democracy is earned

a friend of mine sent me this cartoon- and i had to share. in the interest of full disclosure, i have not been following the news closely about anything lately. i generally skim the headlines and read what interests me. but i have kept up with the headlines on iran. i do not know the culture intimately- what i have learned comes from a couple of blog buddies of iranian descent and national geographic. what i do know is, the persian people are strong and resilient. they have resisted losing their sense of self and their cultural identity- they are proud to be persian.

i don't know that the same can be said for americans. we lost any cultural identity we had to strip malls and fast food joints a long time ago. we turned into self centered, perpetual scared, sheeple with a 'lord/lady of the manor' attitude- we delegate and pay for people to do things for us. well, this is just proof positive that you can't outsource or pay for democracy. we would do well to follow the iranian model- and apologize for calling them part of the 'axis of evil'- if we would have been smart 60 years ago- we would have left their democracy intact. i don't think that they have ever quite gotten over the fact that we meddled in their government then- and i really have a feeling folks should understand that it was us who mucked things up in the middle east. not the middle eastern folks.
"

Abuse Of Power And Police/Security Agencies: There They Go Again

Here's one more example of what can, will and do happens when we turn a blind eye to granting indiscriminate powers to police and security agencies:

Read More +/-

Phoenix police raid a blogger

In what should send a frightening chill down the spine of every blogger, writer, journalist and First Amendment advocate in the United States, Phoenix police raided the home of a blogger who has been highly critical of the department.

Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops, said the officers confiscated three computers, routers, modems, hard drives, memory cards and everything necessary to continue blogging.

The 41-year-old software engineer said they also confiscated numerous personal files and documents relating to a pending lawsuit he has against the department alleging harassment - which he says makes it obvious the raid was an act of retaliation.

I've told you so, didn't I?

Any questions?

Then try this one for size:

No more freedom of the Internet.

That's right - and it is coming sooner than later indeed:

Cybersecurity Act would give president power to 'shut down' Internet

A recently proposed but little-noticed Senate bill would allow the federal government to shut down the Internet in times of declared emergency, and enables unprecedented federal oversight of private network administration.

The bill's draft states that "the president may order a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic" and would give the government ongoing access to "all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access."

Authored by Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 seeks to create a Cybersecurity Czar to centralize power now held by the Pentagon, National Security Agency, Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security.

While the White House has not officially endorsed the draft, it did have a hand in its language, according to The Washington Post.

Paging China, paging China ...

Ah, the things people are willing to do/accept in the name of Holy Security.

Q.E.D. - once again.

And so it goes ...

(Addendum: although China pledged to improve human rights, allow me to remain skeptical - just as I have become quite skeptical of anything President Obama says concerning civil rights. As but one example among many, take the time to contrast this (or this) with that (or that) - you'll then better understand my point.)

Thus I repeat: any questions?

AMERICA IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC (not a democracy)

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican; should the judicial review be maximized.

John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.

Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."

The notion of the constitutional republic originates with Aristotle's Politicsa possible fifth type of government called the polity. He contrasts the polity of republican government with democracy and oligarchy in book 3, chapter 6 of Politics. Polity, in the general descriptive sense, can refer to the political organizational system that is being used by a particular group, be it a tribe, a city-state, an empire, a corporation, etc.

In Aristotle's second, more specific sense of the word, he envisioned a polity to be a combination of what he thought were the best characteristics of oligarchy (rule by the wealthy) and democracy (rule by the poor). The polity government would be ruled by the many in the best interests of the country. and his notion of Oligarchies favored the wealthy members of society and featured elected leadership positions. Democracies favored the poor and middle-class members, of which there are usually greater numbers, and had features such as legislative assemblies open to citizens of voting age. When taken to heart, so to speak, and used correctly, the polity form of government would be the most ideal government possible, thought Aristotle, because it could take input from community members of all levels and rule fairly in the interests of the whole community and not just the majority.

The Most Serene Republic of San Marino, a tiny country entirely surrounded by Italy, is the oldest constitutional republic in the world, having been founded on 3 September 301 by Marinus of Rab, a Christian stonemason fleeing the religious persecution of Roman Emperor Diocletian. San Marino's constitution, dating back to 1600, is the world's oldest written constitution still in effect.

Constitutional republics were first advocated in the 18th and 19th centuries by classical liberals, who were engaged at the time in a political and ideological conflict against conservative supporters of traditional monarchy.constitutional republics have entered the political mainstream and have gathered the support of many other ideologies in addition to liberalism.
Political debate on the issue of constitutional republicanism has largely subsided. Since the beginning of the 20th century.

The United States of America is the second oldest constitutional republic in the world after San Marino. According to James Woodburn, in The American Republic and Its Government, "the constitutional republic with its limitations on popular government is clearly involved in the United States Constitution, as seen in the election of the President, the election of the Senate and the appointment of the Supreme Court." That is, the ability of the people to choose officials in government is checked by not allowing them to elect Supreme Court justices-- however in reality, such justices are appointed by the popularly elected president, and approved by the popularly-elected Senate. Woodburn says that in a republic, as distinguished from a democracy, the people are not only checked in choosing officials but also in making laws.

A Bill of Rights exists in the U.S. Constitution which protects certain individual rights. The individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights cannot be voted away by the majority of citizens if they wished to oppress a minority who does not agree with the restrictions on liberty that they wish to impose. To eliminate these rights would require government officials overcoming constitutional checks as well as a two-thirds majority vote of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States in order to amend the Constitution.

However, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others, held that the federal government was not the sole or final judge of its own authority, holding that this would "make it, and not the Constitution, the judge of its powers." Rather, in the Virginia Resolutions, the Kentucky Resolutions and elsewhere, various individuals stipulated that the people of the individual states were the final check on federal power to ensure compliance with the Constitution, holding that the people of any given state had the final power to "interpose" for the purpose of maintaining the Constitution against federal abuses thereof.

