My response to the "old chestnut"...

I'm not sure what Jambo is referencing in his last, but I'd have to say his most memorable position on education that I can easily recall was given at great length on F. Ryan's patio very late one night after a case of High Life and a dozen brats on the grill:  the nationalization of the education system.

I'm not going to try and remember all the details, but it was basically a call for the Federalization of all teachers, and thus all curriculums, into one homogeneous body.  No more local school boards, only an education system as far flung and locally focused as any post office, DoAg office, or Federal building.

I personally hope this isn't what Jambo was referring to.  I don't think this is the answer.  Perhaps I have it wrong, and Jambo wasn't talking about this.  It was discussed in person, and not written down (even we weren't taking "minutes" during these gatherings), and alcohol was an ingredient in all these get-togethers.

To answer Jambo's question, I think the demise of the education system in this nation began with the institution of national education standards via Carter's Department of Education. In taking the effort to educate our children out of the hands of local school boards and placing it in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, we have simply surrendered the right to educate our kids to a cookie-cutter system that is trying to force ALL kids into the same model.  Those that fit in and comply are successful, and those that do not are labelled as "failures" or "problems" and left behind (regardless of Bush's NCLB Act).

More importantly, we (as parents and educators) see that the responsibility for education has been taken from us, and the consequences for failure are left to society to fix.  "We" are no longer the primary educators of our children, the "state" is.  Those few of us that take the responsibility seriously (home schoolers, charter schoolers, etc) are labelled as "fringe" elements of society and told we are damaging our kids.  We are "non compliers" who actively work to undermine the system, not concerned parents looking to do the best for our kids.

Furthermore, the death of American education is moved further towards its terminus by a nation-wide teacher's union (or unions) that force local school boards to make payroll and benefits the largest expense in any annual budget each and every year.  Last year, in my own local school district, payroll and benefits accounted for 68% of every dollar spent in the district, and that is slated to go up another 2% next year.  When the school board voted to reduce the number of teachers, the unions sued and won... which forced the district to keep 32 teachers on the payroll, with benefits, even though they weren't needed to teach the kids.  This "added" expense will now force the district to consider either closing an actual school (and forcing hundreds of kids to longer bus commutes and far larger class rooms) OR ending very nearly ALL extracurricular activities such as band, theater, robotics club, sports et al.  So, in order to maintain the number of dues-paying teachers within the district, my school board will cut football, band, and the theater classes (among others) to the point that only those kids that can PAY for their equipment upfront will be allowed to participate.  That's an EXTRA $550 a year for a football student, $600 for a band student, and $350 for a drama student.

The long and short of it is simply this (for me):

The Department of Education adds a tax to my income that means I'm putting my money into the education of children that do not live in my area.  I'm paying for schools and teachers on the other side of the country, as well as for schools and teachers in my own district.  I'm not opposed to paying the taxes, but let me take the money that I would be paying the Education Department and let me put it towards my own district.  Let everyone else do the same thing.

I'm running out of time, so I'll end here.  Let me know what you think.

This probably isn't going to make me very popular here...

... but to be totally honest, I'm glad the DOMA is gone.

I agree with F. Ryan that America is becoming more and more hypocritical in its views of moral and ethical limits in individual lives.  The left wants what it wants and will do anything to get it, even if that means changing its tone-view-opinion 180 degrees, as Clinton just did.

However, the right has gone too far, too.  I agree with the premise that "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman that is sanctified by God... but it cannot be codified and legislated by government without opening the topic up to hypocrisy and abuse.  At least not in today's world.  Moral and ethical limits are set, understood and followed by the individual... because they are individual in nature, not because they are mandated by the state.

The government should have no Federal authority to regulate, legislate or limit marriage.  Let's face it, it was only regulated to start with to drum up new taxes and fees in the late 19th Century.  The government needs to get out of the marriage business, once and for all.

Here's an old chestnut...

Ryan brought this up in his last post. It reminded me of a premise to a massive plot line in an unpublished work of mine.

What is the greatest flaw in the American education system?

