Monday, July 03, 2006
FINALLY!
Finally some pundits are saying the same thing I've been saying for five years. The so-called war on terrorism is pure nonsense. After reading an editorial in the Washington Post about how Congress needs to create laws to legalize the so-called war, I really blew my top.
Let There Be Law
It's not that the editorial is completely wrong, it just does what everyone has been doing these past five years, buying into the propaganda that the "war on terror" is the greatest threat we have ever faced. Anyone who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis know that this is pure manure. (Heck, climate change is probably our greatest threat right now, because - like the nuclear threat - it has the potential to destroy us all at some unpredictable time in the next few years.) This is not to minimize the real pain and suffering of those affected by terrorist acts (which are no doubt horrible beyond reckoning), but let's keep our threat assessments in perspective.
In addition to writing to the Post, here's what I wrote to my Congressional Delegation yesterday about this:
"Terrorism is a tactic that has been used by individual humans and small groups for 10,000 or more years to try to attain power either illegitimately or through the desperation of oppression. We cannot fight a conventional war of armed forces against it. Therefore, we have an opportunity to both learn from the parts of the world that suffer terrorism and cope with it constructively and democratically, and to learn that we don't want perpetrate the cycle of violence using armed forces ineffectively. As we see in places like Iraq and Israel, that simply makes a victim of everyone.
"Our framers and other lawmakers of this country and the world, including the creators of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, have already created a framework from which, even when we faced mutually assured nuclear annihilation with the USSR, nations at risk found successful ways to mitigate terrorism....
"To suggest "there should be a law" ignores these laws, which are failing only because they have not been applied by anyone other than the Supreme Court. We must also remember they are there to protect OUR troops. Every member of Congress who has served will tell you when we abide by laws of humane treatment, our troops are less likely to be kidnapped, tortured and burned to death. Congress must create laws by working with those who can develop a strategy outside the current military box, using unconventional and humane forces and methods. We must combine those efforts with economic justice, because madrassas are far fewer in countries where people are not dying of starvation or being chased by militias or warlords on horseback with machetes....
"It's time to declare the war on terror over and begin the Quest for Peace. So many positive things are possible. And the saddest thing is there are a lot of smart people who could help to make these things happen, if you would only let us help you. But YOU need the political will to empower the nation help you with these goals and the political will to redistribute government wealth [our tax dollars] equitably. [e.g., Cutting DOD in half by ridding it of waste and cronyism. Don't let anyone from K Street darken the doorstep. Stop global poverty. etc. And everyone should be paying attention to Warren Buffet right now. He understands the responsibilities and obligations of wealth in a capitalist democracy.]
"Basically you need the political will to use good old-fashioned COMMON SENSE." At which point, I reminded them of Thomas Paine.
Anyway, a couple of good pieces are out there now where the threat is placed in proper perspective:
The Myth of Terrorism, Part Deux
The New American Cold War
Returning to "Common Sense," Will Pitt has a couple of good commentaries in time for Independence Day:
When I Paint My Masterpiece
This is an excellent assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of our system, dating back to land-owning white men writing our Charters. Don't get me wrong, I respect and study our Charters as much as any Constitutional scholar, and accounting for the historical context, consider them genius. But they have the flaws that exist in anything done by humans, no matter how progressive or intelligent they may be. (And our founders were both.)
I would correct Will on one point. The idea of the Sovereign People (that is, the People are in charge, via a representative Congress, there is no King or Prime Minister, and the executive's duties were limited to prevent monarchy) was "discovered" by Ben Franklin in discussions with the tribes of the Anishnabek Confederation (the Algonquin Peoples) - sometimes called the "Iroquois League" after one of the nations in the confederation. Will mistakenly says that it was a concept never before seen in the world, but was actually quite common among many traditional, indigenous peoples with sophisticated systems of governance. Check Out:
ALGONKIN HISTORY
Will rightly comments, however, that this was the first time the concept had been tried among developed nations. Which is also one of the deficits of our system. It is built on the 18th century patriarchal paradigm of "western civilization," including concerns about mob rule, thereby giving only the elites access to the system. These white male landowners were bound intellectually by Enlightenment thinking, demographics, travel constraints, etc. And for all their genius and relative progressivism, that kind of thinking is very, very different than our thinking and our paradigms today.