Though a constitutional republic is not a pure democracy it necessarily has some democratic elements, such as ability of the people to elect a president (in the U.S. the majority of the population is checked here too, as popular vote of the people does not necessarily decide the winner).

Nations where the head of state is not elected, as in a monarchy, as not elected but has a parliament with elected representatives that govern according to constitutional law protecting individual rights are called constitutional democratic monarchy). Both are considered liberal democracies because they have protect individual liberty from majority and minority forces, while retaining some democratic elements. Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."

_____________________________________________________

It is not that it is merely a convenience

in our constitutional republic

that we have the freedom

to have our voices heard above the god-awful din,

it is imperative that we speak,

it is our job!

Stand up and be counted!

Dissent against injustice!

Utilize our rights to petition!

For if we do not,

the taste of apathy,

the feel of tyranny,

and the sight of empire

will bring us to our unconcerned knees...

Just because we now, after eight looonnnng years, have a leader that speaks well, with logical reasoning skills and with an obvious intelligence and grace, doesn't mean it is time to allow indifference to rule our lives.

It is, in my opinion, our job, our responsibility,

to make sure our voices are heard.

President Obama seems to be listening!

He seems to want to hear us!

He seems to have a vision!

He seems to have a plan!

He seems to want our help!

Let us not look a gift-horse in the mouth...

Let us lead it where we need be taken!

... And So Here We Are - Yet Again

Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil - the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Indeed - the way things are already going in 2009, and regardless that we are fast approaching the so-called "New Dawn" which many folks apparently await breathlessly and which is supposed to occur following Barack Obama's inauguration, I just don't see how anything will change for the better by the time we reach 2010 ... or 2020 ... or even 2050, for that matter.

Here's why ...


1) Despite living in democracies, with all the rights and privileges this entails, we remain all-too-lazy to actually exercize our duty, our responsibility, as citizens and therefore fail to register and/or cast our vote - regardless of the stakes and whether we acknowledge said stakes or not. Cases in point:

U.S. Nov. 2008 general elections: only 56.8% of the voting-age population (i.e. all residents age 18 and older) voted - despite the obvious stakes. If you prefer taking into account only those who actually registered to vote (i.e. "vote-eligible" population), then you get a "whopping" 61.6% turnout rate - who would've thunk that this election was, you know, crucial for the future of the U.S.?

Canada Oct. 2008 general elections: only 59.1% of the vote-eligible population (i.e. registered voters) turned out to vote. Typical excuses heard for such a low turnout? "A ho-hum campaign", "uninspiring party leaders", and/or "no important stakes involved" (yes - and let's forget about the economy already worsening then, among other things, eh?).

Québec Dec. 2008 elections: only 57.4% of registered voters turned out to vote. Typical excuses heard for such a low turnout? "Too soon after the federal elections", "these elections were not necessary", "bad weather", and/or "no important stakes involved" (again yes - let's forget about the economy already at one of its lowest points then, among other things ...).

In short, our democracies are far from being healthy. Any excuse not to vote, let alone register, is a good one. In the meantime, those who actually care about such a dire state of affairs tend to dwell upon making voting easier, or making voting more accessible, or reducing voter lines by opening more voting polls, etc., etc., etc.

In the end, these, as well as intense time and effort in driving voter turnout from the grassroots, inevitably fall short - being as effective as applying band aids in trying to stem the loss of blood from a gaping wound. Why is that so? Because the actual root of the problem remains largely unaddressed. Acknowledged? Maybe, by some. But is anything ever done to actually resolve such a critical problem which keeps on eating away at our democracies? Any long-term plan and significant investment of time and effort to at least begin to resolve this problem? Nope. Nada. Zip.

You can't save a dying tree by doing everything in order to keep the leaves and branches healthy, when the tree is actually rotting from the roots. And as long as we refrain from fully realizing and understanding this verity, our democracies will keep on slowly - but surely - rotting away.


2) A large part of the "root problem" of our democracies remains our failing education systems:

The purpose of the educational reforms of the last 25-30 years in our modern societies will have had as the primary goal to make education less strict and authoritative, and rather more motivating, enriching and inclusive. That in itself is all well and good. Unfortunately, the reforms put in practice over these years will have brought us to the present situation whereby intellectual sloth is not only encouraged but, even more so, actually rewarded. Indeed, any effort that is slightly substantial is regarded as being incompatible with the cognitive development of a child (or of an adolescent) and, still worse, with the blooming of those who have “difficulties in learning” - in other words, our reforms will have lowered the bar to the lowest common denominator. Point in fact is that any difficulty of learning (except in specific situations like dyslexia) draws its origins from several factors: poverty, parental situation, traumatisms experienced, etc., and thus require specific teaching methods which take into account these factors. But nevertheless, we seek to motivate all children without requiring of them any truly significant effort: this amounts to seeking to motivate an employee into being willing to work with never ending promotions, while without requiring of him to perform his tasks decently. Ridiculous, no? But this is exactly how things are being done in our schools today.

In short, we are trying to teach knowledge while doing everything possible to make knowledge interesting and easily understandable, consequently lowering the bar by standardizing intellectual sloth. Moreover, we are at the point where we are actually making students practice important exams with the aim of improving their performances during these same examinations - what could be more ridiculous? And of course, each successive reform fails in its attempts to increase the motivation, to reduce the rates of failure, or to reverse the dropout rates. Why? Because at the base, all these reforms entrench in their new methods and teaching approaches the rewarding (direct or indirect) of intellectual sloth, as well as its by-products, the search for facility and for instant gratification. In other words, we perpetuate and accentuate the problem!