Ryan laments his "classmates" knowing nothing of basic civics, but being nearly Ph.D candidates in their immersion of American "pop" culture. So is this a sign of a failed system? Are horrible teachers to blame? Is it a fault of American society in general? The demise of the nuclear family?

I am not going to post my answer yet. But I have time stamped proof that this answer, my opinion at least, was put to paper in 2005 almost immediately after the book was published. I am interested in what you guys have to say.

The parameters of the question are wide. It encompasses all levels of education, from kindergarten to post graduate. Have at it.

The Demise of DOMA...

First, I have to say Bill Clinton is shameless. He applauded the overturning of DOMA. When a reporter correctly pointed out that he signed DOMA into law he retorted that he only did that to keep the Republicans from passing something much more gay unfriendly. Uh huh. Never mind the countless times he argued in its' favor during its' passage, or his pro DOMA speech at the signing ceremony. The man simply has zero scruples.

What I want to say about this is simple - pro gay marriage people, advocacy groups, and activists you are ALL, each of you, bigots if you do not now take up the cause of plural marriage. Polygamy fits each and every one of your arguments for gay marriage. It's between consenting adults; you can't define "love" for other people; who are you to impose your definition of morality on others?; they deserve the right to hospital visitation and inheritance as a spouse, and on, and on, and on.

The case chosen by the Supreme Court was about two women, legally married in Canada, whom wanted their relationship to have legal standing in the US. That right was affirmed in the majority. Ok, fine. Now if a man moves to the US from Saudi Arabia with his four wives, where those marriages are recognized as perfectly legal, how on earth does anyone who applaudes this ruling oppose his "right" to maintain the legal status of those marriages in the US? Tell me how that works. Yet the pro gay marriage crowd explodes into uncontrollable fits if you attempt to compare the two, or suggest that polygamy is the logical next step.

Now look, I don't subscribe to arguments invoking incest, or beastiality, because the underlying behavior in those instances is itself illegal. One of the pro gay marriage arguments is that homosexuality - the act itself - has long since been made legal, so you can not deny their right to codify legal behavior into law via marriage. These same activists will not tolerate, however, any comparisons to polygamy. Why? For three or more adults to move into a house, have sex with each other, share in the expenses and general upkeep of that home and their life, is legal. Does everyone not agree? If the underlying behavior of the relationship is legal, than than the lawful recognition of their relationship must occur, says the SCOTUS. In fact pro polygamy groups released press statements declaring this ruling a big win for their cause ... I agree.

At this point I'd rather the government divorce itself from the institution marriage all together (and about a thousand other areas). Go to a flat tax and don't involve the government in your relationships at all. But that's not what's going to happen. They'll go in the opposite direction, more intervention. Clergy who deny marrying same sex couples will have their tax exempt status pulled, or have denied their ability to sign off on a marriage license all together (and I mean their literal signature that goes on the license declaring he performed the ceremony). Not to mention, chaplains in the military will be forced to marry gay soldiers, and then of course, as I've stated, polygamy is around the corner. Welcome to it America - your freedom, and that of your church as an institution, to practice your religion as you see fit will give way to the coming interpretations of this ruling... the two simply cannot coexist. To reach any other conclusion is, as Spock would say, "highly illogical captain."

Point taken...

Ryan is right, of course.  I do hope he wasn't too offended by what I wrote in my last post.  I wasn't "poo-pooing" comparisons he might have made between ancient Rome and the US today, since there are many, many to be made.  However, one doesn't have to look too far to see comparisons made by facts (or untruths) taken completely out of context.  And most comparisons ARE made by taking things completely out of context.

Here's one that Ryan's last post did make me think of, though... immediately:

In 212 AD, the very bad emperor named Caracalla delivered the "Edict of Caracalla" which made all free men (meaning no slaves or women) "citizens" of Rome and the Empire.  Amid all the myriad of "bad" things Caracalla did, many look on this edict as his one and only redeeming action as Emperor of the Rome and ruler absolute of the entire civilized world... but it wasn't.

