-party power system that may flip from one of the two parties to the other at election time. That isn't a good system, thank you very much.
If we had a 70-70-20-20-20 split among Republican/Democrats/Greens/Libertarians/Natural Law senators (wouldn't that be a hoot!), no one party would be able to dominate outright. Sure, the Dems and Repubs could easily sideline the 3rd parties by coordinating their efforts, but they would be forced to deal with each other and a bit of both agendas would get advanced, a good thing. Or imagine if there was a 60-60-30-25-25 split of sorts. Now the minority parties would have the power to gang up on the others and would have real power that the president would have to reckon with. Now that is a democracy that I would be very very proud of.
But to get there, we have to have 3rd party candidates running for office and promoting their parties and we need people to vote for them. No matter how bad Bush is, he is gone after one more election cycle regardless. The damage he will wreak can be undone, as unfavorable a proposition as it is. But putting off the development of a stronger democracy is self-defeating. We only get a chance to advance the state of the system every four years and change comes slowly. But as support alternative platforms, more of the disenfranchised who aren't voting at all because they don't like the options they are given will begin to see new options and new hope and the effect can begin to gain momentum.
To ask Nader not to run is a slap in the face to all the people that would vote for him. Rather than asking him not to run, minimally opponents should be convincing voters not to vote for him. His campaign is a good thing that helps our struggling democracy stay alive. There is no acceptable reason why his campaign has to hurt any other candidate. If a candidate has to run against an incumbent unopposed in order to win, they really aren't a very good candidate. And if an incumbent needs a third party candidate to draw votes away from his opposition in order to maintain power, such an incumbent really isn't a very compelling leader. Both or either of these scenarios suggest that the options provided to voters are drastically lacking and thus we need more alternatives, precisely the thing that third party candidates that Nader represents.
It is fine to believe that people should focus on voting for Anybody But Bush. But many people don't believe that their vote should be sacrificed to vote for someone they don't like just to get rid of someone they like even less. Some of us want to use our vote to vote for someone who we agree with more, regardless of their electability. If those who think that continue to vote that way and help to to convince others that there are worthy candidates out there, different from the big two, options can grow and the nation will be better off for it.
But we have to take a long term view and be willing to endure short-term discomfort in order to reach the higher ground. Fear of the transition traps us in short-term stopgaps that leave us perpetually dissatisfied, disappointed, and disenfranchised.
Israel and Palestine are consumed by cyclical violence that feeds upon itself as each combatant uses the aggression of the other as rationales for its own, only to see its own actions used as rationales for aggression against itself. Both sides understandably and predictably claim that they cannot allow the transgressions of the other to stand unpunished, arguing that a failure to do so only renders their own position incompetent and emboldens their enemy.
The cynic in me is tempted to ask if there really is any merit in salvaging the situation, actually. Both sides have squandered any integrity, pride, or honor by their despicable behavior and treatment of the other. Sometimes I almost wonder what it would be like if the world built a wall around Israel and just let them all duke it out in perpetuity.
Alas, I know this is an inhumane and counterproductive to the ideals of civilization and morality and would ultimately only end up bloodying the rest of our hands with the irresponsibility of the actors in that theatre. Yet if we can't wall them up in their own disgust, what is to be done?
Someone has to get the last shot and someone has to suffer an unanswered attack. Perhaps some agreement could, in theory, be reached whereby a final day of attacks was permitted by both sides, a sort of preemptive retaliation and retribution served contiguously. Even if giving each side a day of open-season on each other were plausible, it likely would fail to serve its purpose if, say, Israel takes advantage of it take out 50 targets with 3 or 4 non-combatants nearby. Obviously this isn't going to be an option.
We could follow the current path and just hope it fizzles out on its own. The problem with this sort of fade out is the lack of leadership and intentional deployment of ideals and actions that are needed to make a peace agreement stick. The fire might fizzle but would leave behind a tinderbox ready to go up in flames at the slightest spark.
The problem needs leadership. Both sides need leaders who are willing to do what it takes to move past the violence into peace. The problem is that one side it going to have let the other get in an unanswered shot, perhaps more if it comes from the palestinians. Why would I suggest that Israel needs to be willing to let Palestinians attack them without retribution? Because someone has to do it and the Israelis are the best suited to be capable of it.
We can take racist arguments and suggest that Palestinians are incapable of controlling themselves and thus it falls to Israel to do so. Or we could spin it and point out that since both sides have squandered their reputations over the course of their conflict, there is much to be gained by taking the difficult and costly yet ultimately necessary and productive steps to bring peace. Or we could hold Israel responsible for starting the problem in the first place and expect them to lead in the clean up of the messes that they've made. Or perhaps it is because a logistic analysis reveals that Israel has the infrastructure and command and control systems in place to control the population better than Palestine and the rather worthless and ineffectual Arafat. There are other reasons, of course, and which one we choose doesn't really matter. It doesn't even really matter if it is Israel that does it or not. But someone has to take the lead.
Turn the other cheek is the moral choice. Should Israel find the strength needed to chart such a course, it would be rewarded with support from the Palestinian and Arab street. As it stands, the Arab street implicitly supports and endorses aggression in the name of Palestine because Israel has provided no reasons not to. But if Israel could show that it is more concerned with fixing the problems of the region (a cooperative problem that is Israel's problem as well as others') rather than just its own interests, it would immediately garner the support of the street and Palestinian inspired violence would lose its broad public base rather quickly.