Keep in mind also that the founders were mindful of the French, who had started a bloody revolution between the "common people" and the monarchy and that a similar revolution occurred right in the UK only 100 years earlier. So elitist thinking (which was not evil then as it is now, just the way it was) and influences floated right on down through the Civil War, the Reconstruction, the Robber Baron era (when a legally suspect SCOTUS decision essentially claimed corporations have the same rights as individuals, which Will describes at length), and the ultimately to the point where the elite fight tooth and nail to hold that money equals speech.
So explain me this: If money equals speech, does that mean that the Gates and Buffets of the country have multi-billions worth of speech, while the average American only has about 25 grand worth? If so, explain to me how that is democratic.
It isn't. It's a very ugly aspect of fascism. (Speaking of which, there's a good piece on that issue, "The F-Word.")
This is why it is up to progressives and populists to do what our Abolishionist brothers and sisters, our Suffragette sisters, and our Civil Rights brothers and sisters have done before us: Make the Constitution apply to the country as it existed for the current time, not as it was in the 18th century.
The founders did one thing especially well: They created the framework with the full understanding that as society changed, the Constitution would have to be amended to work within the changing paradigms of society. The Constitution is a living document.
And now it's time to get money out of the system and prohibitions on money into the Constitution. I write about this and about the limits of executive power at length on my other blog. (See the links at the right.) (We also need additional provisions for grassroots oversight and procedures for the People to make direct changes when the system isn't working. Again, discussed in my other blog.)
Will also takes on Cheney in "A Moment of Pause."
He lists the crimes of this administration succinctly, then comments drily, "So much of this, in the end, has been about Dick Cheney being annoyed by Watergate." Indeed. I think most of us who knew the players and paid attention to what they were doing - to the extent their secretiveness (a red flag in itself) allowed us - knew that this was the kingmaker's agenda, but it's finally getting a hearing in the wider media, such as the PBS Frontline program, "The Dark Side," about which I think I've written in a recent post. All I know is when Campaign Manager Cheney announced that he had decided that he was the best candidate for VP in 2000, a lot of us knew we were in for trouble. A cold war maniac who started his career with Nixon and floated around in secretive think tanks between Repug administrations was a recipe for disaster. Not to mention his penchant for hiring friends for the good positions. (This administration wouldn't know how to conduct an executive committee job search if a human resources executive specialist slapped them upside the head.) And then, of course, there's the continuing salary from Halliburton....
Would Clinton have gotton away with this sh*t?
At any rate, all of this is good reading if you'd like to remind yourself why we celebrate Independence Day. And while you're at it, go to my other blog and use the links there to get yourself a copy of the Declaration of Independence (part of the Charters of Freedom). When you get to the "Offences" section, read it very carefully and insert "Bush and Cheney" wherever it refers to the King. And then think about whether the offenses listed apply to our country today (hint: they do), and what we need to do if we want to regain the country our forebears fought and died to create. Can we drop the same kind of gauntlet our framers dropped when they asked Jefferson to write the Declaration and distribute it to all the newspapers?
Will our forebears have died in vain, or will we preserve their legacy and make the U.S.A. once again the lighted city on the hill, a hope for all other nations?
It's up to us, we're in charge. We are the Sovereign People and we do not have a king. Those overpaid used-car salesmen on K Street attempt to undermine our authority (which is why they need to be kicked out of Washington), but we are still in charge. We are the bosses, and in November, we'll be making important hiring and firing decisions. Don't squander your right to do this, it's one of the few we still have short of a new revolution. And I don't think any of us want that, because our Constitutional right and tradition of peaceable assembly is too important to us.