Citizenship in the 3rd Century of the new millennium was NOT the same as it was in the old Republic... or even what it was during the rule of Julius Caesar or Augustus.  It was NOT something people fought wars to obtain or defend anymore... it was simply a means to expand the tax base of an increasingly insolvent Empire.  People, common people on the streets, gained nothing by the 212 Edict other than a new means by which Caracalla could squeeze 28% of all profits and income from an additional thirteen million previously exempt men who had never and would never see the city of Rome... or even the Italian peninsula... EVER!

That, my friends, sounds an awful lot like the sort of disdain for "citizenship" and "civic duty" that F. Ryan is describing, doesn't it?

Preach on, Brother!

The cart two counties ahead of the horse!

Titus wrote...

There are lessons to be learned, no question... TONS of lessons can be learned from what the Romans did and did not do over that 2,000 year span. We simply must be careful not to draw too close a comparison between the two vastly different states.

We should be careful not to draw too close a comparison? What country are you living in? My concern here is that we aren't drawing any comparisons of any kind whatsoever.

There's no intelligent discussion of what's happened in the course of man's existence prior to now within our public domain. There is only the "now" in our nation, and preferably for most, the RIGHT NOW. Instant gratification, numb to history and the world around them our country is completely detached from any resemblance of an "informed people." American idol, Kardashian, facebook - it's all these people care about. The number of those "aware" is diminishing, rapidly. I was at the gym today, listening to the History of Rome. How many IN THIS CITY, COUNTY OR STATE were doing the same? So forget Rome, let's say that's a high standard that even I didn't qualify for two weeks ago, ok. How about the news? I mean outside of ESPN. The congress is about to pass a nation-changing amnesty bill and most 18-45 year olds don't even know what amnesty means! They know Jay-Z got his NBA agents license though. I'm sick of it, fed up. I go to class with people whom are supposed to be "educated", the "cut above" at a private university and they're asking me what habeus corpus is, not what it "means", what it "is", they've never even heard the phrase, in any context, EVER. Pessimism is a gross understatement to describe what I'm feeling.

What does this all mean as we become less and less connected with the responsibilities of citizenship, less connected to our own government, and to history? I'll tell you what it means - the pool of people whom will decide our national fate shrinks with every generation. Scratch that, every ten years I'd wager. My fellow Americans are too busy posting every excruciating detail of their vacation on facebook to be bothered with educating themselves in the home, which is where it should happen. School should be where your child's beliefs are either challenged or reaffirmed - NOT DEVELOPED. But in Los Angeles County, their school district is recruiting teenagers to be taught about Obamacare, so they can in turn instruct their parents. That is the specific stated goal of the plan, not hyperbole. My God man, what is happening to us?

Look, if the vagaries of man's endeavours have taught us one thing, it is this: when history comes a knocking it starts with the most basic question of all - who's there? The world will go to those who show up. And Americans are sinfully absent.

Recovery day...

Moving a little slow today, putting myself back together after our 18-year-old had his graduation party last  night.  All the usual local crowd says "Hi" to you all, by the way...

I have almost finished the "History of Rome" by Mike Duncan, and I too have seen the "parallels" that can and are drawn between Rome and the United States.  They are too many to count, and some do (as Ryan implied) apply to our current state of affairs.

However, I (like Mr. Duncan himself) hesitate to indulge in such comparisons, simply because for every similarity or parallel that CAN be drawn, there are thousands of details that magnify the differences between the two "superpowers".

The single, most glaring disparity between the two is their histories.  The US, at 238 years young, is still at the height of its greatness (no matter what its detractors might say to the contrary).  By the time the Republic was drawing to a close and the Julio-Claudians were bring about the Princep Imperium, "Rome" as a nation had existed and dominated the Mediterranean region for nearly 500 years.  The entire scope of the "Empire" runs the better part of 2,000 years, from start to finish.  To compare the two is simply impossible with any degree of objective certainty.  The USA may simply be a "flash in the pan" compared to the scope of what the Romans accomplished in regards to pan-cultural and multi-ethnic stability and security.