Of course I am not suggesting that Israel just roll over and take the murder and destruction of its people that some in the Palestinian camp desire. But I am suggesting that the alternatives of mutual destruction or self-sustaining violence aren't alternatives of any merit. Rejecting them undeniably leads to a conclusion along the lines I have tried to present here today.
For the sake of all people, in Israel, in Palestine, in the rest of the Middle East, in the rest of the world that suffer from the lesion that festers on the east coast of the Mediterranean, I hope that Israel (or Palestine, if they can produce a leader for themselves, which would be grand) can do the honorable, pride, and ultimately only thing that it can do to avoid destruction.
The war in Iraq is going badly, in many ways. Beyond the obvious problems of shifting rationales for the incursion, increased attacks against occupation forces with casualities, the shortage of boots on the ground, terrorist attacks aimed at indigenous Iraqi security forces, suspicious beheadings, and the whole Abu Gharif prison scandal that has stripped the United States of any claim to legitimacy, there is the whole money pit problem.
Administration officials scoffed at and then essentially fired a consultant (Army rank?) who suggested it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and require hundreds of thousands of troops. Yet this man deserves wider recognition and commendation for speaking honestly to the American public and government about the situation. He has been proven right: we need more troops in Iraq. We also need to radically revise how their deployment is conducted, but I don't want to sidetrack myself there.
But he was also right on the costs of the war. It was a big deal when President Bush asked for $86,000,000,000 last year to cover the costs of reconstruction. Due to foreseeable yet unforeseen problems (the shortage of troops is one), this number has fallen short and another 26 (or was it 36?) billion dollars was requested.
We were told that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, but those who were familiar with the state of Iraqi oil extraction facilities said it would take billions of dollars and up to a decade to reach optimal production. The coalition has done a good job in the environment that it has been working in, and I'm not here to criticize what has been done. As far as I can tell, they've restored production to levels that surpassed what it was at when Saddam moved out. Mind you, we are a year into the decade of rebuilding, and the security situation makes it very difficult for private companies to move in and help out. Again, not criticizing the CPA for what they haven't been able to do, just making note of the situation.
What this means is that there isn't enough money right now. Troops are under provisioned and goods intended for the Iraqi people aren't able to be bought and deployed. US Army veterans who were captured in the first gulf war and awarded monetary settlements as a result of their mistreatment as POWs have had the money (which was supposed to have come from Iraqi coffers) diverted back into the country to pay for reconstruction. It is no exaggeration to say that the war in Iraq is hurting for money.
Which brings me to oil prices. The United States is not enough of an oil producer to have control over oil prices; OPEC is though. What I'm about to say isn't fact, just a possibility that I think is very likely and probable. High oil prices benefit oil producing countries. The United States could probably exert pressure or extract favors from Saudi Arabia (and OPEC by extension) that would increase the flow of oil and reduce prices. But high prices benefit Iraq as well. It's more money in local coffers for the same amount of product sold.
High prices are a domestic problem for an encumbent president seeking reelection, but asking for billions of dollars more to help pay for his war is probably more damaging. Gas prices typically are higher in the summer, so that trend can be used to defuse some of the dissatisfaction. Gas prices are also out of the direct control of the government so even in the worst case, it isn't a major issue that has to be directly addressed in an election year.
If this is true and the government is not doing what it could to reduce prices (or even worse, asking OPEC for help in raising prices), it is a hidden tax or revenue production scheme that taps the wallets of Americans. The president could ask for, say, $50,000,000,000 directly or could ask for 1/2 of that and raise the rest by selling higher priced oil from the occupied country.
Finally, if this is true, expect major price drops at the end of the summer right before the election. Americans consume more gas in the summer (hence the typical price rise), so waiting until the end taps the greatest consumption period. Dropping prices also benefits the incumbent in the election. It could even be a 'scratch my back and I'll get yours" with OPEC et. al: keep prices up in the summer and we both benefit but help me out in the fall by opening up the spigots.
Then again, I'm probably just paranoid.
Finally, finally: This is kind of what we should expect in a few years when consumption outstrips production. There will still be plenty of oil, but we won't be able to pull it out of the ground fast enough to fill everyone's tanks. You think prices are high now...
Please feel free to post a comment.
I don't really know about the structure of UN peacekeeping forces, so maybe this is already being implemented or these ideas are old news and have been chewed up and spit out by many. But just in case not, here is my idea.
How about a volunteer corp of America soldiers that operates not as US forces, but as a contingent UN peacekeepers? This would entail comparative contingents from other nations as well. The forces would be bound by special limiting ROE, perhaps akin to the rules governing the Japanese SDF. They would be led by independent officers who reported to the UN security council. Volunteers could come from any segment of society, perhaps many choosing to contribute to this field following their military enlistment.
These forces would then cultivate an identity as a multilateral force, not beholden to a government. Essentially they would be military employees of the UN.
It would most definitely NOT be a UN military.
What kind of opposition would there be to this plan? It seems that firstly people would cry foul at the United Nations having a military force. It would be explicitly subordinate in kind to national armies. It would be called up to enforce UN resolutions and peacekeeping missions and aid. National military planners would no longer be upset at having their troops subjected to being led by generals from other nations and governments would not be subject to domestic complaints about international interventions. Deployment of the troops would (hopefully) be seen as less imperialistic than currently seen.
