Two posts in almost as many days, look out!
While we're on the topic I wanted to make mention of a story that had me craning my neck towards the radio as I arched a brow the other day. Apparently the visitors center to the Capitol Rotunda caused a stir some years back when it rang in at a svelte 600 million dollars. The consensus was, it's nice, but not a half billion nice if you get my drift. It was chalked up to yet more evidence of government's inability to be efficient with our money, reminiscent of the old $500 Pentagon toilet seats (or was it a hammer?). Well, not so.
Apparently their is a heretofore secret underground lair (insert Dr. Evil laugh here) beneath the visitor center. A state of the art, protected (sound proofed and the works) facility where top secret meetings, or more accurately, "cases" are held. This is where the FISA Court warrants are issued. It's also where precedent is being set on what the feds can and can not "gather" domestically. The word is that SCOTUS level 4th Amendment decisions are being meted out there, which in turn is what the NSA, FBI, and even the CIA use as legal backing. In other words, this may be the source from which the NSA draws when Director Hayden claims, "We're working completely within the law."
My source on this? That rabid right wing dog... The Washington Post. You can read the full article here. And I quote, "The public is getting a peek into the little-known workings of a powerful and mostly invisible government entity... Critics, including some with knowledge of the court’s internal operations, say the court has undergone a disturbing shift. It was created in 1978 to handle routine surveillance warrants, but these critics say it is now issuing complex, classified, Supreme Court-style rulings that are quietly expanding the government’s reach into the private lives of unwitting Americans... The government can get virtually anything."
Apparently eleven members, federal judges each, serve on this court for an average of seven years. They are hand selected by one man, the Chief Justice, and the current eleven were all picked by Roberts... but we know we can trust him, right? Cough...ahem...Obamacare.
It's an interesting read, and may be the source of our current concerns over civil liberty violations, whereas the NSA is merely the end result. By the way, my post title... it's the rate at which this court approves government requests.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Monday, July 8, 2013
Terrorism and Safety, Specifically...
You're right of course, I didn't really address that specifically and rather used the opportunity to vent my ever darkening mood towards the future of the country I love.
About that "mood", let me just add this... although brewing for some time it has no doubt redoubled after two events. In back to back fashion I took a class exclusively on "The Old Testament" (taught as a history class), and then plunged myself into The History of Rome Podcast (of which I'm on episode 77, of 179). And what I was forced into realizing was that the country I love so much and who's founding I believe was divine providence (how else one explains the accumulation of genius in what we collectively refer to as the founding fathers is beyond me), may be - and I stress may be - nothing more than a blip on history's radar. What I gleam from these two historical story lines is a people that again and again had the opportunity to right their ship, and just didn't. And what's even more evident is that their enemies were never able to conquer them externally until they first disabled themselves internally. With that model in mind I look at our historic arc and I fret. So, prior to this, did I expect that the United States of America would last the proverbial "forever." Short answer? Ya. I kinda did. Naive, sure. But that was in fact my world view - we're big, we're bad, we're here to stay. That admittedly juvenile world view has been shattered. And what's worse, the internal disabling that seems to afflict all of history's great nations (pick one, Britain, Rome, et al) is so slow (as Titus eluded), so plodding and pedantic that if you stand up and shout about its' existence you're dubbed a crazy man. Will America be relegated to a few vague acknowledgements among the dominant culture 500 years from now? The name Washington most recognized as a casino resort? Will the more informed citizens do little more than reference a podcast or own a copy of Gibbons' equivalent? We certainly seem to be destined for such a fate in that no other great power has found themselves capable of avoiding it. It may be long after we are set to rest in the hills of this land, but a moment when our descendants see the Visigoths come crashing across those hills, is inevitable.
Everybody feeling cheered up yet? Hehehe... ok, to another cheery subject: Islamic terrorism.