There are lessons to be learned, no question... TONS of lessons can be learned from what the Romans did and did not do over that 2,000 year span.  We simply must be careful not to draw too close a comparison between the two vastly different states.

Unlike R.E.M, I don't feel fine...

Allow me two (hopefully) fruitful rants, born of the same tree.

Jambo wrote...

"My fatalism is not from a sense of despair concerning the state of the Union... It is an acceptance that we, as a Nation, are doomed to repeat ourselves. It has all happened before, and it will all happen again. The thing that makes us great is that we are not looking at the end of an empire, or the end of a reign, or a regime... We are merely looking at the tide going out and coming back in."

Fair enough. But it should be noted, not everything dragged out by the tide returns. This "fatalism" about the US that I've been gravitating towards is not simply a partisan response to Barack Obama. I have posts that long predate his reign... err, administration... which ask whether or not we've crossed the apex of our dominance as a nation. And I hasten to add, this is not to say the US won't "exist" at the end of this slow march downhill. The city of Rome still exists. However, it's power and influence has been rendered almost non existent, save the Vatican.

I don't mention Rome in a vacuum. I recently listened to the first five episodes of "The History of Rome" podcasts (search it on Itunes, very easily found, or use Titus' link). The narrator gets better with each episode and I soon got past the impression that Ritchie Cunningham was reading to me from a text book. For instance, he includes plausible comparisons to the founding of the second most famous Republic in world history (ours, as ranked by me). And this got me thinking. Every lesson we need to learn - as a nation - in avoiding the pitfalls of self destruction are housed in the vast history of Rome. The applicable parallels are endless. From the dangers of an overly powerful executive, to the age old battle between Plebe and Patrician, to games of distraction housed in giant stadiums meant to pacify the masses, pick your metaphor, it is all there. A similar lesson is found in the Old Testament, admittedly along more religious lines. When you read it you see the pattern repeat, and repeat, and you're left asking "How did they not see this coming?" Rome offers this lesson to the United States. Now consider this: 49% of the 535 elected representatives we send to Washington are lawyers. You could argue it makes sense - those who study the law would seek to legislate law. In fact you could even argue it's preferable, after all who better to write law than those versed in its' way? And in the current instance both the President and Vice President are lawyers too. But let me ask you this - how many are historians? The closest I can come up with is Newt Gingrich who's undergrad was history, Masters was the Renaissance, and doctorate was European education policy in the Congo. That barely qualifies in my estimation and he's long since left office (and today I wouldn't vote for him if he were in). This is what I'm driving at - I'm taking "Criminal Law 101" right now. And we have to brief X amount of cases for each class meeting and discuss them. And what I quickly realized is that the US legal society at large, from the first year law student to the SCOTUS, is steeped in "case law." Precedent is what is compared, considered, argued, and typically reaffirmed. NOT Constitutionality. The effect, as you may have gathered, is simple. One bad decision begats another. Because its' "precedent" is cited in arguing the latter. And that bad decision begats two more, than that one three more, and then like Mormons in Utah, they own the place. In other words, the debate in D.C. is continually centered around a series of choices all born of rotten fruit. You are laughed at - I've literally had this happen - when questioning the Constitutionality of the choices laid before us emanating from the two parties. Citing the Constitution to these people is invoking the name of some long forgotten, foreign, dinosaur of history that's long since outlived its usefulness. Few public servants - and the lawyer pool from which they're pulled -  are even interested, let alone versed, in an understanding of the Constitution, and even fewer are versed in the boundless lessons present in the history of Rome. And I am of the opinion that between the two they provide crucial lessons on man's attempt at self rule. And neither are even part of the discussion.

So, are we "on the back nine?" Obviously I can not say with certainty. What is certain, as certain as the tide itself, is that one of these days it will return ashore without the United States. And I'm convinced that as a people we are hell bent on hastening that day along.