Within this force, troops from one nation would not be given any special consideration or treatment dependent on their national origin: they would be equal in this regard. Their deployment would be purely under the unanimous (this is important, so all members of the security council, not just the big guns, have veto, which gives greater legitimacy to the conclusions) decision of the security council.
It may be important to make regional and local considerations regarding the presence of regional and local troops in any deployed force. In some situations, it may be important to include as many local representatives as possible while in others it is best to avoid having particular nationalities involved. Some people may not feel comfortable enforcing their own nation in some cases, but in others it would be important for issues of national independence, avoidance of resentment from having non-local troops on the ground, or other reasons. To use Iraq as an example, some have suggested that the Kurdish forces deployed in security arrangements throughout the non-Kurdish regions are inflaming local tensions; regardless of if this specific example is true or not, this type of problem is counter-productive in general. In most cases, a multi-cultural force is more likely to defuse resentment than not.
It may also prove effective to include local leaders in the peacekeeping more than in the past. It isn't always possible to do this, but because the appearance of an internationally imposed security arrangement breeds embarrassment and resentment that linger and malignantly manifest later on, it is imperative to build a system where the peacekeeping forces of the UN operate subject to both international and local control. Their role should clearly as possible be a supporting role, and not just supporting the government most popular with the United States (or any other specific country).
It is the external imposition of power and associated deprivation of sovereignty that breeds resent, anger, and hostility to even the most well-intentioned and generous attempts to fix bad situations. For better or worse, it was Arab pride that rebelled against Western pressures and led them to support Saddam Hussein, a leader with many acknowledge flaws but who stood against external (in this case, non-Arab) pressures. These pressures were imposed on the region instead of nurtured and supported from within.
It may not be easy to support and nurture change from within, from the ground up, but that is the only viable solution. Even when effective top-down strategies are available, they most typically are only effective in the short term and end up drawing up debts that are cashed in the future at significant losses to the debtor, in this case, the imposer.
It is impossible to make people believe a particular way. It is only possible to persuade them of a better way and let them make the choice. Just as some people believe that God gives us free will in order to impart value on the decision to have faith in him, the same pattern operates in the wholly temporal world.
Feel free to post anonymous or registered comments to the post in our forum
Richard Clarke has created a lot of ripples recently following the publication of his book "Against All Enemies." The press has treated the book as an assault of President Bush, but after reading it, I can't agree. Clarke absolutely criticizes the President, but the book's purpose, function, goal is not anti-Bush. He doesn't come off as upset at Bush per se as much as he is upset at the failures in government. Bush isn't the only one who takes the heat either. The FBI comes out looking about as inefficient and worthless as as a cheese grater with no holes in it. Paul Wolfovitz isn't discussed at length, but the little bits that bear mentioning by Clarke are damning enough. Wolfovitz pulled an intelligence chief out of Indonesia for raising a ruckus and beating the bushes looking for Al Qaeda, 6 months before the Bali blast by the specific people the agent was trying to get people to help him look for. Wolfie owes the victims and their families a direct and personal apology.
Clarke didn't strike as me as personally bitter about his demotion as much as he was pissed off that the position itself wasn't given more respect. I don't think he'd have written the book if he had been fired and told to wear a dead chicken up his butt if the new administration would have paid attention to and made more efforts to thwart the terrorism threat in the United States. It wasn't personal as much as professional bitterness that led to the book.
The story presented is fascinating on many accounts because it illustrates how the top levels of our government and civic institutions work. The book begins with the response teams at the White House and then goes back to Clarke's service under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush.
Clarke's analysis of the Bush team and the war in Iraq have generated the most media interest but the FBI and CIA get hit harder and more consistently and should bear more of the criticism and responsibility. Bush/Cheney/Rice could have done better by focusing on the potential for domestic attacks with the intensity they've devoted to Iraq (and discrediting Clarke, for that matter), but even if they had, there is no faith on my part, based on what Clarke wrote, that the FBI and CIA would have come through for him. On the other hand, had the FBI and CIA done their jobs better, they would have been able to convince the government that more needed to be done.
The FBI was just wholly pathetic. The only way to communicate was on the phone or face to face. They were not even using technology that the terrorists used to plan the attacks. Inexcusable, and blame lies on every President and FBI head for the last 20 years.
The CIA dragged its feet all over the place, especially during the Clinton years, when it came time to make moves against the terrorists. As Clarke points out, the CIA has been burned time and again when they conduct secret operations that go awry. CIA ends up holding the bag, whether they deserve it or not.
The military wasn't very helpful either. As Clarke describes it, the debacle in Somalia was due to tactical errors by the officers in Africa but Clinton took the heat for it. This is in spite of Clinton's resolve not to run from the country but stay in until power could be transferred to the UN 6 months later. The terrorists (and Somalia was an Al Qaeda and terrorist incident, according to Clarke (as was the Bosnia flareup)) took it as that though, and were emboldened by it, just as when the mujahidin in Afghanistan defeated the Soviets and the Soviets didn't just retrench but up and ran home.
When Clinton came the military for suggestions on taking care of Al Qaeda, they consistently came up with full-on assaults and invasions, options that were so overwhelmingly complex they didn't have a chance at being implemented. Even if Clinton had an interest in following such plans, their size and complexity guaranteed casualties and would have required lengthy negotiations with allies to get permission. But Clinton wanted immediate action to arrest bin Laden or destroy Al Qaeda camps. Besides, Clinton didn't trust the military much after they fucked up Somalia.