I thought about your question Titus (now asked twice), and two points came to mind. 1.) Between 9/11 and the moment we complete our troop "wind down", or whatever autocratic label they've given it now, yes, we have been safer. Let me explain. The admirable aspects of the Patriot Act (allowing the CIA to communicate info to the FBI comes to mind), and the billions pored into hiring translators, and technology has indeed made us safer. Bare in mind, I'm not judging their impact on Civil Liberties here, only their impact on physical safety from Islamic Fascists. That we went over a decade without another major attack (I'm counting Boston as the bookend to 9/11) is evidence of this safety. In addition, whatever else you can criticize Bush for he did accomplish one bit of logistical genius. As of September 11th, 2001 the enemy had brought the theater of war to our backyard. Bush firmly reaffixed that theater to their backyard. This had a real advantage for our homeland. Every wannabe Jihadi and terrorist with half a brain and a whole prayer rug wanted to fight the American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing it as their "duty" to drive the wicked West off Muslim land. I have no doubt that thousands of the (oft foreign) insurgents our boys smoked in those two theaters would have lined up as Jihadist cell members destined for our shores had Bush not reestablished the front lines "over there." So post 9/11 have we literally been physically safer? Yes. Unquestionably.
However, and here's point number 2.)... We did not secure a decisive WWII style victory against a very radical, very determined enemy over there. Our boys could whip them any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, but that's not the issue. Political correctness and the general softness (I don't know what else to call it) of our culture and modern leadership unequivocally preclude such a thing. Our new "victory model" over seas looks closer to a Korean style win (and in time, perhaps closer to Vietnam). What does this mean? When our troops really do leave, thousands of battle hardened, experienced, explosives trained Jihadists could follow us home. In essence only delaying the homeland as a theater of war. Or, equally as bad, the battle hardened Islamists could systematically attempt to topple the secular regimes of the Near East (monarchs, dictators or democrats, it makes no difference to them - if they're not Wahhabi, they're dead); and thus produce a half dozen or more little Irans (or big ones). By the way, the latter looks to be the Islamist strategy de'jour for the moment, and the current US leadership seems to be spinning the Big 6 Wheel to decide whom they're going to support from day to day.
So to be as succinct as possible - From 9/11 to our total disengagement of Iraq/Afghanistan (currently underway), yes I believe we were indeed physically safer here in the US. However, post troop withdrawal going into the future? The civil liberties we relinquished in the previous decade combined with the battle hardened enemy we leave behind may, in the long term, leave us less safe indeed. The bottom line, bringing the battle to them was logistically sound. But our tactic - namely the unwillingness to unconditionally defeat and disable our foe's ability to wage war - was not. The lesson? Don't go to war unless you intend to decimate the enemy's capabilities. Otherwise you could end up less safe than when you started. And at this moment, I would argue that's the most likely outcome for us... so be a dear and cue up the next podcast of "The Rise and Fall of America", it's really starting to get interesting.
About that "mood", let me just add this... although brewing for some time it has no doubt redoubled after two events. In back to back fashion I took a class exclusively on "The Old Testament" (taught as a history class), and then plunged myself into The History of Rome Podcast (of which I'm on episode 77, of 179). And what I was forced into realizing was that the country I love so much and who's founding I believe was divine providence (how else one explains the accumulation of genius in what we collectively refer to as the founding fathers is beyond me), may be - and I stress may be - nothing more than a blip on history's radar. What I gleam from these two historical story lines is a people that again and again had the opportunity to right their ship, and just didn't. And what's even more evident is that their enemies were never able to conquer them externally until they first disabled themselves internally. With that model in mind I look at our historic arc and I fret. So, prior to this, did I expect that the United States of America would last the proverbial "forever." Short answer? Ya. I kinda did. Naive, sure. But that was in fact my world view - we're big, we're bad, we're here to stay. That admittedly juvenile world view has been shattered. And what's worse, the internal disabling that seems to afflict all of history's great nations (pick one, Britain, Rome, et al) is so slow (as Titus eluded), so plodding and pedantic that if you stand up and shout about its' existence you're dubbed a crazy man. Will America be relegated to a few vague acknowledgements among the dominant culture 500 years from now? The name Washington most recognized as a casino resort? Will the more informed citizens do little more than reference a podcast or own a copy of Gibbons' equivalent? We certainly seem to be destined for such a fate in that no other great power has found themselves capable of avoiding it. It may be long after we are set to rest in the hills of this land, but a moment when our descendants see the Visigoths come crashing across those hills, is inevitable.
Everybody feeling cheered up yet? Hehehe... ok, to another cheery subject: Islamic terrorism.