To be honest, what drives me to post low these many years is yes, partly to keep in touch with my best of friends, but there's a larger reason. I want there to be a record, of some kind. I'm hammering my electronic chisel into clay tablets so that a thousand years from now, when the technology (beyond my imagining) allows our heirs to call up anything ever written down, they will see that Americans were not a homogeneous group in their obsession of Viagra and Kim Kardashian's hind quarters. That some of us were at least attempting to pull on the nag's reigns as we stampeded over the cliff.

Second rant...

More of a question actually. I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of Eastern (from the Near East to the Pacific) is limited in comparison to Western civilization. But I'm more than a passing fan of history (as are we each), so I felt comfortable in at least posing this question. From our earliest days (that's a loose our, I admit) Western civilization has struggled - and I choose that word purposely, for we have oft been unsuccessful - with instituting some form of democracy. The yearning for some form of "self rule" seems to be inherent in the West's DNA.

So here's the question - why is that DNA trait not apparent in the East? From China's emperors and the Moscovite Kings to the PRC and Putin; from the desert tribes of Arabia to not a single self imposed democracy among any of the twenty-two Arab states, why have the peoples of the opposing hemisphere gravitated towards a strong man, at every turn? Is it the differences in the dominate religions? One demands (these are gross generalizations) personal redemption why the other commands submissiveness? Is it that we are simply under two different time lines? The case can certainly be made that where the tribal Pakistani regions are in their development as of 2013 A.D. mirrors the early Roman/Tuscan battles (or even earlier, to be honest). Are we grading on a 2,000+ year curve? Could it be that simple? If so it's particularly frightening to think that 2013 weaponry could plausibly find its' way into the hands of men operating from a 500 B.C. set of values. Imagine Xerxes with a 20 Kiloton bomb. Has the government of the current Persian state, Iran, evolved that far away from absolute or divine rule?

This question may seem self aggrandizing as a western citizen of the world's clearest super power, but my query is purely academic, I assure you. And furthermore, we're entering into internal wars, and picking sides (ala Syria) in a battle in which neither side has undergone a Renaissance, a religious Reformation, or credible call to self rule. There are only "bad guys" to pick from. It may seem trite to say those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, but I don't know how else to describe the current state of America's electorate. Not to knock the NFL (which I do like), but more people watch the Super Bowl than vote. And I have no doubt that more people know the name of Kanye West's new baby than the name of their own congressman. By the way, he named the baby "North." So yes, the child's name is "North West."

Brothers in intellectual arms, lend me your ears - we cannot survive under these conditions!

And this has been the uneasy storm gathering in my gut over the last several years. Our compatriots seem uninterested in providence and the complexities of self rule. Rather give us our grand stadiums of Bears and Jaguars and blood so that we may cheer while the Senate meets among the shadows to settle the affairs of state, unburdened by the attention of those they rule.

Let's be perfectly clear about one thing...

I have never, EVER said in conversation, e mail or post, that I thought the United States was on the back nine, or any kind of a downhill slide.

My fatalism is not from a sense of despair concerning the state of the Union... It is an acceptance that we, as a Nation, are doomed to repeat ourselves. It has all happened before, and it will all happen again. The thing that makes us great is that we are not looking at the end of an empire, or the end of a reign, or a regime... We are merely looking at the tide going out and coming back in.

My grandparents KNEW, without a shred of doubt, that FDR was the destroyer of the Republic. Their grandparents more than likely felt the same way about Lincoln and Davis. Their grandparents saw the meddling of Madison in foreign affairs as an invitation of doom. And their grandparents, (yes, crazy as it sounds, we get the family tree back THIS far on Mom's side) saw rebellion against the British as the end of the world. My parents argued over Nixon, Carter, and Reagan. Titus and I grew up KNOWING that within the time of our generation the inevitable world war would see NATO and the Warsaw Pact wreak havoc on the planet.

None of which, by the way, happened, or spelled the doom of our Republic.

The strength, the unyielding beauty of our nation is the fact that one man cannot bring it down. There is nothing our sitting president can do that cannot be undone. And the unyielding beauty is our sitting president's days in office are numbered. In 40 months, two weeks and two days he is done.