Then (this is a big one to me) was the whole impeachment process. Not only did the childishness, pettiness, and lack of integrity by the president and the Congress weaken our nation by harshly dividing it on partisan lines (that have been further amplified and divisive since then), but they destroyed Clinton's political capital when he needed it to attack Al Qaeda. The attacks on Afghanistan following the embassy bombings in Africa were widely criticized as wag-the-dog distractions by the President to bolster his domestic position and divert attention from his personal indiscretions and legal mistakes.
According to Clarke, though, the motivation for the attacks were entirely distinct from the domestic turmoil Clinton was dealing with. The only connection between that military action and Monica was that the President wasn't able to implement the full desired assault because of the criticism arising from the impeachment issue. Had Clinton told the truth under oath or had Congress not needlessly impeached him, there would have been a greater chance that we would have killed bin Laden and disrupted Al Qaeda. As Clarke explains it, Clinton was much more willing to use American military force or covert operations to arrest bin Laden than we are aware of. The military and CIA were unwilling and unable to put into action the plans authorized by the President. For example, Clinton signed every single request for covert kidnapping and arrest of terrorists in office, but many of them were not carried out operationally.
I recount all of this not out of defense of Clinton but as illustrations of how our institutions failed us even when our government tried to help us. I do not see how Bush could have done any better pre-9/11 (but that doesn't excuse him for not trying).
Another HUGE revelation comes from the interrogation of the Saudi Arabian terrorist Zabaydi. The U.S. tried to play good cop/ bad cop by sending in a good cop team of U.S. agents to reap the benefits of the fear that was supposed to be inflicted by the bad cop team of "Saudi" agents, who were actually U.S. agents appearing as Saudis and hoping to use the threats of Saudi punishments as leverage. Surprisingly, Zabaydi was exalted to be granted private consultation with Saudis and told them to call a particular number and talk to a particular person who would help get him out of the mess. Turns out that this particular person was Crown Prince Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia, who Zabaydi claimed had general knowledge of the impending attacks in advance. He also had a few other major Saudi Arabian leaders' phone numbers memorized, indicating a familiarity and closeness with the ruling family. Once he realized that he was talking to U.S. investigators, however, Zabaydi clammed up and recanted his earlier statements.
The final 3 chapters of book address the post-9/11 response of the Bush team and lays out Clarke's opinion on what should have been done instead. Bush doesn't get as much attention in the book as I expected based on the media treatment. We see the Bush teams in action on 9/11 in the first chapter and then don't really touch on them until the end of the book. Clarke points out how the notion of Iraq as a terrorist state is utterly false and discredits any attempt to portray Iraq as a terrorism threat. While always reserving the possibility that he may be wrong, his assessment is worth paying attention to because of his expertise in this specific department, on these specific issues.
In spite of the accuracy of claims regarding Saddam Hussein's barbarism and the unquestionable desirability of his removal, going into Iraq was a major mistake in the pursuit of security for the United States and the world. The invasion diverted attention from the hunt for Bin Laden and our efforts to reform Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. If that wasn't bad enough, we spurned our allies and squandered the opportunities provided by the cohesiveness and goodwill, both domestically and internationally, 9/11 brought about.
And if losing sight of our goals and destroying our own support structure wasn't bad enough, the invasion of an oil-rich Arab nation that did not pose a threat to us has done more to aid bin Laden's cause than anything he has ever done himself. We validated his predictions and the latent beliefs of many that the United States is a wanton aggressor. We've handed radicals actual fodder for recruitment at the same time that we created a power vacuum in the exact center of the region that incubates hostile individuals, granting them a physical location that serves the dual purpose of providing training grounds and attack targets in one easy-to-access geographic location.
Yes, we have made life better for some Iraqis, but we have drastically reduced the short- and long-term security of our nation and way of life in the process while squandering military lives and billions (that is thousands of millions) of dollars.
We cannot forget that all of the issues pertaining to the prevention of 9/11 covered by Clarke all took place prior to 9/11. We've become accustomed to a world defined by the attacks and it can be easy to forget how secure we felt, how complacent we were. There were other things going on in the world that commanded the attention of intelligence services and policy makers. There are infinite possible ways that we could have been attacked and the evidence was not handled correctly by the intelligence sector. Had the information that Al Qaeda operatives were in the U.S. been collated with the knowledge of non-citizens from the Middle East taking flying lessons and our established awareness of the appeal airplanes had to terrorists, and aided by but not dependent on Presidential leadership that provided an impetus to connect the dots, I believe that the attacks could have been prevented. We've stopped other big attacks (the tunnels on the east coast, the millennium bombing attempts, security at Olympics, etc) and could have stopped this one. That isn't to say that the terrorists would never had slipped one past the goalie eventually. Even though they have to only succeed once and we have to succeed every time, there is no reason why we can't. Every major attack is preventable and failure to do so is exactly that, failure.
The paths charted following 9/11, however, are not defendable by relying on our complacency, innocence, naivete, and lack of imagination. This is why the smaller portion of Clarke's book is getting so much attention. We can have greater expectations following 9/11 because the veil has dropped and we can see what we are up against. Making options that reduce the power of terrorists and the desirability of being a terrorists the highest priority and reducing the priority (regardless of the desirability) of options that are good and worthy options but that just don't address the threats of terrorism is what we expected, but it is not what we got.