If this is not intellectual sloth in itself on the part of our educational leaders and decision makers ...

Should one therefore be surprised by the preponderance of the promotion and exercise of leisures and hobbies, in the house as well as outside? As with everything, too much of a good thing is bad. If intellectual sloth is silently (or by negligence) encouraged by parents and at school, how can the children, and their own children, and so on, do anything else but perpetuate this vicious circle at all levels of society?

The solution is of course quite simple - but would require a complete re-thinking of our educational approaches as well as a definite long-term commitment to solve this critical problem:

(...) the inculcation, beginning in childhood and throughout the educational process, of the need for questioning, for reasoning, for discerning, for gathering information, for contextualizing, for criticizing, for evaluating/re-evaluating, for thinking - in short, for the need of intellectual activity - constitutes the best vaccine against intellectual sloth.

(...) My solution is that we must inculcate intellectual activity, as defined above, as soon as possible in children. Let us not wait until college or university to do so like we have always done so far, for by then it is visibly too late and intellectual sloth has already set in too many students - not mentioning all those who dropped out or ended their education after high school.

Inculcating intellectual activity in our schools as it should be, i.e. without encouraging intellectual sloth in any way whatsoever, is a matter that holds the very future of our modern societies at stake, including that of our cultures and our democratic values and institutions as well. It is by countering intellectual sloth that we will eventually allow the emergence of future leaders who will make better use of reason in establishing the application of true and durable solutions to the problems facing our societies and humanity as a whole.

In conclusion, it is by countering intellectual sloth that we will make way for the inevitable emergence of a majority (in the least) of competent citizens in all spheres of activities within our societies - and the latters will only be the better for this.

And we as well, incidentally.

So far, I still don't see this coming any time soon ... and so intellectual sloth, the constant search for instant gratification and overall incompetence will continue to rule the day in all spheres of activities in our societies - thus further spreading the cancer that keeps on eating away at our democracies.


3) We still wallow in our self-centerism and selfishness, while hypocritically congratulating ourselves at being "good guys" who walk on the bestest of moral high grounds.

Well, let us take a hard, painful look at what we truly are:

The increasing erosion of our constitutions, civil rights and democracies as they are being gradually subjugated by Authoritarian Security Surveillance States. The bloating no-fly lists and terrorist watch-lists. The continuing inhumane and barbaric renditions, "enhanced interrogations" and indefinite detentions - of children, teenagers and adults alike. The continuing standing of Military Commissions, which are nothing more than politically-driven, rigged, kangaroo courts. The seemingly unending wars of choice and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq - both based on lies to justify a vengeance operation for 9/11 and the securing of foreign oil resources. The ever mounting toll of civilian deaths, displaced refugees and soldier casualties.

This is the overall state of things today with regards to our so-called "Western civilization" - especially with regards to the U.S.A., the U.K. and Canada.

Through it all, much of the currently occurring discourse and debating on these above-mentioned, self-evident evils deal largely with semantics and quaint legalese gymnastics in order to defend and justify not only their perceived necessity, but to actually establish, maintain, or cement, their legality as well.

In other words:

We justify breaking laws, war crimes and atrocities because, goshdarnit, we're the good guys and therefore we only do what is necessary - and consequently we can do no wrong.

Nor can our friends do any wrong, because, you know, if we're the good guys, then so are our friends.

But all those who are not our friends, well ... they should be denounced and prosecuted for the same things that we are doing - but since we're the good guys, we can be excused because we are doing those things in good faith. So, there.

To which I am compelled to respond thusly:

In these days when torturing is conveniently justified as a matter of necessity, when debate about torture is more than ever about the effectiveness of torture versus the "ineffectiveness" in following the rule of Law, when torture is apparently no more a cause for tarnishing reputations of countries and governments, when military commissions rule at whim (one more example here) over the rule of civil and human rights, when prosecuting torturers and torture promulgators becomes something to be actually requiring debate, when promulgating/instituting torture is no more a criminal matter but rather one of "good faith" but "misguided/wrong" policy-making, or misguided interpretation of laws or merely a matter of proper "spin", when black holes of human decency and justice have become acceptable, when torture has become nothing more than a "mere legal term" and something done casually that is not to be feared or condemned, but in fact to be made money from, trivialized or joked about ...

Then more than ever, we have lost any semblance of human rationality and grace - consequently rendering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights naught but empty words to make us feel noble, good, principled and civilized - allowing us to conveniently forget however much the deluded, hypocritical, savages and barbarians that we truly are.

Yes, President-elect Barack Obama recently renewed his pledge to end the practice of torture - and yet, what are we to make of calls for him to keep pro-torture Bush appointees in his administration-to-be, of those potential alternatives floated around and those other "torture-is-necessary" elected representatives (like this fatuously-reasoning barbarian) so far?

In other words: it remains to be seen whether hypocritical, quaint rationalizations (like this, or that, or this, or that) to justify torture will be at last dumped in the trash bin of history of savagery, so that the barbarian practice of violating human and civil rights will be abandoned once and for all ...

(...) .. and we have quite a long way to go in order to finally make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not only a reality, but an absolute, unalienable standard of what it means to be human and civilized.

Then again, I should not be surprised that we claim to hold onto noble principles, and congratulate ourselves for this, yet nevertheless dismiss said principles whenever we feel threatened.

After all, are we not still in the habit of proudly claiming our adherence to high ideals while we summarily ignore them for the sake of convenience, of expediency? Here's a few examples from the top of my head:

How often have I witnessed self-proclaimed and self-righteous followers of this or that "peace-loving" religious faith (Christian, Muslim, Hebrew, et al.) promulgate lack of compassion, or intolerance, or hate and even violence onto others?

How often have I heard self-proclaimed "good, decent, caring people" (or the same religious adherents as above) express xenophobic remarks, or summarily condemn the homeless, poor and/or jobless as "lazy slobs"?

