Bad Sleep

For the first time in recent memory, I actually woke up from a bad dream. I don't recall the specifics, but thats not what is important as to why I write this now. What woke me up was the disquieting feeling that my country was unraveling and the world didn't care. In fact, it seemed like the world welcomed it.

Now dreams, direful or otherwise, are seemingly the subconscious mind's attempt to catalog the days events. Mrs. Deviant and BFD went out to see the Grands and left me to my own devices for the weekend. So, what's a 30 something father to do on a Friday night? Go on a news binge of course.

I watched and read a great deal of news content. The News Hour, Washington Week, NOW, TDS, and Bill Moyers. In addition, I read some news from the Times and Post. What stuck with me were George Tenet's book release and the ever brewing Attorney Generals' scandal. The latter was of particular interest to me as I was privy to a private email exchange earlier in the week that left deep impression on me. Though I have no permission to do so, I feel compelled to reprint a few excerpts. The identity of its generator(s) shall remain anonymous. What I viewed last night and the following are responsible for the dreams that woke me.

It is difficult for anyone who believes in truth, facts and government to make sense of this crowd [The Bush Administration] because they do not believe in any of those things. They believe in an ideology; and they have faith in that ideology. You know well the dangers of faith, in anything. Nothing else matters. Anything that does not conform to the ideology either gets warped until it does or ignored.

They are also arrogant: and were allowed to remain so during the 6 years the Republicans controlled Congress. There were no - understand what I said, NO - oversight hearings during all that time. Now, however, there are lots of oversight hearings. Now, the Constitutional system of checks and balances is starting to work. And now it is hard for this crowd to adjust their ideological world to a world where truth, facts and government are valued...

... Yes, it is sad and serious what has happened to the Justice Department. What kind of a statement is it when the President says that he has renewed confidence in the Attorney General "...because he has not committed any crime...."? What kind of a lesson is it when the Attorney General not only uses but abuses the time honored tactic for avoiding a perjury charge, i.e., " I don't remember/I have no recollection, etc."?

The Justice Department leadership has been captured by politicians who surround themselves with young, inexperienced, like-minded, :"baby ideologues", who graduated from Christian focused law schools. And [Gonzales] is right when he says he doesn't know who made various decisions. That is because no ONE person in that circle makes a decision. The circle does: and circles don't leave fingerprints or records. Why should they? It's not just to avoid indictment/impeachment. It's mostly about Group Think according to the ideology. If you are 'with us' fine: if not, you and your views don't count.

The career lawyers at the Department are just waiting it out. What else can they do? If they raise a public protest, they loose their jobs. They are not paid enough to be able to afford that.

On the decision to go to war that Tenet was, seemingly, an integral part of despite his recent and perhaps flaccid disavowal...

... No one in the Executive Branch - or their advisers - had any blood that would be exposed if we went to war. No one ( with one or two exceptions ) in the Congress did, either. Nor did most Americans. The fighting and dying would be done by those in our society who did not know how to register their views. Most of them had enough to do to make ends meet. Their lives, like those of their parents and grandparents, were ones in which they learned how to make the best of what happened TO them. They don't know how to make something ELSE happen to - much less FOR - them.

And why did the decision-makers in both active branches of our government let themselves decide to start a war based on a lie? Because it was the easy thing to do. People were still scared because of 9/11. And no one had the guts to tell the American people that there is no such thing as a risk free society: and that bad things happen not only elsewhere, but also here...

In closing and a statement I wholeheartedly believe to be true:

... Unless we start investing our own well being more closely with our political decisions, we are going to continue to decline as a Nation.

Other people should realize this and quickly.

Bill Moyers asked Jon Stewart if all of his work in examining and parodying the media has made him lose his innocence. His response was that he thought a person lost their innocence the day their first child is born. Not that I was unaware, uncaring or even innocent before, but since becoming a father nine months ago, the depth of my concern and worry about where our country is headed, the nation where my son will grow up, has increased many fold. By necessity, my innocence has become a thing of the past.

