23. June 2019 · Categories: Analysis, Politics · Tags:

One of the great American ironies is the fierce dedication and support that self-described adversaries of socialism have for our most predominate socialist systems.

Indications of this dedication and support appear in the traffic streams of bumper stickers as tributes to various “thin lines” that protect the people from all the dangers that threaten them. A blue line representing the police, a red line representing the firefighters, yellow for dispatchers, search and rescue, green for the border patrol and/or the military.

Naturally, the first image that comes to mind are the men and women that risk their lives to serve that purpose, not so much the systems that provide the means to do it.

But the fact remains… The systems that provide the means are a big part of what makes the lines work and they are almost entirely socialist systems.

As always, the reason for a socialist solution can be explained simply by looking at the capitalist bottom line… There’s really no profit in safeguarding the people from the dangers that threaten them. If a working mother struggling to pay rent is under assault, who is going to pay the police to protect her? If a retired couple living of an anemic retirement account find themselves engulfed in flames, who is going to pay the fire fighters to rescue them? Just try drawing up a business plan for any of that. Capitalism is great for consumer markets but there’s a good reason why emergences in America have been handled by socialist systems for over a century now.

So as the 2020 elections draw near and the Trump campaign starts using socialism as a derogatory term to criticize his opponents and invoke a Pavlov response at his rallies, it may be worth remembering how much of what keeps America safe ARE in fact the very successful socialist systems that we’ve been depending on for generations.

 

15. April 2019 · Categories: Analysis, Law, Politics

In 1991, William Lynn a minister in Alabama was murdered in his home. His wife was badly injured but survived. One of the two people convicted of murdering William Lynn was Christopher Price who is now on death row, scheduled for execution and the subject of a controversial decision by the Supreme Court. The controversy started when Price asked for an alternative method of execution.

The State of Alabama is claiming that Price missed the deadline for choosing to be executed by nitrogen hypoxia instead of the state’s default, three-chemical injection which can subject the inmate to excruciating pain.

A federal district court in Alabama halted the execution on Thursday, citing “new evidence”. Of course we don’t know what that evidence is yet but it seems at this point I can’t seen any other reason other than possible discrepancies in Alabama’s claim. It doesn’t help that on that same day at 9:00 PM, Alabama officials asked the Supreme Court to overrule the district court order so they could proceed with the execution anyway. That’s when Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Beyers issued a request to stay the execution until after the court has a chance to meet in the morning and discuss the lower court decision before overruling it.

The New York Times reported today on that decision by the 5-member, conservative, Supreme Court majority to deny that request and green light the execution.

Maybe this all seems like a big fuss over something as trivial as whether or not a convicted murderer gets to choose the method in which he is executed. Or maybe this story is more about the deliberate choice the state is making to execute someone in the most painful way they can. If that’s case, this is a huge deal because we are talking about the line that separates civilized people from barbarians.

Here’s what the New York Times reported…

Justice Breyer’s dissent reflects that things have quickly gotten ugly at the court since the replacement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was a moderating force in capital cases, with the more conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The divide between the two sides has hardened in recent weeks, with conservative justices growing increasingly frustrated over what they considered excessive delays in carrying out executions. The liberal justices have in turn accused the majority of reckless haste that could give rise to executions so painful as to amount to torture.

So, the conservative judges are basically saying they’re getting tired of these delays… Well… Is it not their JOB to deal with these things? If they can’t handle it or simply can’t be bothered then shouldn’t that mean it’s time for them to retire?

Or is this actually about vengeance? It turns out that the contention within the court itself was already enough to expire the Alabama death warrant, necessitating a re-issue and a new execution date, possibly delaying the execution by another 30 days. The reaction by some clearly exposes a vindictive streak in the community that I hope isn’t affecting the bench.

The article quotes Attorney General Steven T. Marshall following the event.

“Tonight, in the middle of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, the family of Pastor Bill Lynn was deprived of justice,” Attorney General Steven T. Marshall said. “They were, in effect, revictimized by a killer trying to evade his just punishment.”

I realize that many people are inclined to focus on the crime but the perpetrator in this case HAS been removed from society and is in prison waiting to be executed. Does it really matter if the execution is delayed for a few hours, or days or even weeks? Do these delays really amount to a “revictimization”? I don’t think so and I find it disturbing that people are so ready to call a frustrated demand for vengeance a “revictimization”.