How often have I heard self-proclaimed "good, decent, caring people" (or the same religious adherents as above) demonstrate utter indifference at injustices perpetrated onto other fellow citizens by security agencies, either because they automatically assume guilt and/or said other fellow citizens so unjustly abused are perceived as "not regular, honest folks" (i.e. ethnic minorities)?

How often do I still hear self-proclaimed "good, decent, caring people" (or the same religious adherents as above), men and women both, exhibit lack of outrage at a woman being raped while muttering that "she was probably asking for it by dressing like a slut"?

How often have I witnessed self-proclaimed "pro-environment" people still failing to separate their recyclable trash from the rest of their waste, and equally failing to put said recyclable trash into the proper recyclable trash bins for pick-up by city services, because doing so is "too much trouble"?

How often have I heard self-proclaimed "concerned citizens" railing against the government ... and yet rarely get off their couches to go out and vote when they are called upon to do so?

And I could go on and on and on.

All these things I have seen, heard, witnessed in my own province of Québec, as well as in many other places in Canada and the U.S.

Overall, such rank hypocrisy on our part, such repugnant self-delusions about our grandeur, our goodness, our moral high ground, borders on the pathological.

We have a long way to learn the simple truth that holding on to noble principles is worth nothing unless we steadfastly hold them closer to our hearts and minds whenever we are tempted to ignore them - regardless of the reasons, the justifications or the opportunities, to dismiss them.

Claiming the moral high ground means that you stay on said moral high ground - through thick and thin, through rain or shine, through beautiful or stormy weather.

Then again - as long as intellectual sloth, the constant search for instant gratification and overall incompetence will continue to rule supreme in our societies, all that we have lived just in 2008 alone - from political hypocrisy and incompetence to unfettered, unchecked and encouraged corporate greed, from wars of choice to genocide, and everything in between - we will continue to experience time and time again.

And so we'll keep on getting right back where we started - until that fateful day when the house of cards we so proudly call "civilization" comes down crashing hard on our bewildered, dumbfounded, hypocritical and deluded collective heads ...

... unless, of course, the bulk of Humanity finally wises up and stops itself from repeating history in one way or another year after year after fucking year.

Granted - this may be nothing more than wishful thinking on my part.

And yet ...

And yet, I remain convinced that once we tackle the three main problems outlined above, we will be well set onto that so-elusive road to maturity as a species of sentient beings.

As opposed to stubbornly - and stupidly - running in circles, as we're still doing now.

So, in conclusion, I reiterate that which I stated at the top of this post: the way things are already going in 2009, and regardless that we are fast approaching the so-called "New Dawn" which many folks apparently await breathlessly and which is supposed to occur following Barack Obama's inauguration, I just don't see how anything will change for the better by the time we reach 2010 ... or 2020 ... or even 2050, for that matter.

In the meantime, I'll keep on "commenting on/documenting the horrors" ... while still hoping against hope that we'll somehow, some way, actually improve and better ourselves as democratic societies.

(Oh - and a belated happy new year 2009, folks ...)


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Marching Straight Towards Authoritarianism

Whenever a civilian government either outsources its responsibilities in matters domestic and/or foreign affairs, whether to corporations, security agencies and/or the military, then it is safe to say that it is the beginning of the end of democratic governance - ultimately leading to authoritarian corporatocracy, security state and/or military junta ... or all of the above, also known as fascism.

Expand the post +/-

In addition to the overwhelming assaults on the U.S. constitution, civil rights and human rights (i.e. military commissions, indiscriminate domestic spying, security sweep pre-emptive arrests, renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, etc.), including outsourcing of security and war efforts (Blackwater, anyone?), the U.S. government is now letting go of some of its people-empowered roles in diplomacy and foreign affairs. To whit:

(...) when did a four star general get handed the authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?

The WaPo reports that:

Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region, while warning that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "the longest campaign of the long war."

The 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for the Middle East and Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee the operations of more than 200,000 American troops as the new head of U.S. Central Command, beginning Oct. 31.

The review will formally begin next month, but experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war.

All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neither of those themes are military ones and the military shouldn't be leading the way on them. It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around.

So where are the US ambassador, State Dept. and Condi Rice, who should be leading the way on them while the military man concentrates on military matters? For that matter, won't the leaders of other nations involved in the region wonder why America has appointed a de facto proconsul (again) and want their say?

"When you look at a lot of these problems, you see considerable regional connections," Petraeus said yesterday. The effort would embrace all of Afghanistan's neighbors and possibly extend to India, which has had a long-standing rivalry with Pakistan. "There may be opportunities with respect to India," he said.

An overview of the review team's mission obtained by The Post says that including other government agencies and other nations in the planning will "mitigate the risk of over-militarization of efforts and the development of short-term solutions to long-term problems."

Nevertheless, some experts questioned whether Petraeus will have the authority to carry out such a sweeping strategy.

"General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can't decide whether we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University.

Moreover, in dealing with Afghanistan at Central Command, Petraeus will face limitations that he did not encounter as the top commander in Iraq, such as the lack of a unified military command and serious resource shortages.

"We don't own it. It's been a NATO effort since 2006. He won't have the same sway with Karzai and the ambassadors and a bunch of other people that he had in Iraq," said a former senior military official with experience in Afghanistan.

Perhaps most worrying of all, Petraus' mini foreign policy is being described as "a policy bridge from one administration to the next" by one of his team members, Clare Lockhart, co-founder of the New York-based Institute for State Effectiveness along with former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani.

"It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around" - Cernig is spot on with this reminder.

However, I would amend this truism to include security agencies alongside the military.

