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)

Ferrer Fans Flames of Abismal Bid Against Bloomberg

Whilst checking out Wonkette earlier, I saw this posting. Truly, Ferrer is going down, in flames no less, as sure as the sun will shine. This ad reflects that. I hate to be the one to admit it, but Bloomberg is virtually undefeatable. Short of being caught in a Times Square synagogue fellating Osama Bin Laden midst feasting on some aborted fetus tar tar by all four major news networks on live television, he’s a sure win.

Bloomberg is a Democrat in Republican clothing. Hell, most Republicans in New York are more liberal than a Texas Democrat. Being deviantly far left, Bloomy still has my vote. Please pardon this obtuse generalization but the city is working and if it is not broken, don’t fix it.

Bush's Faith and My Way Back Machine (Retro Post 2)

I thought the time would come when I could quote myself and behold! Here it is! Well, not really. It is more of a reprint. But not an entire reprint. Just some segments relevant to our, apparently delusional, President. I heard about it on a podcast from Democracy Now! yesterday that was a few days old. Then, I see it again in this article from the BBC Americas.

Quotes from the Chief:

God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.

Belief is a dangerous thing and I have written about it before. Here are some bits from “The Streets Will Flow With the Blood of the Believers” that I wrote way back on 9/17/2004. Que the Way Back Machine *chimes and bells sound, vision gets wavy, words come back into focus*

...There is a little something that all the founding fathers agreed on in setting up our country called the separation of church and state.

We mention this separation not to infer that the church and our government have linked up and are now running the country in concert. That step has been skipped. Something more insipid has happened. Unless you have been in a coma or been high for the last 3+ years (the latter we would not blame you for), you will well know that the current president is a Christian. Born again. He is a true believer in the lord and savior, Jesus Christ. He is one of a great and growing many in this country that will trust in God to provide and guide the way. To have faith despite whatever harrowing circumstances may come. What is even more frightening is that W. thinks and has said that he truly believes that the lord above put him in office. Great. We have another word to describe him. Fundamentalist.

There is another believer out there who is also a leader of a ridiculously strong, organized group who seems to have trickled off the news cycle more than he should have. Who can say Osama bin Laden? He too is a fundamentalist.

Getting back to the believer in the office of the Chief Executive… Part of the reason the country is where it is today is because Bush believes certain things. He believes that Saddam was a threat. He believes Democracy is the best form of government. He believes that he is the right guy for the job. He believes. He takes it on faith…

…Education is failing all over the US. Bush insists that, nay, believes that No Child Left Behind is working despite heaps of evidence and testament telling otherwise. Math and sciences are being pushed over reading and writing. That promotes better accountants and chemists, but it doesn’t encourage free, intelligent thinking. But that works for the party of Bush just fine. …

Despite their insistence to the contrary, we are losing the War on Terror. The Bush administration has done everything bin Laden had hoped for and more. The Muslim world has been in disarray for hundreds of years, but bin Laden cracked the nut on getting Islam’s act together. If Islam is threatened, Muslims unite despite their differences. Jihad, the defensive kind, is a powerful underlying current of Islam and bin Laden is very aware of it and adept at using it. Islamists don’t hate us for who we are and what we believe. They may not like us, or our system, but that isn’t the crux. What is the crux is that U.S. policy appears to be, and in many respects is, a form of imperialist colonialism that is hurting the world, most pointedly the Islamic world. Cheap oil anyone? Nothing brings people together more than a common, easily identifiable enemy. Israel, oil and the support of repressive regimes, i.e. the House of Saud, are why we are the focus of Muslim enmity.

Mr. Bush is clearly not a student of history. If he had ever done his own homework, perhaps his decisions, the ones he claims he can make better than any other contender for the Presidency, would have been a bit more informed. But instead, he didn’t. He let other people guide his choices. He took it on faith. He believed, and still believes, that the dog is still wagging its tail. For future reference, Sun Tzu would have been a good start. The “Know Your Enemy” bit would help a lot.

Now, to cover some tail feathers, we offer this caveat: Religion isn’t to blame. Hubris, ignorance, idealism and/or fundamentalism are. Faith is a good thing if it gets you through a tough day. Your belief in a god is not a bad thing if it nourishes you and those around you in a positive way. Faith that guides you counter to what common sense and facts dictate is not so much faith as fundamentalism. The beauty of Democracy is that it, unlike fundamentalist belief regardless of denomination, is flexible. However, stretch it too far and it can break. We are near a breaking point now. Florida in November will be where that match gets lit. But that is another rant altogether.