Of course this could all be solved very easily, Execute Price with nitrogen hypoxia. Done. The execution would not have been delayed and the courts would not have even been involved. But Alabama doesn’t want to execute him that way – Alabama wants to execute him the more painful way. That is the ONLY reason why it ever got to the courts.

Indeed, the concern the conservatives apparently don’t want to hear is nothing less than a founding principal of our western culture. Institutionalized in Common Law, adapted into the English Bill of Rights and again into the U.S. Constitution as part of the 8th Amendment, the idea that for centuries has been held as the line between barbarians and civil society… that a justice system not be allowed to inflict cruel and unusual punishment. There’s literally no valid reason to rush the execution if this civil right is still in question.

Yes, the court could have delayed the execution – (the inmate isn’t going anywhere). Yes, the court could have met in person to discuss the matter in a constitutional context. Yes, Alabama could have found another, less painful method of execution. None of these things would have reversed the conviction or cancelled the punishment, neither would they have been difficult to do or costly to afford. So exactly what excuse does that leave? Clearly, if the state is willing to take this to the Supreme Court *something* is functioning as a driving motivation. It’s sad to realize that the closest thing to a logical excuse for such haste is the type of vengeance so overtly pronounced in Attorney General Steven T. Marshall’s quote.

So this is where I really want to make some clear distinctions. A justice system can serve one of two purposes. It can enforce the law or it can satisfy the vindictive. Granted, some law-enforcing decisions can also be vengeance for some, but should vengeance ever be the primary motive, much less to the point of breaking the law?

It makes logical sense to execute those who have committed heinous crimes, especially if it’s been a pattern for them because of the risk they pose to society. But I think a civil society really needs to understand the magnitude of taking a human life. One such society might insure that every alternative be considered first, execution last. One such society might also understand the sobriety of the task and not to celebrate it, exploit it or be impetuous with it because you’re to old and tired to do your job as a Supreme Court Justice for a constitutional republic.

21. March 2019 · Categories: Analysis · Tags: ,
Recently, USAToday produced a webpage titled Trump Nation that presents the opinions of 103 Trump supporters. It’s a rather well-done multi-media exhibition complete with photographs and , audio recordings but as I read through these 103 opinions I noticed a lot of redundancy. So, I wrote a short program to extract the opinions and from that compile a data model for easier analysis and this is what I found.
None of the 103 Americans interviewed mentioned any specific law, policy or evidence proving an actual problem. Neither did any of them mention any specific actions taken by their chosen candidate in the past to suggest his qualification. All the respondents remained vague, hopeful and subjective.
Out of these vague, “touchy-feely” arguments a small number of generalized themes and assumptions appear as the basis for their support.
  • 26 of the respondents suggested that Trump is a straight talker and cited that as a reason for supporting him.
  • 24 cited his career as a businessman as a clear reason to support him.
  • 21 indicated their support was in part due to his position as an outsider.
  • 20 mentioned their utter distaste for Hillary Clinton as a good enough reason to vote for Trump.
These are the most common themes across all the respondents in this particular study. There were a few other themes that I was surprised to see so few people mention such as putting America first, a major theme in Trump’s campaign and yet only 14 out of 103 respondents mentioned that. Another one is bringing back jobs, another major theme in the Trump campaign and yet only ten respondents mentioned it. Even more surprisingly, border-security was only mentioned by ten of the 103 respondents and making America great again was only mentioned eight times. That’s not much more than the seven respondents that had negative things to say about immigrants or the six that had negative things to say about Muslims.
 
So from the opinions of these 103 Americans we can see that although racist issues and the promise of a “greater America” ARE indeed factors they are nevertheless outweighed by a prevailing sentiment that people are just sick and tired of politicians. While I can understand that sentiment I am appalled by the inability of these 103 Americans to improve the situation by learning how to elect better politicians.
To demonstrate what I mean I’m going to respond to the most common points made by these 103 Americans.