And then something else will come up that will be the end of the Republic.

I am no fan of the current administration. But I get numb to the hyperbole. I am tired of listening to educated, intelligent people telling me that our nation is doomed. This nation has survived far, far worse than THIS president and his administration's policies.

Does this excuse my absence from the forum? No. And for that I apologize.

"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

Let me echo the cough, ahem, Jambo sentiment. I'm scheduled to be at his house Sunday night - Titus, you're invited I presume, and from the description of your drive into work this should seem like a short jaunt. To be honest, I think Jambo has arrived at a fatalistic position. I could very well be wrong, but I think he assumes America is on the back nine, the down slope, we've crossed our apex. A question I've often pondered myslelf. I try to temper that with the admission that all things from the past seem to be "better" in one sense or another, and every generation perhaps feels like things are going to hell. However, I would urge Jambo's repatriation for a much more personal reason than saving the world - catharsis. It's cheaper than a therapist and at least you're talking to people who know enough to throw a little back at ya' when you need that sounding board for chest relief.

At any rate, to the business of today...

Every man should recognize the quote captured within my post title. It's from the Godfather (II to be exact). Now, if you haven't seen these films (especially one and two) I have no patience for your claims to manhood. Remove your girl scout uniform, put on pants, saddle up and watch them. I invoke the most well known mafia film of all time for a simple reason - I think we've made a deal with the Muslim Corleones. I'll succinctly explain the F. Ryan theory of Obama's Near East/North Africa policy... The Obama administration decided they would no longer do international business the "colonial powers" way. Namely, prop up third world despots who were by no means Jeffersonian democrats but were friendly to us and stabilized the region. Instead they wanted to curry favor with the Muslim world by aiding them in kicking off their oppressors. The problem is Palestine has shown us that given the free will to vote, too many Arab states would select radical regimes like Hamas. So they looked around for someone to do business with. Someone who had both street cred, and would accept Western help. Enter the Muslim Brotherhood. For the uninitiated, they are the grand puba, the founding brethren, the Godfathers, if you will, of the world wide Jihadi movement. From them was birthed Hamas, Hezbollah, on and on. And much like Vito Corleone they started out doing their own killing - they assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in true drive by, machine guns blazing, gangster fashion - and now have morphed into the Michael Corleone GFII version, meeting with senators, appearing before congress, and seeking legitimate business ventures, which in this case is political office. President Morsi, of Egypt, is a rock solid member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, he's their current leader. James Clapper, NID (you remember him from the previous post), even vouched for them on the Hill, under oath, as (and I quote), "A largely secular organization which has eschewed violence." Uh huh. Let me me get this straight - the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular?  How nice to laundered clean from the mouth of America's top spook. We're now sending them billions in aide to Egypt. However, much like Michael, it is widely accepted that they still pull the strings. They don't carry out hits, but they damn sure order and approve them. And they've done something extremely savvy. No matter the beef, no matter what the instigation, wherever there is a protest in one of the 22 Arab states, they join in the cause first as supporters, only to later take it over. It happened in Egypt, it happened in Libya, Tunisia, and now it's happening in Turkey. I fear Syria is no different. In case you didn't hear, the White House late last night issued a major policy shift. Given that Damascus has crossed Obama's "red line" and used WMD - chemical weapons to kill 150 people - we will now begin to arm the "rebels." Setting aside the irony that a harsh critic of George W. Bush is now facilitating war in the Middle East based on the claimed presence of WMD's, we're trusting the Muslim Brotherhood to point out - and I mean that literally - who the "good guys" are, and who the "bad guys" are, so that only the good guys get US supplied weapons. And that planned approach was articulated by none other than John McCain, who is now the highest ranking US official to meet with the Syrian rebels. Add to this another historical irony. Russia is on the side of Assad (Syria's president). Syria is essentially a client state. So what do we have once again? We are arming Mujaheddin, err... I mean "Syrian rebels" to fight a proxy war against the USSR, err... I mean Russia. Who did the Mujaheddin go off and become? Al Qaeda. I am becoming more and more convinced that the US government is not waging a war on Muslim terror, but rather a war on Al Qaeda, specifically and solely. We are clearly willing to work with the other Muslim extremists, so long as they have "eschewed violence."