Basically, everything has been wrong from step one since September 11, 2001. We missed a colossal opportunity to make a good thing out of tragedy by accepting the compassion of the world, but the faith and faith-enabled ideology of our current leaders carried the day and look where we are now. America has played its cards all wrong. Osama has proven he is smarter than Bush. We are one or two moves away from check, perhaps even check mate and Cheney is spouting that if we make the wrong choice, America will get hit again. Guess what? We are going to get hit no matter what unless some serious changes happen in U.S. policy. When that happens, the streets will flow with the blood of the believers who put, and possibly keep, Bush in office. What is truly sad is that others who know better will suffer equally if not more so.

To read the original post in its entirety, click here.

Its not so good to know that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Who has learned from Menachem Begin?

These guys are a LOT more alike than you think.

Could Osama bin Laden be a covert student of history?

I learned something on Tuesday. Israel, as a country, owes a substantial portion of its independence and statehood to terrorism. Israeli history is not something I am too versed in, but I read an article by Mark Danner in the New York Times Magazine last weekend that had a small portion of it devoted to an historical analysis of the history and origins of terrorism. He sites Menachem Begin, a Prime Minister of Israel:

"History and our observation persuaded us… that if we could succeed in destroying the government's prestige in Eretz Israel, the removal of its rule would follow automatically. Thenceforward, we gave no peace to this weak spot. Throughout all the years of our uprising, we hit at the British government's prestige, deliberately, tirelessly, unceasingly." In its most spectacular act, in July 1946, the Irgun guerrilla forces led by Begin bombed the King David Hotel, killing 91 people, most of them civilians.(NYT)

Before you get all up in a bundle, know that I am not trying to make an anti-Semitic point. Don't care about ethnicity. People are people and I judge by actions. I do have my political bones to pick with Israel’s behavior and the lopsided US alliance with it, but that is for another post. I may have even written about it. I’ll check. But for now, let us stick to what history and Mark Danner are telling us.

Though it has been slowly fading for the last 30 to 40 years or so, the United States has always had this idealized image abroad of being powerful, fertile and golden. We are the land of opportunity and the breadbasket of the world. We toppled Soviet Russia and saved the world from the spread of Communism. (This is actually false. The USSR pretty much did itself in. We just threw a little fuel on that fire to make it happen sooner) Begin alludes to Britain in the 1940’s similarly as Danner equates the US having this image of all-powerfulness. It is this that is an equal target being attacked in addition to our troops and interests. My father said that you are only as good as your word, and if you don’t have that, you don’t have much at all. Well, America’s word value is dropping faster than the dollar.

Have you noticed the regular shafting al Queda gives us and our allies with systematic regularity? (9/11, Spain’s train bombings, London’s sub and bus bombings to mention a few) Danner says, in no uncertain terms, that America is losing the war on terror. I have no reason to doubt him. No amount of disinformation the Federal Government puts out can change this. We are losing the war on the ground and we are losing the PR war all because bin Laden-ism is more effective, more potent than US leaders are capable of giving credit for. The individuals calling the shots for us are, perhaps, doing their best but what they don’t realize is that we really can’t have guns and butter. Winning and losing isn’t about body counts to these people. Its about idealism and territory. You can’t kill an idea with a gun and bullets will disappear into sand without a trace.

Where are our students of history? Is the dumbing down of America so manifest that it has penetrated the highest levels of government? This pattern has happened before! Begin and Israel vs. Great Britain, the US in Vietnam (and the French there too), Russia in Chechnya. Its all just so plain to see when you aren’t in the fog of war. Somebody please turn on a fan in the White House to clear the air.

As long as you have somebody willing to die for a cause, you have the most powerful weapon there is. Osama bin Laden knows this and clearly took the history lesson from Israel. (Does anyone else see the multiple layers of irony in this?) It begs the question: Why haven’t our leaders seen this? Is it arrogance and hubris? Is it the fog of war? Or, is it the sun setting on our nations reputation? Time will tell and history will be our judge.

P.S. Again, I don’t know the full history, but it seems that Israel at least partially attained its sovereignty through terrorist methods. Those very same methods were, in turn, turned against them. What does this tell us about karma? How does Begin’s legacy fit into the relativism of history? Truly, what you reap is what you sow.