This fall, the American public has to decide on wether to reelect an administration that has taken a mistaken course of action following 9/11 and which shows no indication of changing its attitude or direction or elect a new administration with essentially unknown and untested policies. Situations like these favor the incumbent because no one is comfortable switching horses in mid-stream on issues with such importance, but we can not excuse the failures and mistakes of Bush et. al. nor ignore the likelihood that they will continue such trajectories in the next term. I'm not saying "Anybody but Bush" here, as we have to expect the alternative candidates to provide plausible policies. But we have to weigh the proposed policies of the challengers against Bush's whole record, not just his conviction and zeal. With that in mind, I find it very difficult to imagine a candidate who focuses on catching bin Laden and fixing the problems in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia as doing more harm than Bush will up to 2008.
Clarke's message is that he tried hard over 2 decades to pay attention to the threats against the country and do what he could to protect us. He is against the blatant enemies of the state, but he was also frustrated throughout by different administrations' policies, turf battles in Washington, D.C., and others' failures to comprehend what he believed to be obvious, that we were in danger. His book reads quick and easy, and I recommend it to everyone and anyone interested in knowing more about how our government works in general as well as details pertaining to the whole 9/11 debacle.
Please drop a comment here.
Good golly I can't believe its been so long since I've posted. I really do have good stuff waiting in the wings, I just have to either focus on creating time to formalize it for the blog or lower my standards about what I write and smash stuff out more often. I'm in danger of losing my 2 readers!
I just got Clarke's new book Against All Enemies and anticipate reading it over the next couple days. There is a great discussion about this issue (as well as many others) over at the Asylum. I don't have time to read or post there much, but the political forum is pretty good (civil too).
PaintCHiPs, one of my most admired and respected internet friends, post the following bit of analysis in the midst of the current discussion about Clarke. My apologies for stooping to lengthy quotes of what others have written for my occasional posts, but this is just too good, and encapsulates my feelings on a range of points pretty damn well. Bravo, PaintCHiPs!
Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in the pre-911 stuff as it concerns Al Queda, and in fact agree basically with euphorbia's position that the Bush team only had 9 months, didn't have the political capital to do much, was continuing the Clinton policy (which, for what they knew, was a decent enough policy), etc. Hindsight is always 20/20, and the blame game for 9-11 doesn't particularly interest me. It would have taken a miracle and a helluva lot of luck, more than anything, to have stopped 9-11, and I don't know that anybody is particularly at fault for it, or really could have stopped it without something akin to divine intervention. It slightly interests me in the sense that Bush is running on his terrorism cred, when in fact it seems, by anyone's admission (even theirs), his policy towards terrorism pre-9-11 was not anymore "tough on terrorism" than any other president before him, but I do agree that 9-11 was a watershed for Bush, I supported his actions immediately following it, and, to his credit, thought he handled the whole immediate affair very well. Again, though, to be fair, it was 9-11 that changed, not Bush, and that's the point that DOES interest me about these Clarke accusations.
My contention all throughout was that Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror and was just being packaged that way so the Bush administration could fulfill their own agenda regarding Iraq. I don't see any reasonable scenario, post 9-11, that would have caused Iraq to avoid invasion. The administration acted like it was a war of last resort, but frankly, they were going to invade basically no matter what, and it wasn't 9-11 that made up their minds on it, it was 9-11 that allowed them the political capital to execute a plan their minds were already well made up on. And, it's a difficult argument to have with people, because it comes down to this: Some people believe that that's fine, that Iraq DESERVED to be overthrown, regardless of the means, and the Bush administration could have made up a story about Vietnam POWs being tortured in Baghdad with bamboo shoots and used that as a justification and frankly I think a lot of people would still be fine with it. "Well sure, we don't KNOW that there were or were not those POWs, but at the end of the day, the world is a safer place because blah blah blah blah blah." That's the jist of this argument. Some people could frankly care less WHY or HOW we invaded Iraq, they're just happy it was done, and thus will defend it to their deaths regardless of the details.
I'm not of that camp. I think means are important. I think considering things in the bigger picture is important. And, I think this administration was going to invade Iraq no matter what, regardless of intelligence, regardless of excuses, regardless of world opinion, because that was their agenda, for whatever reason. Iraq didn't change after 9-11. Iraq was the same ineffectual, contained threat run by a brutal dictator that it was on 9-10-01. The only difference was that Bush had the political capital to finally take it out. What bothers me, however, is that I think the price paid to do it was too high, and I think the administration would have been better served by being honest about it from the get-go instead of dressing it up in half-truths and wild assertions. To take out Iraq, we sacrificed an unprecedented amount of moral world leadership and goodwill, we spent an incredible amount of money, we sacrificed a great many lives, both American and Iraqi, we vastly increased Al Queda presence in the Middle East and, as Clarke says, played right into their hands, we poorly planned the after-party, and we lost a great deal of credibility, world-wide and at home. All to contain a threat that was no worse or greater than it was pre-911, on the grounds that it was worse or greater post-911.