For indeed, remember this, as but one example? (emphasis added)

Canada's spy agency has the green light to meet with Canadians detained abroad (as apart of a national security or terrorism case) before (Foreign Affairs) consular officials do when there are "urgent national security or terrorism-related considerations," says a newly disclosed federal agreement.

Which made me conclude the following (emphasis added):

In effect, Foreign Affairs will leave it up entirely to CSIS to make its own call - and defer to it.

Without any outside oversight whatsoever.

Plain and simple.

(...) This is how your Security State fully awakens, folks: when a country's secret security agency is given the power of life and death, of freedom and detention, over its citizens and whose judgement prevails over constitutional, civilian institutions supposedly mandated to deal in such matters.

After 9/11, we have witnessed a gradual encroachment of security measures which have been eroding our rights of freedom and privacy - all the while either applauding such measures, or remaining indifferent to them, because They. Make. Us. Feel. Safe.

Same thing with regards to human rights overall - whereby too many folks out there actually approve of the use of torture.

What we are now witnessing is the gradual deferment of responsibilities of our governments towards security agencies and the military - with the same mind set of needing to feel secure, which in turn has elevated security and military entities as preeminent Saviors in which We Trust implicitly.

Even for law and order enforcement (meaning: martial law by any other way).

All aided, abetted and amplified by the all-too-eager, gung ho, subservient, approving, supportive, enthusiastic, complicit, propagandist, media.

Indeed, a sickening worship of all things authoritarian and/or military was gleefully on display at the RNC last September (for instance, whether it was about McCain, his wife or Palin, it was inevitably emphasised that either they have served, have as son currently serving and/or had a parent/grandparent who served during WWI, WWII or some othe conflict - the message being that they are from a "strong" bloodline of military service).

The DNC likewise delved into this theme, albeit to a much lesser extent - nevertheless, that a past parent of Obama served and Biden's son being deployed to Iraq were emphasised as well.

That is creeping and already well entrenched militarism for you - case in point:

If I could be granted one small wish about our political discourse, it would be that reporters and pundits would accept -- as disappointing and unglorious as it is -- that, under our Constitution and basic government design, people who aren't in the military don't have a "Commander-in-Chief." The President isn't your "commander," and the "Commander-in-Chief" power, now synonymous in our political culture with "President," is actually extremely limited (Art. II, Sec. 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States").

This endless festishization of "President as Our Commander-in-Chief" is one of those small but pernicious reflections of how militarized we've become, of how we are a society in a state of perpetual and endless war.

Punditman likewise expressed herein his concerns last year over the same phenomenon apparently slowly sinking into Canada's own consciousness:

Wearing camouflage used to signify one of two things: the person was either in the armed forces or was setting out on a different sort of mission that involved drinking tons of beer and killing furry creatures in a forest somewhere. But nowadays, the whole idea of hunting (humans or animals, that is), has been demoted by those who dress like G.I. Joe just because they are out hunting for a latte or an Ipod.

Grow a brain, people. This is all about the militarization of our culture.

(...) Along with camouflage, Canada is now beset by an overabundance of “Support Our Troops” ribbons, t-shirts, bracelets and mugs. You can’t go anywhere without seeing the telltale yellow ribbon on cars. Come to think of it, some are camouflaged. It is high time that the elephant in the room is asked the obvious question that polite Canadians would rather avoid: What does “Support Our Troops” really mean?

Those who decorate their vehicles thusly would have us believe that the decals are politically neutral symbols of support for soldiers overseas. This is nonsense and they know it. The intended audience are those of us who forego yellow ribbons. If you think about it, the phrase “Support Our Troops” is sort of bossy, like a drill sargent’s snarl. This is known in grammatical circles as the “imperative mood.” Therefore the directive to “Support Our Troops” comes off like an order, but with a somewhat fuzzy meaning: What exactly am I supposed to do? Buy a ribbon, I guess.

Yet the context is obvious. This is all about the Afghan War and nothing else. The yellow ribbon campaign has succeeded in convincing at least eighteen Canadian municipal and local governments to affix the decals to police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, buses and other municipal vehicles. Since this is all public property, this is a divisive move, not an inclusive one. Why this cause, but no others? Why not “Support Our Cancer Patients” or “Support Our Single Moms”? Are they less worthy?

(...) One may well ask: where should Canada’s foreign policy priorities be right now? Tied down in Afghanistan, begging NATO allies for more help in what looks more and more like an intractable military stalemate? Or, working through diplomatic channels to try to prevent a global conflagration between the US and Iran that could even go nuclear?

It’s time to ditch the camouflage and put on your thinking caps.

And that is without considering Harper's own drive to militarize Canada further. Peacekeeping? We Canadians apparently don't do that anymore:

(...) Rwanda was there, desperately needing help to prevent a genocide. Dallaire even knew what to do. But the rest of the world, Canada's government included, opted to do nothing. They let "traditional peacekeeping" fail in a grand and horrible way, with 800 000 dead, so they could pretend that "traditional peacekeeping" was itself dead.

And now the Canadian Press is helping them with this pretence. And at the end of article they're going to lament how little we trust journalists.

Referring to failed Bosnia-Serbia intervention, the article continues:

That frustrating experience shaped the attitude of a generation of soldiers, who were eager to shed the United Nations blue beret, which they saw as a symbol of weakness and indecision.

Really? The soldiers saw it as a sign of weakness? Who is writing this article? Where is the survey that demonstrates this? Is this the infantry or the military brass? Besides which, it doesn't matter what the soldiers think. It is the civilian population that selects the missions. If those enrolled don't like peacekeeping, they don't have to stay enrolled.

Yet the public clings to the romanticized notion of brave soldiers standing between belligerents.

Yeah. We stupid, ignorant Canadians have these stupid, romantic morals and values. God, we're so fricking naive, aren't we?