My friends, this is madness. This is Von Papen and Hindenburg thinking, We can control that little mustache if we just let him be Prime Minister. And if you'll indulge one more metaphor... when you lie down with gangsters, do not be surprised when you wake up with a horse head. This is going to be a disaster, for the Muslim Brotherhood is keeping us very close, very close indeed.

Ignoring F Ryan?

No... just really busy.

My 18-year-old just graduated high school this weekend, and we had a house full of company (with more to come later in the month).  Lots of work around the homestead, plus just "work" and there is little to no free time.

However, since my commute is (roughly) two hours and twenty minutes long each day, I have ample time to listen to some amazing podcasts on my shiny new iPhone.  The one I'm embroiled with now is called "The History of Rome" and the link for it can be found on our favorites section.

Since listening through the beginning of the Julio-Claudian era of Roman history, though... I have pondered our website quite a bit.  We used the term "Triumvirate" to describe ourselves at the top, but since that early time we have added a member, and then had two "fall off the face of the earth" (ahem, Jambo,cough).  Technically, we are now a "Biumvirate" which is what Octavian and Antony were once Lepidus was reduced to insignificance in 36 BC.  We all know how that "Biumvirate" ended up, so I'd love to see Jambo return and contribute as part of the consular Bund members and get our posts back on pace to at least break the 50 mark by years end.

Starting "somewhere"...

I've been following the NSA "PRISM" fall out and an interesting quote turned up. James Clapper, the NID (National Intelligence Director) who in today's world outranks the DCI (Director Central Intelligence), in proximity to the POTUS at least, was being interviewed on NBC and Andrea Mitchell asked a basic question, "Why use such a large vacuum?" She of course refers to the collection of "all material", be it all Verizon numbers and conversations, all yahoo emails, etc, as asserted by Snowden via the UK Guardian. His answer was essentially a throw away line, but it got me thinking.

ANSWER: "Well, you have to start somewhere."

Well, that's kind of the point to the question, isn't it? You're not starting "somewhere", you're starting everywhere. But consider if he had named that somewhere. What if he were to say, you need not worry, we're only collecting data on you if you meet certain criteria - you're Muslim, your male age 18-45, and you've emigrated from one of 15 hostile countries from North Africa to the Near East. "Racist!" would have been the cry; conversations about profiling; the WWII Japanese internment camps conversations begin; here comes the ACLU; enter American-Muslim activist groups like CAIR, etc, etc, etc. This is the world we live in today where 56% of Americans, in a Pew Research poll out today, approve of massive data collection (known as "metadata") by the NSA if the justification is "the war on terror." However, what would those same opinion polls be if we narrowed that collection to only those nations PRODUCING our adversaries in the war on terror? You see? Better to go after "everyone" than be accused of being "hostile" towards one group in particular! This reminds me of the 70 year old Irish grandmother being patted down by TSA. I mean, really? Is Al Qaeda recruiting retired Colleens now? That's the world we live in - better to offend "everyone" than someone. Targeting everyone is just doing your job, targeting someone is "hate." Consider how much more effective these programs would be in preventing terror if rules of politically correct engagement didn't apply. Is that the wink and nod game that 56% of Americans are playing? Are we saying, "Ok, ok you have to go after everybody (in air quotes), but we know who you mean."...?

In the end one thing is for sure. You can't unmake this technology. In fact the best we may be able to do is require that a warrant be attained prior to any domestic law enforcement agency viewing it within the context of a criminal procedure against you. But I highly doubt the collection will cease. In the future it will have have to factor in to your vote for President the way "Do you want his finger on the button?" used to. Opposing politicians and their surrogates will ask, "Do you want HIM to have access to all your info?" Maybe for Fourth Amendment guardians that's fatalistic, but it's probably more realistic than we'd all like to admit.