Trump the Straight-Talker

First thing I want to ask is why is there so much evidence to the contrary? Why is he being investigated for so many things that would suggest he isn’t so honest, such as issuing hush money and obstructing justice? Is that not fair because the investigation is still in progress and nothing has been proven yet? OK fine, what about the fact that he still refuses to reveal his tax returns? Saying that he’s not legally obligated to disclose his personal taxes does nothing to change the fact that he is obviously hiding something. The excuse he came up with during his campaign was that his taxes are being audited. Well that was two years ago, which I’m sure is long enough to wrap up an audit or at least identify the case or get some kind of confirmation from ANYONE that his taxes really are being audited, but we got nothing, which really leaves no other option but to assume he was lying about that. Not enough? OK, what about his campaign promise that he would never cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Don’t remember that? See if this jogs your memory… Trump promising no cuts to Medicare or Medicaid
And yet… in his latest budget proposal he is cutting $200 billion from Medicare. There is no legal loopholes for Trumpian excuses here. This is empirical evidence which couldn’t possibly be any more direct or obvious. He is very clearly breaking his campaign promise. Now sometimes this happens when a president promises something, tries to make it happen but fails. But Trump’s promise not to cut Medicare should not have been a challenge; the program is overwhelmingly supported by the American people and their representatives. Slashing the budget for Medicare was not a failure to preserve it, it was a conscientious decision to attack it and in so doing he did in fact break his promise. This is not the hallmark of a honest man.
One might say, well, ALL politicians lie, but remember, two of the most common reasons these 103 Americans came up with for supporting Trump is that he is NOT a politician and that he IS an honest man. Could have fooled me. In fact he’s breaking records by amassing a collection of more proven lies than any politician so far ever recorded. It’s because of this unprecedented disregard for the truth that the New York Times has been maintaining a record of his lies since his inauguration. NYT: List of Trump’s Lies.
Another aspect of this straight-talker illusion is based on the recently increased intolerance for being politically-correct. Five of the respondents mentioned this directly. Honestly, I don’t know what the problem is here. We used to call it being civil or just having good manners, but now there seems to be this impression that being civil somehow interferes with getting things done or with being honest. There IS a way to be honest and civil at the same time… It’s called tact… which is something Trump obviously doesn’t have.
Gary Johnson, 26 said “we need to be less politically correct and get to the source of problems without beating around the bush as much.” Well Gary, maybe you could provide an real example instead of a baseless generalization.
Joshua Grad, 27 takes it even further by calling political correctness a “disease” that “has caused a lot of arguments, fights, disagreements, and a lot of destruction and decay throughout the entire country.” Again, no examples but that doesn’t stop Joshua from going even further by stating how he loves “the fact that, of all the candidates, Republican and Democrat, [Trump] came on and he was rude, he was vulgar, he got his point right across, but he did not do it in a nice friendly way. I’ve had too many politicians that are nice and fluffy, I want someone who will say ‘Naah, you take that and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.’
Josh, this sounds to me like what you want is a rude nasty tyrant. Your one chance to make your opinion known to the entire USA Today audience and you waste it on praising the president for being rude and vulgar and expressing a desire to see a president shove his own agenda in the face of the American people whether they want it or not. Yes, that’s called a tyrant.
Overall, I think the of lack of substance to support these opinions about Trump being a straight-talker, paired with the prevalence of that theme among supporters provides a very strong indication that what we are seeing here are people that are either brain-washed or they have other reasons for supporting Trump that they don’t feel they can justify so they reach for “cover” reasons which don’t always make sense. As for the honesty they insist comes from Trump, I’m pretty dang certain it’s more about the fact that Trump is just saying things they like to hear and calling it the truth is more about endorsing the statement for what they say and much less about whether they’re true or not.

Trump the Businessman

Yes, Trump is a businessman but… does that really qualify him to be a president? There are two parts to this question. First, what kind of businessman is he and second, is experience in business really that important to the job of a president?

There are so many types of businessmen out there that qualifying a candidate on that basis alone is like qualifying him on the basis that he has two hands and two feet. While some businessmen are innovators like Henry Ford and Bill Gates who built large companies and created lots of jobs, other businessmen are back alley drug dealers, crime bosses, dog walkers and baby sitters. It’s ALL business. In fact every American with a job, a budget and a checking account is in a sense a businessman. Every kid who ever sat at a lemonade stand is in effect a businessman. So just calling yourself a businessman really doesn’t say much.