(...) The fact is that Canadians should be in charge of what their military is doing. At this time, we are not. The Liberals failed to steer the military in to the post Cold War peacekeeping force that we wanted. The Conservatives are taking that military force and using it aggressively.

Indeed - for only through military might may one country be taken seriously.

Once again - it all goes back to the fact that Americans and Canadians are sill gripped by the all-encompassing fear of terrorism - which is used whenever convenient to further push more authoritarian security measures, increased militarization/military interventionism, or simply to win elections.

History has clearly shown that fear-driven radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, or any democracy, along with the slow erosion of the rule of constitutional law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crises, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of said republics/democracies - the fall of the Roman republic constituting an obvious, ancient example.

In other words:

Fear + Need for security + Erosion of the rule of Law + Religious fundamentalism + Militarism + Intolerance for opposing/dissenting opinions and beliefs + Calls for a strong and powerful leader = A democracy facing possible overthrow in favor of despotism.

And this little reminder of the 10 steps towards fascism:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy;
2. Create a gulag;
3. Develop a thug caste;
4. Set up an internal surveillance system;
5. Harass citizens' groups;
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release;
7. Target key individuals;
8. Control the press;
9. Dissent equals treason;
and 10. Suspend the rule of law.

All the necessary tools are already on hand.

As the saying goes - one must remember and understand history in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It remains to be established whether we, Americans and Canadians alike, will stand up for our constitutions, our democracy-based societies, or let fear and paranoia sweep them away in lieu of authoritarianism - as we keep allowing our elected representatives to defer their entrusted powers and responsibilities to security agencies and the military.

We better wake up before it is too little, too late ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Time For A New Convention?

What is a "government" and what is it for?

The time has long passed to ask ourselves this fundamental question.

Far be it from me to undertake an extensive "scholarly" analysis of the various forms of governments throughout history, their pros and cons, their origins and evolutions, and whatnot. Nor is it my intent to discuss the nuts and bolts of governing.

Rather, allow me to present to you my humble thoughts on what democratically elected governments are for - in other words, why we go through the process of electing people to represent us and govern in our (individual) stead. And of course, I'll be focusing on Canada and the U.S.A.

Expand the post +/-

Aside from the obvious fact that Canada is a parliamentary-based democracy and the U.S.A. is a Republic-based one, the two share basic similarities in levels of government.

The very first level is the municipal one. Representatives and Mayors (leaders of municipal governments) are elected to City Councils in order to govern the affairs of municipalities, both small and greater. Same thing applies with agglomerated municipalities, whereby Burroughs elect representatives and Mayors for themselves, as well as for the overall Agglomerated Greater Municipality Council.

The second level of government is Provincial (in Canada) or State (in the U.S.A.). Here, representatives and leaders (Governors/Provincial Prime Ministers) are elected to govern the affairs of the greater geographically/territorially-defined entity under which many municipalities are regrouped.

Then we have the last level, the Federal, whereby representatives and leaders (Presidents/Prime Ministers) are elected to govern the affairs of countries, entities which regroup numerous states/provinces.

My intent today is not to discuss the distribution of powers and jurisdictions of governing between these three ascending levels of government. Rather, my presentation of these three levels serves as the set up to discuss the question I asked right at the top on this article: what is a government and what is it for?

First and foremost, governments are needed to provide and maintain basic communal services for all citizens - be it power (e.g. electricity), running water, sewage systems/water recycling, garbage collection and disposal, snow removal in the winter, road/bridge maintenance or construction, communal transport (buses, trains, shuttles, etc.), schools, and so on. Governments are also there to act as watchdogs in our stead to preserve and defend our immediate territory against those who would appropriate it for themselves, exploit it or outright steal it. Hence zoning and permits for land buys, constructions (residential or industrial), and so on. Likewise for the role of maintaining proper communal peace and protection from crime - thus they are to make laws and provide the necessary policing services to ensure that said laws are respected by all. Then there is also a need to ensure the flow of goods in and out of the agglomeration - thus the need for regulating trade and the responsibility of managing communal trade agreements within a given municipality, as well as with other municipalities. In short: to manage the economics of the municipality so that prosperity is not only brought about, but maintained at the very least.

Hence why we need at least a municipal level of government, to which we pay taxes in order to allow it to provide those basic services that we require as individual communities.

However, whenever communities gather themselves within a larger geographical and territorial association, such as the State or Province, then a new level of communal services is required for said greater whole. The sovereignty of the greater territory must be protected and defended. Land-based communications such as roads, waterways and railways, must be established and maintained between municipalities for travel and trade. The vast unsettled landscapes must be preserved and managed against those who would appropriate it for themselves, exploit it or outright steal it. A need for harmonization of civil and criminal laws between all municipalities requires State/Provincial laws and the resources to enforce/police them. Same thing for health services. There is also the need to manage the economics of the greater territory, such as harmonization of trade between individual municipalities as well as establishing trade with other, similar greater territories. Often, by necessity, such a level of government will take charge of many other responsibilities of the individual municipalities, if only to ensure harmony between all of them. One could see this as an evolutionary step in governing at a greater scale, out of the individual agglomeration level. The human need to form alliances and friendships in order to create a greater common good is as much a driving force here than at its original level of agglomeration.

Hence why we have the Provincial/State level of government, to which we pay taxes in order to allow it to provide those basic services that we require as citizens of such individual, "small countries".

But of course, the need for alliances and friendship to ensure a greater common good of prosperity and security does not end here, whereby States/Provinces come together (by choice or by whim of history, whether as a union or confederation, however tight or loose it may be) to form a larger country - Canada or the U.S.A., in this case. It is typically at this third, higher level of government that responsibilities such as maintaining an army, managing the currency, preserving/managing even vaster, unsettled landscapes and natural resources, or managing overall economics and trade between member states/provinces as well with other countries, come into play. In short, it will be usually a matter of necessity that such a level of government will often take charge of many other responsibilities of the individual states/provinces, if only to ensure harmony between all of them. One could see this as yet another evolutionary step in governing at an even greater scale, out of the individual state/provincial level.