Have a good holiday, and consider making it a true Independence Day.
Let There Be Law
It's not that the editorial is completely wrong, it just does what everyone has been doing these past five years, buying into the propaganda that the "war on terror" is the greatest threat we have ever faced. Anyone who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis know that this is pure manure. (Heck, climate change is probably our greatest threat right now, because - like the nuclear threat - it has the potential to destroy us all at some unpredictable time in the next few years.) This is not to minimize the real pain and suffering of those affected by terrorist acts (which are no doubt horrible beyond reckoning), but let's keep our threat assessments in perspective.
In addition to writing to the Post, here's what I wrote to my Congressional Delegation yesterday about this:
"Terrorism is a tactic that has been used by individual humans and small groups for 10,000 or more years to try to attain power either illegitimately or through the desperation of oppression. We cannot fight a conventional war of armed forces against it. Therefore, we have an opportunity to both learn from the parts of the world that suffer terrorism and cope with it constructively and democratically, and to learn that we don't want perpetrate the cycle of violence using armed forces ineffectively. As we see in places like Iraq and Israel, that simply makes a victim of everyone.
"Our framers and other lawmakers of this country and the world, including the creators of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, have already created a framework from which, even when we faced mutually assured nuclear annihilation with the USSR, nations at risk found successful ways to mitigate terrorism....
"To suggest "there should be a law" ignores these laws, which are failing only because they have not been applied by anyone other than the Supreme Court. We must also remember they are there to protect OUR troops. Every member of Congress who has served will tell you when we abide by laws of humane treatment, our troops are less likely to be kidnapped, tortured and burned to death. Congress must create laws by working with those who can develop a strategy outside the current military box, using unconventional and humane forces and methods. We must combine those efforts with economic justice, because madrassas are far fewer in countries where people are not dying of starvation or being chased by militias or warlords on horseback with machetes....
"It's time to declare the war on terror over and begin the Quest for Peace. So many positive things are possible. And the saddest thing is there are a lot of smart people who could help to make these things happen, if you would only let us help you. But YOU need the political will to empower the nation help you with these goals and the political will to redistribute government wealth [our tax dollars] equitably. [e.g., Cutting DOD in half by ridding it of waste and cronyism. Don't let anyone from K Street darken the doorstep. Stop global poverty. etc. And everyone should be paying attention to Warren Buffet right now. He understands the responsibilities and obligations of wealth in a capitalist democracy.]
"Basically you need the political will to use good old-fashioned COMMON SENSE." At which point, I reminded them of Thomas Paine.
Anyway, a couple of good pieces are out there now where the threat is placed in proper perspective:
The Myth of Terrorism, Part Deux
The New American Cold War
Returning to "Common Sense," Will Pitt has a couple of good commentaries in time for Independence Day:
When I Paint My Masterpiece
This is an excellent assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of our system, dating back to land-owning white men writing our Charters. Don't get me wrong, I respect and study our Charters as much as any Constitutional scholar, and accounting for the historical context, consider them genius. But they have the flaws that exist in anything done by humans, no matter how progressive or intelligent they may be. (And our founders were both.)
I would correct Will on one point. The idea of the Sovereign People (that is, the People are in charge, via a representative Congress, there is no King or Prime Minister, and the executive's duties were limited to prevent monarchy) was "discovered" by Ben Franklin in discussions with the tribes of the Anishnabek Confederation (the Algonquin Peoples) - sometimes called the "Iroquois League" after one of the nations in the confederation. Will mistakenly says that it was a concept never before seen in the world, but was actually quite common among many traditional, indigenous peoples with sophisticated systems of governance. Check Out:
ALGONKIN HISTORY
Will rightly comments, however, that this was the first time the concept had been tried among developed nations. Which is also one of the deficits of our system. It is built on the 18th century patriarchal paradigm of "western civilization," including concerns about mob rule, thereby giving only the elites access to the system. These white male landowners were bound intellectually by Enlightenment thinking, demographics, travel constraints, etc. And for all their genius and relative progressivism, that kind of thinking is very, very different than our thinking and our paradigms today.