And that's what this administration isn't talking about in regards to Clarke. There's all kind of innuendo (oh, he wrote a civil and complimentary resignation letter, the scum) and character assertions, but very little in regards to factual countering. His assertion (the one I’m interested in anyway) is that this administration faced a new problem by reverting to old thinking. I’m sure they thought they were doing their best to protect us, but at the same time, the assertion isn’t that they were evil or trying to hinder our national security, but that, instead of redefining their agenda to coincide with new threats, they were redefining new threats to coincide with their agenda. The part of Clarke’s allegations that I take to heart the most is that this administration acted as if they were preserved in amber, coming into office as if they had just thawed out after 8 years instead of a fresh team ready to face new challenges in new ways. That, to me, isn’t being strong on terrorism, and it‘s a claim from Clarke that is backed up independently by a wide variety of sources, i.e. this isn‘t some crackpot floating left-field theories here, but as qualified an insider as you can get making assertions that have already been made many times before. You can make innuendos about Clarke being out for a quick buck, or sucking up to Kerry, or miffed at his demotion, or whatever, but none of that is really addressing the core issue: is he right?
I just look at this country now and don’t like what I see. 9-11 was an incomparable tragedy, but at the same time, it was an incredible opportunity. This country was divided in 2000, but post 9-11, we were united in a way we hadn’t experienced since World War II. Clinton had done a lot to shore up American hegemony and moral leadership on the world stage, and 9-11 finally brought with it a sympathy on the global stage that we’d never had before, where people put aside old grudges and really stood behind us. 9-11 showed us the problems we’ve had on national security, intelligence, inter-agency cooperation and communication, giving us a very clear litmus test on what worked and what didn’t. We could have played to all of that. Instead, we overplayed our hand gregariously, and instead of capitalizing on an opportunity, we positively squandered it by engaging in old agendas. We turned unprecedented national unity into a political scene more vehemently and perhaps irrevocably divided than ever. We took that global sympathy and moral leadership and threw it back in everyone’s faces, to the point where, only three years later, we’re scorned and derided globally, nobody particularly wants to have anything to do with us, and the ones that do get fucked by their voters for the trouble (even good, solid governments, like Spains). We took the glaring failures of intelligence, border control, law enforcement, whatever, and instead of working for honest change we just threw money and authority at them carte blanche and said “fix it“, and of course that‘ll have incredible repercussions for decades on our civil liberties and national identity because at no time in the process did we say “but by the way, these are the ideals we want to protect, because they’re what makes us a beacon of freedom in the first place” . Instead of beginning an open and honest dialogue with the American public, capitalizing on a time when it didn’t matter if you were a Senator or a fireman, you were both Americans, we dug foxholes and enshrouded the political process in more secrecy than at any time in my lifetime. We took a budget surplus and instead of a reasonable short term deficit to cover the immediate costs of 9-11, coupled with raised taxes to help the economy in light of a slight dip due to investor worry, we took that as a sign that deficits don’t matter anymore, so we may as well just spend as much as we want and cut taxes to cover it. And then all sorts of little things. Bush, widely derided by the left and chastised from within his own party, felt the need, to shore up his base and since he felt he could no longer unite anyway, decided to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and push for a constitutional ban on gay marriages as an electoral strategy. Just stupid shit like that. The point is, 9-11 could have been a great opportunity for America, and instead of capitalizing on that, we so grossly overplayed it that we not only obliterated so much higher ground, we set upon a course to dig ourselves deeper and deeper into the shit than ever. And that, to me, falls squarely on Bush’s shoulders.
That’s what Clarke’s allegations get at, in my mind. Squandered opportunities. Missed chances for the sake of tired agendas. I have no doubt that if we would have culled popular opinion at home and abroad following 9-11 instead of throwing it in people‘s faces, that in a few years, we would have easily been able to accomplish what we wanted, multilaterally, in Iraq. That Bush would have truly become a uniter, sailing into re-election with approval ratings in the high 60s. That we would have been able to really work to improve our national security and our moral interests at the same time.
But, as Clarke said, this administration wasn’t interested in new ideas or new agendas. They just saw new events as reasons to push for old grudges. Didn’t matter what the reality was, all that mattered was what reality was wanted. And that’s the truly missed opportunity from 9-11.
If you care to respond directly to the quote, go read the thread at the Asylum and respond accordingly. If you want to talk about what was said in general, post here
Open society keeps us honest.
At one point in “The DaVinci Code,” the protagonist ends up at a Swiss bank and the author briefly introduces the traditional number account and the anonymity afforded patrons of particular Swiss institutions. Lately our society has made many moves towards removing anonymity in modern life, all in the name of security. I believe this to be a drastic mistake that may offer short-term advantage in our attempts to improve our security situation but weakens our long term outlook.
The argument against anonymity essentially states that anonymity is insecure because it allows nefarious elements to organize and operate effectively and invisibly. Depriving citizens of the ability to move unmonitored increases security, the argument goes, because they will not be able to do socially unpopular things without the cover of anonymity.
This is a rational and reasonable argument, and one that is thus difficult to criticize because it entails arguing that we are better off preserving terrorists’ and drug dealers’ ability to operate. But this is exactly what I believe. There are a few reasons for this, a couple of which I hope to adequate illuminate here.