Hence why we have the Federal level of government, to which we pay taxes in order to allow it to provide those basic services that we require as citizens of such individual, countries.

Of course, such an incremental superseding of levels of government will, and do, lead to instances of chicanery with regards as to which level has jurisdiction over which service to provide and/or manage and, consequently, at which level specific taxes are paid by the citizens. But that is merely an expression of the inherent adaptive/evolutive nature of such type of democratically elected, incremental level of governance.

The real point to emphasise here is that a government, regardless of whether it lies at the municipal, state/provincial or federal level, has one - and only one - purpose: to preserve and protect our rights and civil liberties, while dispensing those services that we require - and yes, one such service is the encouragement of the creation of riches and prosperity ... for us.

In other words: a government is by nature and definition a non-profit organization which we entrust and hold accountable, by giving to it the monies that are necessary for the performance of its function.

No more, no less.

Therefore, as a tax-paying citizen, I demand the following:

Enough with attempting to run a government like a business;

Enough with the outsourcing of services which are supposed to be provided by a government;

Enough with by-passing the basic provisions of our constitutions by forming without our expressed consent (such as a national referendum) supra-governmental organizations like the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America;

Enough with putting aside our constitutional rights and civil liberties in the name of the false god of security;

Enough with treating big business like "privileged", favored citizens not beholden to any laws ("regulations"), unlike the rest of us;

Enough with forcibly (i.e. through war) attempting to impose our democratic values to other countries;

Enough with the lack of ethics in government;

Enough with the unrestrained access of lobbyists;

Enough with the erosion of the separation between church and state;

Enough with the nauseating, arrogant "Father-knows-best" act by treating us like children;

Enough is quite enough.

The time has long come for a New Convention, whereby we the citizens reaffirm the original purpose and function of our governments. For despite all the complexities of the world, one fundamental truth has ever remained unchanged:

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Whether for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or for peace, order and good government, this truism constitutes nevertheless the founding stone of our democratic values.

What say you?


(Cross-posted from APOV)

What Is The "Cancer On The Body Democratic"?

Considering that the McSame-Obama race remains statistically close, despite eight years of Bush-Cheney lies, abuse of power and incompetence and despite all the McSame-Palin lies, gaffes and outright goofyness, and considering that things are not much better nowadays in my country Canada, I thought that it would be quite à propos to dust off an old post of mine from last year - one which I reference all-too-often in my current posts - and therefore repost it here (along with updated links) at The Peace Tree:

Expand the post +/-

*************************

A Cancer On The Body Democratic

(Updated below) (Update II)

Alternative title: The Root Of All Our Problems - In Real Life And In The Blogosphere.

Democracy is slowing rotting away. There is not only a cause for this wasting disease, but as well a potential cure - if we commit ourselves with courage, diligence and determination to apply such a cure.

Intellectual sloth is a human character flaw with numerous ramifications, and which constitutes the gravest threat to our democracies.

On the one hand, intellectual sloth pushes any person who is afflicted by it to wallow in ignorance, finding security in absolute ideologies, philosophies of thoughts, tenets of faith, various dogmas or views of the world, without seeking to understand them fully or even less to question them. In turn, ignorance festers fear which, as we know all-too-well, acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, a person afflicted with intellectual sloth refuses to accept any fact of reality which confronts, rattles, or even invalidates, the comfort of one's “convictions”. To this effect, such a person will be often deluded by intellectual vanity, being arrogant, if not contemptuous, towards anything and anyone that confronts his/her ignorance generated by intellectual sloth.

On the other hand, a person afflicted with intellectual sloth is continually in search of the quick-and-easy and of instant gratification - in fact, he/she craves such things. Incidentally, a person afflicted with intellectual sloth is egocentric, selfish, greedy and covetous, even paranoid, in his/her immature search for facility and instant gratification. Consequently, intellectual sloth-driven people invariably become slaves of expediency. That is also why such persons will all too often want (consciously or not) to be serviced an opinion, like being served fast food, rather than to make the effort of actually forging an informed one for themselves - they search for easy and absolute answers.

In short, intellectual sloth transforms a supposedly adult (and thus mature) person into an irresponsible, reactionary, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving child or adolescent, who lives only in the “now” while remaining blind to “yesterday” and “tomorrow".

Therefore, intellectual sloth renders those afflicted by it incompetents - as thinking, reasoning human beings, as well as in dealing/composing with reality (or at least in trying to understand it).

One direct consequence of the prevalence of intellectual sloth is not only voter indifference and apathy, but as well the complacent acceptance of the "dumbing down" (and disinformation) of the news and of the political discourse - after all, journalists and politicians are from the same culture as the voters's ... thus our current tabloid journalism and politics (Assault on Reason, anyone?).

Hence, the "it's all about me", "not in my backyard", "who cares? ", "we're the best", "not my problem", "we're good, they're evil" and other such selfish, uncaring, absolutist and/or uninformed attitudes that have been prevailing among the citizenry since at least the 1980's.

Case in point - I give you these two poll questions (and results):

Gallup Poll. March 11-14, 2007. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"How closely have you been following the news about the recently completed trial of Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the former vice presidential aide: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"

Very Closely: 13%
Somewhat Closely: 30%
Not Too Closely: 26%
Not At All: 29%
Unsure: 1%


CBS News Poll. May 16-17, 2006. N=636 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

"How much have you heard or read about the special investigation into the possible leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity to reporters in 2003? Would you say you have heard or read a lot, some, not much, or nothing at all?"