So, what kind of businessman is Donald J. Trump? Well, all wisecracks about his ethics aside, he is what I would call an investor. This is arguably the easiest kind of business. It doesn’t require any significant skill or talent, but it does require money and luck. Of course it helps to know what you’re doing when you invest because you increase your odds of success. This is why they say it’s always better to invest in what you know. But it’s not 100% necessary because it’s always possible to invest in a lottery ticket and win. By contrast no amount of money or luck will help an idiot invent a better mousetrap and build a successful company around it. This is why there are relatively few founders like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs compared to people who leverage their success in one thing, such as rap music, to become successful investors like Snoop Dog and Kayne West or like the second-generation Kardashians, Hiltons and Trumps (including Donny J. himself) who got their seed money through inheritance.

So while I’m not saying Trump lacks sufficient skill and talent I am saying that we really can’t rule that out based entirely on his status as a businessman, especially when it comes to the challenges of government. This of course leads to the second consideration; Is business experience even relevant to the job? My simple answer is no and this is based on the simple premise that our government is not a business – it’s a republic. It’s a shame that more Americans don’t realize that. Even worse, there’s a tendency for people to mentally disconnect the democracy that underlies the republic, leaving what they see as an aloof government. 

Over recent years, there has indeed been an upswell of resentment toward this “aloof” government and its politicians and a businessman is a cultural icon that in many ways symbolizes the “outside” alternative. Some of this comes from the fact that so many Americans are businessmen, so there’s a sense of commonality. But also, in the ideological world, businessmen represent the leaders of the private sector, which is being hailed by many as being more capable of efficient solutions than the government. This perspective is largely based on the idea that in the business world, competition encourages efficiency and performance and in government there *is* no competition so logic dictates the government would be less efficient. But there’s a huge flaw in this logic. The assumption that there is no competition in government is flat wrong.

You wouldn’t think this would be so hard to see in an age where politics is so dominated by election races and partisan arguments. In fact it’s exactly the competition between political opponents that often make government proceedings more inefficient and this underlies the fundamental difference between business and government which is enough to change the effects of competition. This fundamental difference is that business is typically a homogenous enterprise driven by one thing above all else; profit. This makes business decisions relatively easy as the bottom-line practically makes the decisions for us. On the other hand, a representative republic like ours is heterogeneous, there is no bottom line and differences can’t be reconciled on the dollar with simple math.

There is however a field of expertise that deals directly with the challenges of government… it’s called law and there’s a reason why around the world the most common candidates for government office are experts in law, not experts in business.

For those who are still not convinced. Let me also point out that transparency only exists in the public sector. That means that in government we see all the ugliness and the competition between politicians will make sure of it. On the other hand, in the private sector, the ugliness is none of our business. So just because we see more ugliness in government doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also exist in the private sector. With the private sector being so… private, it’s hard to make meaningful comparisons but there are some clues out there, such as the debt statistics.

So it’s not surprising that these 103 Trump supporters would expose such misconceptions as a basis for their support. But it’s concerning because we are all sharing the same republic and until voters start wising up, they will continue to elect bad politicians and perpetuate their frustrations.

I for one am not as sick and tired of bad politicians as I am the people who keep voting for them

 

 

 

 

 

I wish more people understood that the U.S. Constitution is not the top-level law of the land. In fact, it doesn’t even apply to the people at all. The top-level law that applies to the people is a completely different set of rules called the U.S. Code. This enormous set of laws is established and enforced by the government and applies to the people. In other words, the U.S. Code contains laws that WE have to follow. The Constitution is the reverse… a minimal set of laws that the GOVERNMENT has to follow… Not the people… the government.

So when hate speech is shut down by a private school it is NOT a violation of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment, because a private school is NOT part of the government and therefore NOT obligated to the Constitution. Nor is it a violation of the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment when a restaurant insists on a “no firearms policy” because the restaurant is NOT part of the government either. Same thing for bakeries and flower shops that reserve a right to refuse service based on bigotry.

So… when people advocate smaller government and more privatization they are effectively advocating a weaker constitution by shifting matters into private hands with no obligation to the rights established in the Constitution. The oligarchs won’t tell you this because the oligarchs want better control over you without interference from the Constitution.

Just, something to think about

Some politicians have been suggesting that they can end birthright citizenship. Other’s say that would be a direct violation of the 14th amendment which says… “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the specific State wherein they reside.”

Trump has suggested that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is an escape clause based on the premise that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I find this ironic because it’s the jurisdiction of the United States that determines their legal status in the first place.