Indulge me in a digression as part of my effort to explain this position. The gun control issue in the United States revolves around interpretations of the Constitution’s Second Amendment that establishes the citizenry’s right to bear arms, ostenstensibly to protect the citizenry from the tyranny of leadership and government rule. “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom” is a responsibility of a democratic population. The founders of the United States felt that it was essential (the position as second Amendment attests to the importance they placed on this issue) to create a system that preserved power at the bottom even as it was granted at the top precisely in order to keep the top (the government) honest about what it was doing. If the government tried to overstep its bounds or veer from its assigned course, the citizenry had the means to (and expectation as well) to get it back in line.
This system, will utterly emasculated and ineffective today, is based on rather sound principles. Accountability is essential for creating a just and desirable community, be it at familial or international levels, and the Second Amendment establishes physical accountability to back up the democratic civic accountability established by the voting system. So here we have two fundamental elements to creating a vibrant and not coincidentally free socity: the ability to make one’s voice heard through civic channels, namely voting and accountability on the part of the elected to serve the interests of those below. Failure to be accountable to the civic position granted via the vote results in one of two actions; most likely, the elected individual fails to be reelected as a better (i.e. more accountable) person is chosen for the position or the system as a whole is held in check by physical accountability. Both elements are grounded in the population and serve to keep the system of power at the top functioning in a way that serves the interests of those on the bottom.
The only other element that is missing is transparency in government that permits the governed to actually know what is going on up top. It is absolutely essential that the system be transparent so that actions that are not desired by or in the interests of the governed can be held accountable. Secrets do not a fine society make.
Now what does this have to do with anonymity in modern society? Anonymity’s obvious function is to allow people to operate without oversight from above, oversight that typically is not warranted or deserved. Anonymity enables people to do things that benefit themselves without harming others (in most cases, but admittedly not all). But anonymity also enables accountability. Just as bearing arms assures the government that the people have the power, anonymity ensures that people have the ability to do what needs to be done to keep the system working for them. If the system strays from this obligation, anonymity offers a way to get things done otherwise.
Of course the government’s job is not to make everyone happy all the time, but it does, by definition, have an obligation to serve a majority of the people. If that obligation is not fulfilled, the people have the right, the expectation, the obligation to rectify it by applying the tools available to them in a way that returns the system to its roots of serving their interests. What anonymity does is return this equity to the system and restores accountability. Without anonymity, the government can control so much of modern life and is able to insulate itself from accountability to the will of the governed.
It is true that anonymity can be used for harmful activities as well as harmless ones. But we do have other systemic elements (law enforcement) that provide support in shutting down criminal activity, so it isn’t as though anonymity in a society is the root factor enabling criminals to operate. They can operate without anonymity and can be shut down in spite of anonymity. But the converse is not true. If the government strays from its benign and noble responsibilities of serving the interests of the governed, anonymity ensures that the governed have the ability to organize in opposition to the government. And even if the government is doing an adequate job and is not in need of severe opposition, anonymity helps to preserve freedom and privacy from undue interference and may even facilitate some activities that may be technically illegal but fundamentally do not harm anyone, essentially conferring greater freedom on a society while reducing the risks to the populace.
Security is not absolute. All decisions about security improvements must be seen in terms of trade-offs. Something is always sacrificed for better security and the decision to adopt particular security measures rests first on an accurate evaluation of the efficacy of the security proposal (does it actually improve security or does it just look like it? Fingerprinting and identity cards are good examples of measures that look like they improve security but do not and in fact make the system less secure.) and secondly on an assessment of the costs/ returns from the loss of the sacrificed element and the gain of the secure measures. The law of diminishing returns applies to this evaluation as well, of course.
So the way I see it, although anonymity in a society does make it easier for some criminals to do their criminal thing, it also greatly enhances, augments, and enables free society. And since free society also establishes institutions specifically devoted to the curtailment of criminal activity, the costs of an anonymous society are reduced while the benefits are obvious. Anonymity ensures people can live the lives they want to live and provides an avenue of accountability by the government. Transparency is essential in the public halls of power but not as needed in the private lives of the citizenry.
The opposite scenario is exactly that, an opposite. In a society without anonymity where private lives are transparent and controlled by the government, there is lesser freedom and lesser accountability should transparency become opaque in the functioning of the governing body. There is no way for a citizenry deprived of privacy and anonymity to effect change in a corrupt government. In a system with a transparent government and anonymous citizenry though, institutions and practices can be put into place to reduce abuses of the system, but the inverse does not exist in the latter scenario. So while it may at first glance appear that removing anonymity from society, be it in banking, travel, lodging, communications, or anything else improves our security by depriving criminals of opportunities, this change also deprives the citizenry of many freedoms (an unworthy trade in my opinion, but I accept the opinions of those who believe it to be a fair trade-off), it creates a system full of risk to the future of the populace by removing the accountability of the government to the people and submitting their lives wholly to the altruism of those in power, who, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they truly operate with our best interests at heart, inevitably make decisions that only appear beneficial from the perspective of power but not from the views of the governed.
The potential for abuse persists in both systems, but only the system that preserves freedom and privacy (this is all anonymity is) is capable of overseeing itself. Whether one sees this as a desirable system in its own right or the lesser of two evils, it is clear that anonymity in private life and transparency in public governance are essential to freedom, liberty, and the life that we are supposedly fighting for.
You can respond (anonymously of course!) to this issue here.
A few interesting results of a recent survey in England, again courtesy of Matt Drudge. My only problem with this is that it was an online survey. I don't have the link to the surveyors site and thus don't know how it was conducted, but, despite claims that it is representative, it may not be the most accurate sample. I guess it will be (or was?) printed in a Murdoch paper though, and he's pretty pro-war and conservative as a news leader.