I thought about your question Titus (now asked twice), and two points came to mind. 1.) Between 9/11 and the moment we complete our troop "wind down", or whatever autocratic label they've given it now, yes, we have been safer. Let me explain. The admirable aspects of the Patriot Act (allowing the CIA to communicate info to the FBI comes to mind), and the billions pored into hiring translators, and technology has indeed made us safer. Bare in mind, I'm not judging their impact on Civil Liberties here, only their impact on physical safety from Islamic Fascists. That we went over a decade without another major attack (I'm counting Boston as the bookend to 9/11) is evidence of this safety. In addition, whatever else you can criticize Bush for he did accomplish one bit of logistical genius. As of September 11th, 2001 the enemy had brought the theater of war to our backyard. Bush firmly reaffixed that theater to their backyard. This had a real advantage for our homeland. Every wannabe Jihadi and terrorist with half a brain and a whole prayer rug wanted to fight the American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing it as their "duty" to drive the wicked West off Muslim land. I have no doubt that thousands of the (oft foreign) insurgents our boys smoked in those two theaters would have lined up as Jihadist cell members destined for our shores had Bush not reestablished the front lines "over there." So post 9/11 have we literally been physically safer? Yes. Unquestionably.
However, and here's point number 2.)... We did not secure a decisive WWII style victory against a very radical, very determined enemy over there. Our boys could whip them any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, but that's not the issue. Political correctness and the general softness (I don't know what else to call it) of our culture and modern leadership unequivocally preclude such a thing. Our new "victory model" over seas looks closer to a Korean style win (and in time, perhaps closer to Vietnam). What does this mean? When our troops really do leave, thousands of battle hardened, experienced, explosives trained Jihadists could follow us home. In essence only delaying the homeland as a theater of war. Or, equally as bad, the battle hardened Islamists could systematically attempt to topple the secular regimes of the Near East (monarchs, dictators or democrats, it makes no difference to them - if they're not Wahhabi, they're dead); and thus produce a half dozen or more little Irans (or big ones). By the way, the latter looks to be the Islamist strategy de'jour for the moment, and the current US leadership seems to be spinning the Big 6 Wheel to decide whom they're going to support from day to day.
So to be as succinct as possible - From 9/11 to our total disengagement of Iraq/Afghanistan (currently underway), yes I believe we were indeed physically safer here in the US. However, post troop withdrawal going into the future? The civil liberties we relinquished in the previous decade combined with the battle hardened enemy we leave behind may, in the long term, leave us less safe indeed. The bottom line, bringing the battle to them was logistically sound. But our tactic - namely the unwillingness to unconditionally defeat and disable our foe's ability to wage war - was not. The lesson? Don't go to war unless you intend to decimate the enemy's capabilities. Otherwise you could end up less safe than when you started. And at this moment, I would argue that's the most likely outcome for us... so be a dear and cue up the next podcast of "The Rise and Fall of America", it's really starting to get interesting.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Analogy... {sigh}
I'm really not a fan of analogy, but F. Ryan's is appropriate, if nothing else.
Boiling the frog does seem to fit the description of the state of our nation. Were we plunged into "hot" water (i.e. dropped into a political situation where communism ruled all aspects of our lives), we'd all no doubt "jump out" of the pot. This isn't that sort of revolution, though... it is a slow, methodical shift in the national paradigm away from self-reliance and toward a complete dependency on the government.
Two points:
1) Ryan really didn't answer my question. I'm mainly concerned that the War on Terror is not only NOT being won, it is actually costing the US far more in damages over the long run than it is gaining us in short term safety. There is an attrition factor here that isn't being taken into account, and I'm not talking about pure manpower numbers... I'm talking about the "numbness" that comes from a prolonged national effort. We live the "normal life"... the modern "dolce vita" that is sapping our ability to adapt as a society in the face of change, hardship or disaster... while more and more of our individual rights, freedoms and liberties are removed to provide more dolce vita. In the meanwhile, our efforts to "win" the War on Terror are actually contributing to its protraction... perhaps even giving our enemies exactly what they wanted in the first place: a divided America unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to win the effort long-term.
2) I'm not as pessimistic as Ryan seems to be about the future options that America has in this regard. Sure, things look grim now, and probably will get worse in the near future before they ever get better... but that, too, is normal.