Keep in mind also that the founders were mindful of the French, who had started a bloody revolution between the "common people" and the monarchy and that a similar revolution occurred right in the UK only 100 years earlier. So elitist thinking (which was not evil then as it is now, just the way it was) and influences floated right on down through the Civil War, the Reconstruction, the Robber Baron era (when a legally suspect SCOTUS decision essentially claimed corporations have the same rights as individuals, which Will describes at length), and the ultimately to the point where the elite fight tooth and nail to hold that money equals speech.
So explain me this: If money equals speech, does that mean that the Gates and Buffets of the country have multi-billions worth of speech, while the average American only has about 25 grand worth? If so, explain to me how that is democratic.
It isn't. It's a very ugly aspect of fascism. (Speaking of which, there's a good piece on that issue, "The F-Word.")
This is why it is up to progressives and populists to do what our Abolishionist brothers and sisters, our Suffragette sisters, and our Civil Rights brothers and sisters have done before us: Make the Constitution apply to the country as it existed for the current time, not as it was in the 18th century.
The founders did one thing especially well: They created the framework with the full understanding that as society changed, the Constitution would have to be amended to work within the changing paradigms of society. The Constitution is a living document.
And now it's time to get money out of the system and prohibitions on money into the Constitution. I write about this and about the limits of executive power at length on my other blog. (See the links at the right.) (We also need additional provisions for grassroots oversight and procedures for the People to make direct changes when the system isn't working. Again, discussed in my other blog.)
Will also takes on Cheney in "A Moment of Pause."
He lists the crimes of this administration succinctly, then comments drily, "So much of this, in the end, has been about Dick Cheney being annoyed by Watergate." Indeed. I think most of us who knew the players and paid attention to what they were doing - to the extent their secretiveness (a red flag in itself) allowed us - knew that this was the kingmaker's agenda, but it's finally getting a hearing in the wider media, such as the PBS Frontline program, "The Dark Side," about which I think I've written in a recent post. All I know is when Campaign Manager Cheney announced that he had decided that he was the best candidate for VP in 2000, a lot of us knew we were in for trouble. A cold war maniac who started his career with Nixon and floated around in secretive think tanks between Repug administrations was a recipe for disaster. Not to mention his penchant for hiring friends for the good positions. (This administration wouldn't know how to conduct an executive committee job search if a human resources executive specialist slapped them upside the head.) And then, of course, there's the continuing salary from Halliburton....
Would Clinton have gotton away with this sh*t?
At any rate, all of this is good reading if you'd like to remind yourself why we celebrate Independence Day. And while you're at it, go to my other blog and use the links there to get yourself a copy of the Declaration of Independence (part of the Charters of Freedom). When you get to the "Offences" section, read it very carefully and insert "Bush and Cheney" wherever it refers to the King. And then think about whether the offenses listed apply to our country today (hint: they do), and what we need to do if we want to regain the country our forebears fought and died to create. Can we drop the same kind of gauntlet our framers dropped when they asked Jefferson to write the Declaration and distribute it to all the newspapers?
Will our forebears have died in vain, or will we preserve their legacy and make the U.S.A. once again the lighted city on the hill, a hope for all other nations?
It's up to us, we're in charge. We are the Sovereign People and we do not have a king. Those overpaid used-car salesmen on K Street attempt to undermine our authority (which is why they need to be kicked out of Washington), but we are still in charge. We are the bosses, and in November, we'll be making important hiring and firing decisions. Don't squander your right to do this, it's one of the few we still have short of a new revolution. And I don't think any of us want that, because our Constitutional right and tradition of peaceable assembly is too important to us.
Have a good holiday, and consider making it a true Independence Day.
Comments:
Post a Comment