Thinking About Blowback

I was cruising some of the familiar and friendly bloggosphere and read a fine passage by PK. If you follow the link, he’s talking about conservatives (namely George Will) trying to say that progressives were wrong to oppose the Iraq war despite the mistake that it really is. It’s a good read and worth the time spent.

I took the time to comment about it and got hooked on the concept of blowback. Now, if you are unfamiliar with the term, in the context that I mean to use it, it simply means the unintended consequences of actions taken. This is going to take a while, but bear with me… To broadly generalize, the United States of America meddles in the policy and sovereignty of oil producing Muslim nations. This pisses a great many of the Muslim peoples off. The culture is not inhospitable, but it is xenophobic, for lack of a better term, against outsiders. American presence is seen as imperialistic and, consequently, nationalism in the Muslim nation rises, as does religious fervor.

America doesn’t pay attention to this because its primary concern, its agenda, is to pursue, secure and maintain its interests. The benefit is primary, but the possible detriment to the citizenry is seemingly a distant peripheral. So, smaller groups of people in these Muslim nations get rich as Croesus and run an oppressive style of government that are counter to the culture and wishes of its populace. But this doesn’t matter to America because the goods are being delivered at a favorable price and American citizens can enjoy the highest standard of living the planet have ever witnessed. Cake is abundant and edible as well for the U.S.A.

This status quo goes on for more than 50 years. Five decades plus of profit, opulence, entitlement, oppression and consequential resentment go by. The reaction of the oppressed and/or nationalistic peoples of the Muslim nations grow more intolerant. A figurehead with great wealth rises up and taps into the xenophobic zeitgeist and vows to attack the infidel and reclaim the land that “God” gave them. This guy isn’t necessarily right, but his attitudes are a direct product of implemented policies by his and our countries. Vows to take action are made by him and an infectiously growing number of his supporters.

In keeping with the cultural and religious values of his people, this figurehead operates within the precepts of his religion and his religion’s laws. He is extremely open and clear about goals and objectives. He makes no attempts to hide these or the reasons he pursues them. America takes note. They see this danger, but don’t regard it as a viable threat despite knowing the players and having full knowledge about the extent of their training because earlier American interests warranted us training and supplying them. Hubris maintains arrogance and nothing changes save for closer monitoring of the situation. The American public remain blissfully ignorant.

Jihad is staring America in the face and little is done. A strike is made at the U.S. An unsuccessful but jarring bombing of the WTC crosses the American consciousness. Later, a U.S. naval vessel is hit successfully by suicide bombers and American service men and women die. The sitting President Clinton won’t tolerate the slap given and orders a strike on a target where the figurehead, Osama bin Laden, is reported to be. The intelligence is faulty and a factory is hit, killing many innocents. Ire towards the United States grows in the Muslim world. Jihad is emboldened.

President Clinton favors the use of force to curtail bin Laden’s efforts to strike the U.S. This intention is hampered by a military unwilling to commit. With this conflict of interest, other avenues are not sought to head off the danger that faces America. That is to say that the policies and relationships that have fattened America to its current state of opulence at the expense of other nations that have created dangerous ire are not modified in the slightest because of the desire to maintain the status quo. Lack of sustainability is a fact, but not one anybody chooses to face yet. The wind has decidedly changed but no one can or will take heed of what is blowing our way.

Administrations change and America is now under Bush. A chief executive who was not popularly elected but appointed by the judicial branch. A man who has never left the country and has zero foreign policy experience that willingly chooses to surround himself with people who, for the most part, ascribe to some of the scariest foreign policy ideas this nation has ever known. Then, whilst floundering through the infancy of the G.W. Bush presidency, America gets hit with the world assault/crime ever perpetrated by a foreign power. Nearly 3,000 people lose their lives in a matter of a few hours.