I really do think that, unless some outside factor intervenes in the national scene (i.e. another massive terrorist attack as big or bigger than 9-11) the US (and by extension, the world) will see an socio-economic "reset" point. Another great depression seems the most likely scenario. So much wealth is tied to utterly insubstantial matters that it really won't take a huge leap of imagination to see another crash of the sort we saw in 1929. Only the most basic and necessary of governmental services will be provided, and the average Joe on the street will simply have to learn to "make do" with what he has or can do himself.
I don't want this to happen, obviously. I like living the dolce vita, myself. I simply know to the bottom of my soul that it can't continue in an unsupportable environment. Something must provide the means to live that life, and I fear we simply don't have those means anymore.
Boiling the frog does seem to fit the description of the state of our nation. Were we plunged into "hot" water (i.e. dropped into a political situation where communism ruled all aspects of our lives), we'd all no doubt "jump out" of the pot. This isn't that sort of revolution, though... it is a slow, methodical shift in the national paradigm away from self-reliance and toward a complete dependency on the government.
Two points:
1) Ryan really didn't answer my question. I'm mainly concerned that the War on Terror is not only NOT being won, it is actually costing the US far more in damages over the long run than it is gaining us in short term safety. There is an attrition factor here that isn't being taken into account, and I'm not talking about pure manpower numbers... I'm talking about the "numbness" that comes from a prolonged national effort. We live the "normal life"... the modern "dolce vita" that is sapping our ability to adapt as a society in the face of change, hardship or disaster... while more and more of our individual rights, freedoms and liberties are removed to provide more dolce vita. In the meanwhile, our efforts to "win" the War on Terror are actually contributing to its protraction... perhaps even giving our enemies exactly what they wanted in the first place: a divided America unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to win the effort long-term.
2) I'm not as pessimistic as Ryan seems to be about the future options that America has in this regard. Sure, things look grim now, and probably will get worse in the near future before they ever get better... but that, too, is normal.
I really do think that, unless some outside factor intervenes in the national scene (i.e. another massive terrorist attack as big or bigger than 9-11) the US (and by extension, the world) will see an socio-economic "reset" point. Another great depression seems the most likely scenario. So much wealth is tied to utterly insubstantial matters that it really won't take a huge leap of imagination to see another crash of the sort we saw in 1929. Only the most basic and necessary of governmental services will be provided, and the average Joe on the street will simply have to learn to "make do" with what he has or can do himself.
I don't want this to happen, obviously. I like living the dolce vita, myself. I simply know to the bottom of my soul that it can't continue in an unsupportable environment. Something must provide the means to live that life, and I fear we simply don't have those means anymore.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
The consul of Julius and Caesar...
Fans of the podcast that Titus turned me on to will recognize my title as an ancient running joke among Romans of a certain era. Always two consuls stood for election. Always two were elected. Always. Yet with the demise of his colleague, Consul Gaius Julius Caesar didn't bother with ensuring that this colleague was replaced. Hence the consular year was jokingly referred to as "The consul of Julius, and Caesar." And this joke dovetails nicely into my response, as I will focus primarily on the NSA/powers of the state.
So I get a text the other day that reads, "Posted. But read very carefully." I know at that moment that I am not to read said post until I have a solid 45 minutes to respond. Titus has undoubtedly written something just to get my hair up, hoping it will lead to something productive because he's bored that afternoon, so why not screw with Ryan (hehe). But your worries were misplaced my friend. Perhaps this little anecdote will help explain why...
When I was in my early twenties I sat down across the table from the individual who's title was "Chair of the Department of Political Science" at the University of Southern Mississippi. Now, if you can believe it, at that age I was somewhat cocky about my handle on politics, debate, history, and the world in general. Again, I 'm sure you find this a jaw dropping revelation, but stick with me. So there I sat - under the very real pretense of getting "counseled" on how best to earn a PhD in poly sci - and I found myself ITCHING to start a fight with this "chair person." As far as I knew, all egg head PhD's were leftists, and the opportunity to test my acumen against someone deemed a "professional" was simply too much to resist. Damn the credits, I have a pissing contest to win, saddle up. So I broke with the credits this and that, and dissertation rules here and there, blah, blah, blah, and flat out interrupted mid sentence to ask, "Can I ask you something?" And this very gracious "Chairperson X" responded, "Of course." I proceeded. "Are you a Republican or Democrat?" At the time, in my world, these were the only two entities that existed, hence no choice C. She (yes, a she) responded, completely disarming me, with her own question, "Are those my only two choices?"