Turn-key Tyranny

The source of the largest cache of classified materials released in US history has come forward. His name is Edward Snowden, a 29 year old privately contracted NSA technical analyst living in Hawaii, making a comfortable $200,000 a year. Now he's hold up in an undisclosed Hong Kong hotel. I just read the UK Guardian exclusive interview with him, available HERE. Just the preparation of leaving Hawaii in favor of Hong Kong is a fascinating read. He seemed authentically concerned about the growth of electronic surveillance, "turn-key tyranny" as he phrased it.

He also mentions that while he was growing more concerned by the year, with the targeting of foreign communications coming and going out of the US, that in 2007 he had great hope Obama's election would mark the reigning in of these programs. He laments that the opposite occurred. The domestic surveillance ramp up when into overdrive. So distraught was he, that he decided America could no longer wait on its leaders, quote "Sometimes being the first to act, is leadership." So he decided to be a whistleblower.

He goes on to address what is always my biggest concern about national security leaks - real people getting clipped. As a technical analyst (he put up firewalls to guard the secrets collected) he had access to asset names, locations, operations, and most of all the way these Intel collecting computer programs worked - how else would he be able to build systems to protect them, right? Well, he notes that he purposely released only the programs - how they worked, etc - and not actionable Intel so that no one got hurt. No specific names or locations. And he notes that's the difference between himself and other military leaks - these are systems that can be killed, not people.

The article contains within it a 12 minute video interview, which is also worth watching. In addition is his explanation on "Why Hong Kong?", something that piqued my curiosity as well. He does have a fatalistic attitude. He seems to have resigned himself to the fact that he doesn't ride off into the sunset on this one. He mentions the CIA station in Hong Kong, their ability to contract Triads, the possibilities and ways to get to him are endless, and he adds, "In the end if they want you, they will get you. You can not oppose them in any meaningful way." I realize that Hong Kong, in function if not in name, is independent of mainland China. It ranked #1 the last 7 years (by Forbes, if I remember that source right) in the world's best places to do business (read: least restrictive bureaucracy). However, with his treasure trove of information - from assets to programs - were I him, my biggest concern would not be the US. It would be being snatched up by the PLA (China) or FSB (Russia). I'm sure squeezing him for information would be enough to get some colonel promoted to general in either of those outfits.

What he describes, in a nut shell, is that the NSA is intent on collecting all communications, of every kind, and storing them. Then when and if an individual is flagged during an investigation (or mission) they can go back and reconstruct every aspect of his life. So technically the POTUS is correct in saying, "No one is listening to your phone calls or reading your emails." It's true. But all the info is there if they desired to. He hasn't addressed that.

Now here's my concern, philosophically, with this.  There are many, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R) NC among them, who say "I'm not doing any thing wrong, so I don't mind for a minute that the NSA has my Verizon phone number." I'll pass on lamenting what an absolute rube this guy is and focus on what any first year philosophy student worth his salt would ask - who decides what is "wrong?" Who decides what behavior gets you "flagged?" The IRS certainly had ideas on that, didn't they? What about an administration from now? Two administrations from now? Five? At some point could simply reading the wrong book get you flagged? It seems teaching the Constitution was enough to get you flagged with the IRS. And I say this as someone who vehemently defended the Patriot Act at its' inception. My only solace in looking back is that at no time did I ever (nor would I) agree to the NSA simply capturing the communications of every single American. "PRISM" can actually capture your "deletes." In other words, as I type this occasionally I decide to "backspace" and rewrite a sentence, as do we all, right? PRISM can produce the backspaced lines and words! I never argued for that on the back dock of the Grand, I can tell you that.

At any rate, I recommend the article, a fascinating read. Not to mention, given the high opinion we all have of our own IQ's, we're clearly in the wrong business - $200k at 29 years old, living in Hawaii??? Holy crap. Giving up that life, if nothing else, lends credence to his claims.