Here we go:
The US President was branded a threat to world peace by a clear majority [of Britons], 60%, of those questioned by YouGov. More than one in three, 37%, said Mr Bush was "stupid" while 33% called him "incoherent". Only a minority saw positive characteristics in Mr Bush, with just 7% regarding him as a good world leader, 6% as articulate and 10% as intelligent.
A slim majority of those questioned opposed the visit by 26% to 21% although half did not care. There was sympathy with anti-war campaigners who plan a series of protests to mark the visit with a majority of 53% to 41% supporting the demonstrations.
For the first time a majority said Britain and America were wrong to go to war with Iraq by 45% to 43%. The question has been asked repeatedly since March and when US troops entered Baghdad in April voters were in favour of the war by 66% to 29%.
Now almost three-quarters, 73%, expected the security situation to get worse over the next few months. Only 15% believed that things would get better in Iraq with just 18% saying the country's future would be as a peaceful democracy. An overwhelming 70% thought there was little hope for the people of Iraq and that it would be a permanently unstable country.
There was little faith in the President's ability to handle the continuing problems in Iraq. Fewer than a quarter, 24%, had confidence in Mr Bush on Iraq, while 74% did not. Prime Minister Tony Blair fares only slightly better with 38% expressing confidence in him compared with 59% who did not. There was also scepticism about the "special relationship" between Britain and the US. Only a third, 34%, thought the relationship should continue as at present with Britain remaining America's closest ally. A larger proportion, 47%, said that Britain should continue as one of America's allies but be ready to pursue a more independent line. Some went further, with 14% saying Britain should no longer regard America as a close ally and should pursue its own interests irrespective of what Washington thinks.
I'm reading "In Athena's Camp: Preparing for conflict in the information age" these days and was immediately struck by their analysis. It's an older book, published in 1997 but stemming from RAND papers from the previous five years or so. (I actually have 3 or 4 tomes in this vein and am reading them in chronological order.) It's very prescient though and essentially predicts a future conflict like we are currently waged in with Al Qaida.
One of the big themes is that of networks vs hierarchies. Immediately we see the relation to Al Qaida and the US power command structures. The big question (or one of, at least) that needs to be asked (because the current trend is to assume an answer that is far from assured) is can the US win the fight? We all want to defeat terrorism, but we all want to be able to fly like Superman too. I absolutely believe that we can build a world where the solutions offered by terrorism are not competitive with solutions offered by other courses of actions, but I'm not convinced that can come about by direct violent conflict. I'm actually kind of afraid that direct violent conflict will actually serve nothing other than to ensure that the conflict endures ad infinitum, like a stock market bubble that runs out of control.
The internet came about because of AM radio. Wait, back up. In the 1950s, U.S. military commanders began to worry about the susceptibility of hierarchical communication structures to decapitation. They went to the engineers and they came up with the AM radio system that used a dispersed noded system to ensure that no matter who or what or where got hit, there would be a way to get communications from point A to point B. I'm paraphrasing this history based on what I remember from George Dyson's history of computing and evolution of intelligence "Darwin Among the Machines" and my memory isn't so great because I have sleep apnea, so go read his book for accurate details. But anyway, from this, the ARPAnet evolved and we all know (or should know) the rest.
The Internet is the network that everyone knows the best. You may not know how incredibly resistant the network is to attack though. A few months ago (maybe over a year now), there was a very serious attack aimed at one of the 6 super-nodes on the internet. If I remember correctly, this attack pretty much took this node offline. The cool thing is that no one noticed, at least no regular internet users. Of course the technicians in charge of the node noticed; that's how the story got out. But the internet didn't suffer noticably at all. Such is the power of a network.
No matter how powerful the force that one can focus on a network node, its just too dispersed to cut out completely. Military assault on terrorists networks will not eradicate the threat of terrorism. Direct violent assault may have its place in the total arsenal we bring to bear on the terrorism problem (which is essentially a criminal problem at root), but it just doesn't have the power to do the whole thing.
So what do we do? We can use the Internet as an example here as well. The direct frontal assault on an Internet node didn't work, but every so often we do see large portions of the net brought down by virus attacks. To translate this kind of thing into the terrorism network, think of virus as a mentality to go on strike. If this mentality takes root in a group of people and spreads, everyone walks off the job and the company grinds to a halt. Same thing with terrorism. If we can develop a different way of thinking that spreads throughout the populations of terrorists and would-be terrorists, they can and will make choices for action that is non-terrorist.
So how do we do that? First we need to find out why people are becoming terrorists, or put a better way, why people are becoming the types of criminals who's primary aim is to do as much damage to civilian targets of the enemy as possible. We shouldn't accede to terrorists demands but we most definitely should seek to remedy any fundamental problems that contribute to people choosing to become murderous and suicidal sociopaths.
Basically we have to build a world that is good enough to make would-be terrorists happy. Because it seems fairly clear to me that the reason people choose to become terrorist criminals is because that offers them a better life (or at least a better outlet) than the lives they were living before.
Until we see a GREATER effort put into this type of collective endeavor, I don't expect to see any major improvements or advances in the war against terror. And if the reliance on military tactics ends up contributing to the expansion or creation of terrorist-producing environments, we are actually making things worse.