I'll save you the suspense... I sat there dumbfounded, not saying a word. Pretty suave, huh?
She smiled and went on to give me some advice I never quite forgot. She said, and I quote: "See, you think that politics is a straight line. You have the Right, which the Left hates. The Left, which the Right hates. And the middle, whom everyone hates. But it's not a straight line, it's a circle. The Left and Right separation simply takes you on different paths to the same destination. And at the end of those paths, when the two lines meet to complete the circle, you have total state domination. Hitler is the extreme Right, Stalin the extreme Left, but their method of rule is the same. They end at the same place."
Again, I sat there contemplating, not sure what to say next. Maybe I mumbled something, but who the hell knows. Her chuckling must brought me out my stupor because the next words I remember saying were, "But you're a political science professor, if in the end it doesn't matter, that we're destined to destroy ourselves, why bother?" And she responded, "That's why I'm a Libertarian. Not because I want prostitution legal or people to be able to do drugs, but because governments only do one thing, no matter who is in power... grow."
Now I've thought on that a lot lately. At the time I knew I had been schooled, but I wasn't sure why. Now I am. And listening to these History of Rome podcasts has only reinforced why. No matter the nation or time period, each time a man in any given society is elected, to any post, it is on a campaign pledge to do "something." No one gets elected saying I'm going to keep things exactly the same. And it's just human nature that the "something" be bigger, more. When it came to Roman antiquity I was always caught up in questions like, "Who was the first emperor? When did the Republic officially die?" But there's no demarcation line that you can point to and say "here!", right here is where they switched from a Republic to a dynastic imperium. It doesn't work like that. It's a death by a thousands cuts over generations, at least. Bad precedent, at the moment of its' occurrence, seems to occur in a vacuum, or as an anomaly. But it doesn't, because that precedent is used to create two more, then four, then eight. Until you wake up one day and being 180 degrees from where the Republic was founded is the new "normal." What did Titus say, that the acts taken now, as part of due course, would have had you arrested and hauled in front of a congressional hearing in 1996? We're living it brothers. I listen to these podcasts or read the Old Testament and catch myself shaking my head asking, "How did they not see how awful that would turn out?" or, "That never works, why are you trying that?" And when I catch myself doing that I feel like an idiot. Of course they couldn't see it. Very rarely can anyone see it. The names of those that stand up and try to put the brakes on, or those that really did reduce the power of the office they held (or at least tried to) are inevitably washed away in a tide of, "And furthermore, when I''m elected I will..." Or they are men that really did exist as an anomaly. From Cicero and Sulla to Reagan and Ron Paul. They're momentary heads popping up from the water, grabbing a breath so the body can live just a little bit longer. And whatever else they are, they certainly aren't the norm. And that's why that professor was a Libertarian. She had already traveled on this ideological path and had arrived at the very reasonable realization that there is no power we can grant or allow our government that they will not, in the end, use to curtail our freedom. The temptation is just too great, the arc of history just too clear. So she had decided on the only label that maximized freedom and minimized the government. But she was under no illusion, she knew Libertarian ideas (not to mention parties) had zero chance of penetrating the power structure that is our federal government. Which is why her party admission rung of resignation to our fate.
So this is my really long, elaborate, scenic route to get me here Titus - I agree with you. Our government is so powerful, so large, that when it makes mistakes they are so big that everyone in government is forced to agree that they're not mistakes. Instead, they become the new norm. Jambo wants to convince me that we're not on the back nine. Ok, maybe he's right. But what is undeniable, what he can not argue, is that we will eventually hit that 10th hole. He claims "We've been through worse." But the thing is, whatever does at last do us in, it doesn't have to be "worse." It just has to be last. Just a little bit more than we can take after the long march down. There is no civilization, no defined government or peoples in the history of mankind that did not "end." Then you turn the page... or cue up the next podcast. All we can do as informed citizens, through our vote, standing for office, or launching our post into the cacophony of the vast online universe, is try to slow our march downward. Maybe even bring it to an unrecognizable momentum. But in the end, whether taking the Right's path or the Left's, we will "go away." Our liberties are like frogs in a pot being turned up ever so slowly. Each new temperature is the new normal. And government - under either party - is the hand on the dial.
