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...

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.

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!