 

25. July 2018 · Categories: Analysis, Politics



 

Back in 2013 I posted a short opinion on the IRS scandal that was making headlines at the time, basically pointing out how ridiculous it is to call it a scandal at all. My basic argument then was that if political groups were trying to cheat on their taxes by applying for shelters that the law specifically states are not for political groups then the IRS is just doing it’s job.

I was amazed at the fact that while everyone involved admitted this was happening, conservatives nevertheless tried to create the narrative that they were being unfairly victimized. The basis for this rhetoric was that more conservative groups were being cited than liberal groups, which sounds a lot like the kid who was caught stealing a bike coming up with the excuse that other kids do it too so why is HE being victimized and not them? It was fucking stupid and it didn’t stop there.

House Republicans actually wanted to press charges for unfair treatment. Nice precedence… while we’re at it, let’s give convicted felons the right to sue their prosecutors for catching them and not the others criminals that got away. And if that wasn’t enough, the rabid-right was already pushing for Obama’s impeachment, saying that he must have known about the “scandal”.

Anyway, since I posted that opinion several investigations into the IRS came up empty-handed. James Comey, who led the FBI investigation told Fox News in 2016 that no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of “enemy hunting. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. This was later enforced by an exhaustive report from the Treasury Department in September 2017 that shows from 2004 to 2013 the IRS was scrutinizing groups on all sides of the political spectrum. It turns out that more conservative groups were being caught simply because more conservative groups were cheating. Go figure.

At the time, I thought this was finally put to bed, at least legally. I knew that socially, entrenched conservatives would continue to prop the illusion; something I’ve come to learn doesn’t depend on facts as much as it does manufactured outrage.

But then in October of 2017, the Trump Administration, in a show of unbelievable partisanship, actually agreed to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 400 of those cheating conservative groups who claimed to be discriminated against for an undisclosed amount described by plaintiffs’ counsel as “very substantial”. That’s our tax money by the way, being awarded to tax-cheaters. Trump also settled a second lawsuit brought by 41 additional tax-cheating conservative groups with an apology and an admission that subjecting them to “heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays” was wrongful. I noticed there are no lawsuits from liberal groups.

Seriously, I can’t even imagine a more obvious capitulation to crime. First break the law, then sue the government for catching you, then get awarded by a corrupt president. Welcome to right-wing politics, I guess.

 

28. June 2018 · Categories: Analysis, Politics

Our republic is now in dire distress. I’m not just being dramatic about my distaste for Trump. This has been a long time coming. America has been in economic decline since we started hitting our resource peaks in the late 70’s but instead of working together as a nation to manage the problems, a class of plutocrats have devised a rhetorical division between Americans in which both sides blame the other for “destroying America” while the plutocrats themselves quietly cannibalize the republic for their private gains.

Not all Americans were fooled.

For three decades a class of politically educated Americans have held the plutocrats accountable but the plutocracy itself has responded by turning up their influence on less politically educated Americans through a steady stream of misinformation and emotional fever. As a result, enough of our population has become so agitated and delusional over the years that our democracy has literally become toxic. Trump is not only a result of this toxicity, but a symptom of later stages of this national sickness where developments like fascism have now become viable options for a power-hungry executive. Indeed, the current president has been fully engaged in efforts to infect the citizens with enough frenzy to completely disconnected them from the values that our republic was founded on.

Many of you will disagree with me, but I urge you to put aside your obsessions with demonized personalities and hateful stereotypes just for a moment and look at some of the boring details that never make it into mainstream media. Boring details like the actual changes in the law and actual rulings of the federal courts. These boring details are the real threat to Americans. So, be a sport and trade in one hour of Sean Hannity’s ranting for one hour of reading actual laws as they are written, or the opinions of the Supreme Court that explains their decisions. Try to understand them, not just whether or not the “other side” lost a battle, but how these decisions will actually impact YOU and your family.

For example, the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows companies to force workers to sign arbitration agreements. This 5-4 ruling means that as of now, a worker who signs such an agreement (in order to get the job) can’t take his employer to court for violating labor laws. That means a company CAN violate labor laws and the workers can’t do anything about it. As if that isn’t enough, the ruling also says that workers can no longer leverage collective bargaining in any arbitration case, effectively repealing the National Labor Relations Act that has been protecting workers since 1935. It doesn’t stop there… Congress also just killed a bill to protect consumers from forced arbitration regarding commercial contracts like bank accounts. This one was so questionable that Trump had to send Pence in to break the stalemate on the Senate floor.