Don't get me wrong, we can stay that hand for a while. Maybe you get a leader here and there that really does try to do "less", not "more." But at some point our world will begin boiling around us. And like the frogs we will begin saying to each other, "Don't worry, this is normal. We've dealt with worse." And then some wiz kid from the year 2475 will shake his head, turn off his hologram imaging podcact on "The History of America", grab his government approved helmet, and as he hops into his atmosphere friendly hover craft to go pick up his cloned, state issued procreation mate, will mumble, "How did they not see that coming? That could never happen to the United Federation of Gender Nuetral Carbon Based Lifeforms... we're different."
So are we safer? Sure we are. I'm also sure that future boy is safe from an STD...
So I get a text the other day that reads, "Posted. But read very carefully." I know at that moment that I am not to read said post until I have a solid 45 minutes to respond. Titus has undoubtedly written something just to get my hair up, hoping it will lead to something productive because he's bored that afternoon, so why not screw with Ryan (hehe). But your worries were misplaced my friend. Perhaps this little anecdote will help explain why...
When I was in my early twenties I sat down across the table from the individual who's title was "Chair of the Department of Political Science" at the University of Southern Mississippi. Now, if you can believe it, at that age I was somewhat cocky about my handle on politics, debate, history, and the world in general. Again, I 'm sure you find this a jaw dropping revelation, but stick with me. So there I sat - under the very real pretense of getting "counseled" on how best to earn a PhD in poly sci - and I found myself ITCHING to start a fight with this "chair person." As far as I knew, all egg head PhD's were leftists, and the opportunity to test my acumen against someone deemed a "professional" was simply too much to resist. Damn the credits, I have a pissing contest to win, saddle up. So I broke with the credits this and that, and dissertation rules here and there, blah, blah, blah, and flat out interrupted mid sentence to ask, "Can I ask you something?" And this very gracious "Chairperson X" responded, "Of course." I proceeded. "Are you a Republican or Democrat?" At the time, in my world, these were the only two entities that existed, hence no choice C. She (yes, a she) responded, completely disarming me, with her own question, "Are those my only two choices?"
I'll save you the suspense... I sat there dumbfounded, not saying a word. Pretty suave, huh?
She smiled and went on to give me some advice I never quite forgot. She said, and I quote: "See, you think that politics is a straight line. You have the Right, which the Left hates. The Left, which the Right hates. And the middle, whom everyone hates. But it's not a straight line, it's a circle. The Left and Right separation simply takes you on different paths to the same destination. And at the end of those paths, when the two lines meet to complete the circle, you have total state domination. Hitler is the extreme Right, Stalin the extreme Left, but their method of rule is the same. They end at the same place."
Again, I sat there contemplating, not sure what to say next. Maybe I mumbled something, but who the hell knows. Her chuckling must brought me out my stupor because the next words I remember saying were, "But you're a political science professor, if in the end it doesn't matter, that we're destined to destroy ourselves, why bother?" And she responded, "That's why I'm a Libertarian. Not because I want prostitution legal or people to be able to do drugs, but because governments only do one thing, no matter who is in power... grow."
Now I've thought on that a lot lately. At the time I knew I had been schooled, but I wasn't sure why. Now I am. And listening to these History of Rome podcasts has only reinforced why. No matter the nation or time period, each time a man in any given society is elected, to any post, it is on a campaign pledge to do "something." No one gets elected saying I'm going to keep things exactly the same. And it's just human nature that the "something" be bigger, more. When it came to Roman antiquity I was always caught up in questions like, "Who was the first emperor? When did the Republic officially die?" But there's no demarcation line that you can point to and say "here!", right here is where they switched from a Republic to a dynastic imperium. It doesn't work like that. It's a death by a thousands cuts over generations, at least. Bad precedent, at the moment of its' occurrence, seems to occur in a vacuum, or as an anomaly. But it doesn't, because that precedent is used to create two more, then four, then eight. Until you wake up one day and being 180 degrees from where the Republic was founded is the new "normal." What did Titus say, that the acts taken now, as part of due course, would have had you arrested and hauled in front of a congressional hearing in 1996? We're living it brothers. I listen to these podcasts or read the Old Testament and catch myself shaking my head asking, "How did they not see how awful that would turn out?" or, "That never works, why are you trying that?" And when I catch myself doing that I feel like an idiot. Of course they couldn't see it. Very rarely can anyone see it. The names of those that stand up and try to put the brakes on, or those that really did reduce the power of the office they held (or at least tried to) are inevitably washed away in a tide of, "And furthermore, when I''m elected I will..." Or they are men that really did exist as an anomaly. From Cicero and Sulla to Reagan and Ron Paul. They're momentary heads popping up from the water, grabbing a breath so the body can live just a little bit longer. And whatever else they are, they certainly aren't the norm. And that's why that professor was a Libertarian. She had already traveled on this ideological path and had arrived at the very reasonable realization that there is no power we can grant or allow our government that they will not, in the end, use to curtail our freedom. The temptation is just too great, the arc of history just too clear. So she had decided on the only label that maximized freedom and minimized the government. But she was under no illusion, she knew Libertarian ideas (not to mention parties) had zero chance of penetrating the power structure that is our federal government. Which is why her party admission rung of resignation to our fate.