Within 24 hours, we know a great deal and are making plans for retaliation. Afghanistan in our sights, promises are made to capture and/or kill those responsible for attacking us. No one questions why we were hit. No one asks about how this happened beyond the procedural steps made to conduct the attack and the who’s and how’s of its creation and implementation. With blame firmly placed and public sentiment solidly behind the action, retaliation is swift and devastating. It was clearly justified and, for Osama bin Laden’s part, totally expected.

The Taliban falls and some terrorists are captured and/or killed, but not bin Laden. The primary goal is not accomplished, nor will it be. The promise remains unfulfilled and the threat is still present and arguably stronger that it was at the time of the fall of the Twin Towers. All that is given to the American people is the promise that bin Laden will be brought to justice and that the security of America is the primary job and goal of our government. It wasn’t before then?

The jihad against the U.S.A. has been going on for years. America only now fully engages it. Too bad its second leg, Iraq, was the wrong place entirely with no hope of a positive outcome. Still, no one demands a full answer to the obvious question. Why has all this happened? The question has been continually preempted by Bush and his administration with a palatable answer. “They hate our freedom.” This is surely not wrong, but it is also not the right answer. Hating our freedom is peripheral. It is not what caused all this. If they just hated our freedom, you would see more flag burning and effigy hanging. No one asks themselves rationally, what would make people want to kill themselves and thousands of others in a hateful act like 9/11? For someone to offer the rational answer of “our freedom” is folly and the epitome of myopic thinking.

Every attack on the United States of America by Islamic jihadists has been made because America, through its foreign policy and support of some governments over others, has meddled, oppressed and violated the peoples and sovereignty of other countries in some fashion or another. For a nation that espouses the virtues of liberty and freedom, our diplomatic and commercial interests are, at their cores, completely counter to those ideologies. America’s actions are out of step with the ideals by which it was founded and that incongruity is now costing the people of the United States of America blood and treasure over and above what the American citizenry are willing to pay. Is this current war worth all of that?

Again, the crux of it is blowback. Americans are used to a certain lifestyle. In order to sustain that lifestyle, interests and resources are needed. Those needs are fulfilled through rather entrenched policy and actions taken to secure interests in places (i.e. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc…) that we are not entirely welcome. If you want the shirt off of someone’s back and take it without their consent or fair compensation, expect resentment and a kick to somewhere that will hurt.

With or without our consent, the United States made this situation. So, rather than bickering who is for or against the war, concentrate on accurately identifying the problems. Instead of questioning who supports what and who’s right or wrong in their support and when that was, realize that there is a simple choice to be made. Either endure the blowback of our unsustainable policies as part of the price of maintaining an imperial style republic or change the policies of this nation so as not to oppress foreign peoples and work towards making this nation a self sufficient and continuing example of what our Constitution mandates: a more perfect union that truly establishes justice, insures domestic tranquility, provides for the common defense, promotes the general welfare and secures the blessings of liberty to not only ourselves, but others, and the attainment of a mutual posterity.

Domestic Spying Perspective

Just to inform the debate over the whole "domestic spying" thing... DCeiver has a tidy little rant that has some choice bits and fair comments that put this shenanigan into perspective. Yours truly comments as well.

If I may be so pedantic as to attempt to extend this thread a little further here in this space... Domestic wiretapping has, in many ways, revealed where we are by way of national zeitgeist. We find the moderate intrusion of government into our personal lives acceptable so long as it is in efforts to enhance our safety. Rather, this monitoring is excusable in the name of preëmption of an attack on us, the scared to death and lightweight citizenry of this once fair nation. The Romans had Genghis Khan, we've got Osama bin Laden. History repeats indeed.

Here's what I want to delve into. A while back I read that “A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality” (Irving Kristol). Preëmption is one of the cornerstones of neo-conservatism. Richard Perle, who is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a high level advisor to the Department of Defense (read: advocate for the war in Iraq), a proud neo-con and a man who has one of the scariest world views I have ever been aware of, says that preëmption is perfectly acceptable in the name of defending the country. At face value, I think there are few who would disagree. In the film WHY WE FIGHT, Perle is interviewed and says that if you are standing next to a missile launcher that is aimed at our country and have the ability to knock it over and save lives, why wouldn't you. It does make sense but, in reality, it is incredibly myopic.