Arbitration is essentially the privatization of justice. What we need to understand is that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to the private sector. So that means that this privatized justice is literally cutting Americans off from the protection of the U.S. Constitution.

Now, to those who have ranted dramatically for years that the Constitution is being “destroyed”, may I remind you that the document hasn’t been touched since the 27th Amendment in 1992. But cutting people off from the  protection of the Constitution is actually happening right here, right now. So, let me ask you; how is the effect of cutting people off from the protection of the Constitution any different than destroying it?

Privatizing justice is only one example of the extreme behaviour of the current government… NONE of which is normal. I have never felt the situation was dire enough to hang the flag upside down. That is changing now and come this Independence Day, that is what I will be doing.


Last night I couldn’t help but notice how the evening commentaries were ripping up Sarah Palin for misunderstanding the job description of the vice presidential office. In answer to a question by a nine year old boy, Sarah Palin said… “They’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes…”

Well, before writing her off as an idiot, let’s at least pay attention to Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S.Constitution, which states…


“Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”

According to the Senate Rules, presiding over the Senate means keeping order, so in one sense, you could say Palin was correct, that the Vice President is “in charge” of the Senate, at least while presiding, but that doesn’t suggest the kind of influence over actual legislation that Palin seemed to be implying. In fact, most Vice Presidents in the past have spent very little time presiding over the Senate, leaving that role to the President pro tempore, who presides over the Senate in absence of the Vice President, or if the Vice President assumes the office of President of the United States. In practice, freshman senators are traditionally assigned to this role in order to learn Senate procedure, which suggests a somewhat inert position. There is only one other constitutionally mandated duty of the Vice President and that is to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates “in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,” so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1). Once again, there is no actual vote or decision making in this role either, just procedure.

Perhaps…


So while it’s safe to say that our standing laws don’t really give as much power to the Vice President over the senate as Palin may have been suggesting, that doesn’t mean the office won’t develop significant power under direction from the President of the United States, which is another point that Palin brings up constantly. Historically, the role played by the Vice President varies dramatically from one administration to the next and if we look at the current administration we will notice a Vice President that many feel has more influence over the direction of the country than the President himself.

Vice President Dick Cheney hasn’t exactly been a passive standby and much of his role as Vice President has been developed as a product of his own character. In fact he has used his constitutional link to the Senate as an effective political weapon…

According to documents released in June of 2007 by a House committee, Cheney made the claim that because he is the president of the Senate, his office is not fully part of the Bush administration, but is also part of the legislative branch, therefore exempting his office from a presidential order regulating federal agencies’ handling of classified national security information. This move effectively blocked the on-site inspection of his office by National Archives’ Information Security Oversight Office, who in response said that the Vice President’s failure to demonstrate that his office has proper security safeguards in place could jeopardize the government’s top secrets. At least one of those inspections would have come at a particularly delicate time – when Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and other aides were under criminal investigation for their suspected roles in leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Cheney’s executive decision

So standing rules aside, we need to realize that the “flexibility” that Palin keeps talking about in reference to the office of the Vice President could be a significant political factor and as Cheney has already proven, an effective route for diabolical agendas.

I’ve always been intrigued with conceptual maps. These cartograms provide an interesting look at how evenly balanced America is between Republican and Democratic votes in the 2004 Election. They were briefly showcased on CNN and I immediately searched the web for them. The map below represents the nation, with the size of the states proportional to their population and of course red representing electoral votes in favor of Bush and blue representing electoral votes in favor of Kerry.

Diving even further into the details, the creators of these cartograms developed another view of the nation, this time county by county where the size of each county is proportional to their population. Another difference is that instead of dismissing the popular votes that did not win the electorial votes, all the votes are accounted for providing a more accurate picture of how America voted. This is done by blending the red and blue for each county according to the relative voter stregnth of both sides.


Source = Maps and cartograms of the 2004 US presidential election results.

Another web site
developed by Robert J. Vanderbei at Princeton provides some interesting maps for visualizing similar patterns.

Continuing with my analysis of the National Security Strategy document…

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

In my last post on this subject,

National Security Strategy (part 1),

I got only as far as the first paragraph and was struck by the rhetorical use of the word “freedom” so I dedicated the post to this opening paragraph alone. I questioned the liberal but unqualified use of the term in defining a critical policy that effectively serves as license to use the most powerful forces in the world to achieve it’s objectives. The burning question is – freedom for who? As far as I can tell, the National Security Strategy makes no attempt to answer this question.