So this is my really long, elaborate, scenic route to get me here Titus - I agree with you. Our government is so powerful, so large, that when it makes mistakes they are so big that everyone in government is forced to agree that they're not mistakes. Instead, they become the new norm. Jambo wants to convince me that we're not on the back nine. Ok, maybe he's right. But what is undeniable, what he can not argue, is that we will eventually hit that 10th hole. He claims "We've been through worse." But the thing is, whatever does at last do us in, it doesn't have to be "worse." It just has to be last. Just a little bit more than we can take after the long march down. There is no civilization, no defined government or peoples in the history of mankind that did not "end." Then you turn the page... or cue up the next podcast. All we can do as informed citizens, through our vote, standing for office, or launching our post into the cacophony of the vast online universe, is try to slow our march downward. Maybe even bring it to an unrecognizable momentum. But in the end, whether taking the Right's path or the Left's, we will "go away." Our liberties are like frogs in a pot being turned up ever so slowly. Each new temperature is the new normal. And government - under either party - is the hand on the dial.
Don't get me wrong, we can stay that hand for a while. Maybe you get a leader here and there that really does try to do "less", not "more." But at some point our world will begin boiling around us. And like the frogs we will begin saying to each other, "Don't worry, this is normal. We've dealt with worse." And then some wiz kid from the year 2475 will shake his head, turn off his hologram imaging podcact on "The History of America", grab his government approved helmet, and as he hops into his atmosphere friendly hover craft to go pick up his cloned, state issued procreation mate, will mumble, "How did they not see that coming? That could never happen to the United Federation of Gender Nuetral Carbon Based Lifeforms... we're different."
So are we safer? Sure we are. I'm also sure that future boy is safe from an STD...
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Something I've been thinking about for awhile...
Today, July 4th, seems a particularly good day to ask this question that has been bothering me for more than a week now...
Since the breaking of the Snowden leak story, and the facts that have stemmed from the leak itself and the subsequent followup stories and comments, I've been forced to ask myself (and now you guys):
Is America safer today then we were in 2000? Is the War on Terror accomplishing anything for the US as a whole?
Let me lay things out for you...
We have overthrown the Taliban in Afghanistan, and have pulled the bulk of our forces out of that country... yet the situation in Afghanistan is every bit as fluid and volatile as it was in 2000... perhaps even more so. We have overthrown the despotic regime of Hussein in Iraq, and that nation is as chaotic as it has ever been, with a civilian death toll of more than 500 per month since the removal of US forces. Terrorism in both nations right now is as high and as deadly as it has ever been.
Libya, Egypt, Turkey, and Syria have all erupted into bloody, deadly hotbeds of violent protest and unrest, costing thousands of lives (many of which were American). America has intervened in each of these nation's crisis', in one way or another, with no measurable effect to lessening the violence. In fact, the only real result of our intervention in these states seems to be greater and greater local resentment of US intervention.
We have watched as US policy in prosecuting the War on Terror has turned the public opinion of "ally" nations such as Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia into seething cauldrons of hatred towards anything American. This, coupled with the state-initiated institutional anti-American madrasas that are teaching hundreds of thousands of young men and women to hate ANYTHING America (especially in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), has produced a degree of anti-US resentment in the streets of most of the Muslim world that is as great now as it has ever been in the past.
Perhaps most distressing of all, though...