Domestic wiretapping is in a similar vein to what Mr. Perle alludes to abstractly, i.e. if you can, you should, in the name of defense. It is, in my estimation, an effort to aggressively seek out the terrorist who would use our phone systems to do this country harm. But what is the true cost of doing so? How much is our privacy worth? September 11 was the worst mugging reality could have dished out. The insular reaction we, as a country, had is perfectly understandable and enables people to buy into the basic underpinnings of neo-conservatism, i.e. kicking over the missile launcher and saving us because you can.

So, when this whole wiretapping thing came out, Bush emphatically stressed that the measure was not breaking the law. He authorized it shortly after 9/11. I am unclear as to what channels this action passed through to assure its lawfulness. This is the same President who decided that the FISA court wasn't fast enough or sure enough to accomplish the task of adequately defending the nation against all enemies.

To all these new, "aggressive" defensive measures, Bush and his administration give assurances that, sub-textually and substantively, boil down to saying "Just trust us." It begs the question that, without a court's warrant, where is the oversight? Without full and immediate disclosure to congress, where is the supervision? A select few, friendly and understanding congresspersons does not full disclosure make. What is becoming of this system of government that should be rife with checks and balances?

Freedom is defined as: the absence of restraints upon our ability to think and act. (Except those restraints that are of natural cause.) Liberty is defined as: generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority. These are, at least in theory, American values. They certainly are the ideals that are the selling points of the Bush doctrine as well as what the Bush administration think they are ensuring for us and for all future Americans. However, with all these actions: domestic wiretapping, (so called) spreading democracy, bypassing the FISA to *ahem* enable faster action to the terrorists... These are all eroding our system of government and what should be the American way of life. If we are to be damned, let us be damned for whom we truly are. (FYI, I totally cribbed that last line from Star Trek TNG, Encounter at Farpoint. Picard rules!)

Part of what I understand about neo-conservatism is that it espouses the virtues of the office of the chief executive and believes, mightily, in the broad expansion of these powers. To my mind, this enhancing would enable the ability to implement preëmption and short term fixes quite well. Again, at face value and in the spirit of doing good, there is nothing wrong with this. However, how do we keep these abilities in check? As the expression goes - Absolute power corrupts absolutely. How do we account for, prevent and curtail hubris? Again, why is the system being changed in our name when it doesn't serve our interests? All these things being done for out defense have the profound potential to undermine our way of governance and life to an irreparable state.

Practically speaking, this monitoring of our domestic calling patterns does us no harm. This is how it appears on the surface and what the Bush Administration wants us to believe. If it protects us or is serving in the name of our protection, it isn't bad. Right? Wrong! It undermines our liberty, the very thing the Bush doctrine is trying to protect and spread. I have only heard a little bit about this in the press so far. That alone, I find amazing. If the government can monitor our calling patterns, they can, certainly, monitor the calling patterns of journalists. If they actually are or aren't monitoring the calls of journalists specifically really doesn't matter. What does matter is that those who would call to inform journalists potentially lose their chance at anonymity, which protects them on any number of levels. With this potential, the free flow of information is inhibited. If knowledge is power, the American electorate loses power in this system. There goes yet another way to keep hubris in check.

Bush campaigned on transparency (as have others) and changing the "tone" in Washington for the better. He has been the antithesis of both for the entirety of his Presidency. He and his administration say we have to trust them. Really? Why should we when they chip away at the very foundations of what it means to live under an "American" style of government. This is supposed to be a nation of laws. When those laws are bent, changed quickly or even bypassed in the name of security without review and oversight, what reason do we have to just trust them? Protecting and spreading freedom and liberty indeed!

But hey! It's not like they are totally trying to fuck us. They are still looking out for the little guy. Pets, specifically. Compassionate conservatism indeed. (HuffPo)