The paragraphs that follow, making up the rest of the strategy overview, contain more buzzwords designed to evoke emotional support for the policy while being vague enough for clever interpretations should any party of influence decide to bend the document to suit their desires. The overview introduces the notion that this is a new century requiring new rules, but already the document uses questionable language to set the stage.

“For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality.”

Obviously, this line was meant to build up sympathy for the side we commonly associate with freedom and equality – us. Still, this battle of ideas, or as many refer to it, the battle of “isms” was actually a little less clear on issues of freedom and equality. As Bill Emmott, Chief Editor for the Economist, in his book 2020 Vision puts it, “Marxism and its adaptations, Leninism and Maoism were said to be up against liberal, democratic capitalism in it’s various forms.” Emmott continues to explain, “An egalitarian ideology, rejecting private property and the profit motive and enforced by totalitarian methods, confronted an ideology of inequality made acceptable by freedom, democracy and private property.” Already you can see the discrepancies. Did the US fight for freedom AND equality or just the freedom that makes inequality acceptable?

This question pops up before we even move beyond the realm of ideas and into the real events of the 20th century where the inequalities of democratic capitalism were often enforced by US supported dictators and industrial protectionism and the visions of Marxism were most often replaced by whatever policies, suited the totalitarian authorities of communist states. In reality, the battle was between power centers and the ideas were mere symbols, good for rhetoric but otherwise inherit. Really, this line in the National Security Strategy document is no more informative than if it referred to the great struggle as one between the “good guys” and the “bad guys”.

The overview continues with a description of the current situation where, the “good guys” have won the battle of ideas, but there are still the “embittered few” – “bad guys” that continue to pose an unacceptable threat.

“We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends.”

The comparison between old threats presented by fleets and armies and new threats presented by the potentials of WMD seem very straightforward and hard to argue with, but this is a time where internally our nation seems more divided than ever and externally, our ties with our allies and friends seem more stressed than ever. Again, my point being that this language is very generalized and open to interpretation. When the authors and supporters of this strategy refer to the threats to our nation, are they referring to the threats to the people of our nation or do they really mean something else? The document continues…

“The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests…”

Maybe a good idea to understand then, what our values and our national interests are. With any luck, they may have something to do with American people. OK so I’m being a little cynical, but why do I get this feeling that our national interests and values are determined more by lucrative agreements than by moral integrity? In any case, these values and national interests don’t seem to be defined anywhere in the document and leaving it up to our interpretation may be a problem considering our national incoherency. Just take a look at American voters as we draw close to the 2004 elections. As a nation, we can’t seem to agree on what our national interests and values are. I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing. In fact I think quite the opposite – disagreement is a privilege enjoyed only by democracies with a reverence for freedom. All the more reason to be specific about what values and interests a national security strategy is designed to support.

“The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity.”

That’s the aim? …To make the world “not just safer but better”? Safer for who? Better in what way? Political and economic freedom for who? Are these unreasonable questions to ask? After Indonesians in the province of Aceh protested the Mobil Oil Corporation’s economic freedom to destroy their environment, literally destroying their homes, crops and water supply, Mobil asked their commercial partner, the Indonesian government to suppress their protests, which the government did by literally slaughtering them**. Does that count as part of the struggle for “economic freedom”?

Is our warning to all the sovereign nations of the world that they should choose sides in a global war an example of “peaceful relations with other states”? And are the prisoners locked up without trial in Guantanimo or humiliated in Abu Ghraib an example of “human dignity”? Are all of these things necessary? I’m not saying they are – I’m not saying they aren’t. I’m just saying the language of the document is too vague and from my humble perspective it doesn’t really seem to reflect our actions either.

This document can easily be described as a license for our government to attack anyone it wants to. The qualifications are vague and interpretive and the reasoning is just as vague. Personally, I think we should insure our national defense and as the most powerful nation in the world we should make efforts to protect the liberties and welfare of people around the world. I think most Americans feel this way.

* Indonesia’s state-owned oil monopoly, Pertamina, holds a controlling 55 percent stake of Arun while Mobil owns 35 percent.

**
http://acehnet.tripod.com/mobil.htm