Since the implementation of such "protective" measures as the Patriot Act, we have seen the "land of the free" become less and less "free" with each passing year. Revelations today show that standard operating procedure for domestic surveillance in 2013 would have landed you an indictment and Congressional hearings in 1996. The means by which both the Bush and Obama administrations have used military force to surveil and even kill Americans landed members of the Gestapo into the docks during the Nuremberg Trials facing death sentences. Snowden proved that very nearly 1 out of every 3 Americans in this country has had phone conversations, emails, texts and search histories from their computers monitored and recorded and stored for future review. 110 million people in this country, monitored and recorded without cause, due process or public oversight... but with access to such information easily available to even the lowest members of the bureaucracy's hired help, without even the possibility of oversight or review outside of the monthly one hour "briefings" that the eight members of the Senate Intelligence Committee receive but CANNOT talk about... ever... even to voice concern or dissent.
I'm afraid that what I'm about to say now is going to insight some wrath, but...
If THIS is the means by which we are to make America safer (and I do mean "safer", because there is no 100% SAFE from terrorism/extremism/random violence), then I'm not sure the price is worth the prize. If we can only "win" by allowing a level of "police control" that only a generation ago would have been called "fascist", then I fear we have already lost.
The men that planned to bring down the WTC didn't want to drop buildings... they wanted to sow division and distrust and FEAR (read: TERROR) in the hearts of Americans everywhere. It is looking more and more like they are winning, and we are losing.
Since the breaking of the Snowden leak story, and the facts that have stemmed from the leak itself and the subsequent followup stories and comments, I've been forced to ask myself (and now you guys):
Is America safer today then we were in 2000? Is the War on Terror accomplishing anything for the US as a whole?
Let me lay things out for you...
We have overthrown the Taliban in Afghanistan, and have pulled the bulk of our forces out of that country... yet the situation in Afghanistan is every bit as fluid and volatile as it was in 2000... perhaps even more so. We have overthrown the despotic regime of Hussein in Iraq, and that nation is as chaotic as it has ever been, with a civilian death toll of more than 500 per month since the removal of US forces. Terrorism in both nations right now is as high and as deadly as it has ever been.
Libya, Egypt, Turkey, and Syria have all erupted into bloody, deadly hotbeds of violent protest and unrest, costing thousands of lives (many of which were American). America has intervened in each of these nation's crisis', in one way or another, with no measurable effect to lessening the violence. In fact, the only real result of our intervention in these states seems to be greater and greater local resentment of US intervention.
We have watched as US policy in prosecuting the War on Terror has turned the public opinion of "ally" nations such as Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia into seething cauldrons of hatred towards anything American. This, coupled with the state-initiated institutional anti-American madrasas that are teaching hundreds of thousands of young men and women to hate ANYTHING America (especially in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), has produced a degree of anti-US resentment in the streets of most of the Muslim world that is as great now as it has ever been in the past.
Perhaps most distressing of all, though...
Since the implementation of such "protective" measures as the Patriot Act, we have seen the "land of the free" become less and less "free" with each passing year. Revelations today show that standard operating procedure for domestic surveillance in 2013 would have landed you an indictment and Congressional hearings in 1996. The means by which both the Bush and Obama administrations have used military force to surveil and even kill Americans landed members of the Gestapo into the docks during the Nuremberg Trials facing death sentences. Snowden proved that very nearly 1 out of every 3 Americans in this country has had phone conversations, emails, texts and search histories from their computers monitored and recorded and stored for future review. 110 million people in this country, monitored and recorded without cause, due process or public oversight... but with access to such information easily available to even the lowest members of the bureaucracy's hired help, without even the possibility of oversight or review outside of the monthly one hour "briefings" that the eight members of the Senate Intelligence Committee receive but CANNOT talk about... ever... even to voice concern or dissent.
I'm afraid that what I'm about to say now is going to insight some wrath, but...
If THIS is the means by which we are to make America safer (and I do mean "safer", because there is no 100% SAFE from terrorism/extremism/random violence), then I'm not sure the price is worth the prize. If we can only "win" by allowing a level of "police control" that only a generation ago would have been called "fascist", then I fear we have already lost.
The men that planned to bring down the WTC didn't want to drop buildings... they wanted to sow division and distrust and FEAR (read: TERROR) in the hearts of Americans everywhere. It is looking more and more like they are winning, and we are losing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