A lot: 18%
Some: 31%
Not Much: 23%
Nothing: 28%
Unsure: 0%

And there you have it. Essentially the same question was asked twice, almost a year apart each time, and in both instances we are faced with the sad reality that less than 50% of Americans paid significant attention to this grave scandal.

Not convinced that this applies to all (current) major scandals? Then try this for size:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"How closely have you been following news about the recent firing of several U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department? Have you been following it very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"

Very Closely: 15%
Somewhat Closely: 35%
Not Too Closely: 36%
Not At All: 13%


Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. April 18-22, 2007. N=1,508 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"How much, if anything, have you heard about the firing of eight federal prosecutors and questions about how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House handled the firings? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all?"

A Lot: 33%
A Little: 44%
Nothing: 22%
Unsure: 1%

Should we be surprised then that the poll answers to the follow-up question (or similar questions), "Do you think Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign or otherwise lose his job over the issue of the firings, or not?", were less than 45% (on rough average) for the resignation/removal of Gonzales?

Should we likewise be surprised that only 39% of Americans favor impreachment for Bush and Cheney - despite everything that has been revealed/reported/analyzed/discussed so far? Or that only 14% of Americans "believe" in evolution without any Divine involvement?

Call it scandal fatigue. Blame the MSM and the politicians as well, if you will.

But I call this intellectual sloth-driven incompetence as citizens.

As I wrote before: "We prefer to wallow body and mind into reality-tv shows and the local version of American Idol (Canadian Idol in Canada and Star Académie in Québec). Thus, therein now lies our democratic passion, whereby we discuss, analyze and evaluate which participant to support and then vote for him/her".

But, to do such things in the exercise of our duty as citizens of democracies? Forget it. We act like ostriches in the face of it. It is too complicated. Too discouraging. Too unsettling.

And don't you dare blame the Media Corporations - since they have no qualms at yanking shows that have poor ratings, why do you think they keep serving tabloid infortainment, news, reality shows, game shows and other such tripe? Because. These. Have. High. Ratings.

The intellectual sloth-driven search, if not need, for instant gratification craves entertainment - on TV, in movies, in music, in videos and in games. This in turn is the root cause for tabloid news and politics - a society-wide dumbing down. That is why (and how) Bush was elected in 2000 and again in 2004. That is why most candidates (GOP and/or Democratic) are often timid, "dumb and dumber" or "uber triangulators". We face the same problems in Canada with regards of our main political parties.

They are only responding (or trying to respond) to. The. People.

Unfortunately, the same problem has crept up in the blogosphere - and yes, including the progressive one.

Take for example the blogging tip of "keep it short and straight to the point" (not my forte, obviously!). Or the idea that "Blogs can have a shopping mall effect: everyone goes there because everyone goes there (...)"

In other words: the blogosphere not only enables but also (knowingly or not) encourages instant gratification.

Case in point: remember the backlash against Democratic representatives posting diaries at DKos, demanding that they actually leave Dkos (one example here), after the war funding bill was passed? How many took their ball and went home (one example here)? Or those who rant and rave because there is no impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney "now"? Yes such things are very disappointing, if not maddening, but such destructive backlash constitutes (sorry to say this) intellectual sloth-driven immaturity. It is short-sighteness. It is incompetence.

Consequently, such is my diagnosis: we are faced with a highly metastizing cancer on the body democratic, and it is called intellectual sloth. Heck, this cancer has spread through the whole body society already.

And it is this cancer that must be fought/eradicated, at its very root.

The solution? I wrote about it before: "Education. Yes, it is through education that the character flaw which is intellectual sloth can be countered (...) the inculcation, beginning in childhood and throughout the educational process, of the need for questioning, for reasoning, for discerning, for gathering information, for contextualizing, for criticizing, for evaluating/re-evaluating, for thinking - in short, for the need of intellectual activity - constitutes the best vaccine against intellectual sloth".

It is a given that this solution requires time and much effort. But it is the only one which will effectively fight and eradicate this metastizing cancer that is intellectual sloth, and which is destroying not only our body democratic, but also our bodies politic, economic, and society.

As I am fond of saying: "Living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility. And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?"

Or, if you prefer: Patience trumps expediency. Patience and determination are the hallmarks of competence as citizens.

This recent DKos diary (one example among an ever increasing number of such examples) illustrates what I mean by this: patience and determination in convincing people and representatives (a clear majority at least) of the need for investigations leading to impeachment.

The same can, should, and must be done to enact the means necessary to eradicate intellectual sloth.

In the meantime, we must continue to expose, document and discuss incompetence - but we must also be willing to get off from our couches and convince those outside of the blogosphere to join in, or at least to make the effort to keep themselves critically informed. At the same time, we must keep organizing and pressuring to make the changes required to save the gravely ill patient that is society - and stop acting like intellectual sloth-driven immature adolescents while so doing.

It is a long and winding road indeed - but competence as citizens requires (nay: demands) this from all of us.

After all, our revolutionary participatory democracy is not just about ranting and raving, eh?


Update: 06/25/2007 - 41% ... the proportion of Americans who still believe there is a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. Q.E.D. ... once again.


Update II: 06/26/2007 - Remember this poll from 2005? By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans favored impeachment of President Bush should it be revealed that he lied about the war in Iraq. And what has happened since then? Nothing. Zip. Nada. The cancer has spread so much, looks like it is time to activate the democracy life-support machine folks ...

*************************

The preceding was posted originally on June 24, 2007. I think that it is safe to conclude that things have largely worsened. A few examples:

44% of Americans approve torture: the descent is nearly over;

A new, improved definition of liberty;

The *real* axis of evil of our times;

Losing ourselves beyond redemption;

About that whole "defining reality" thing;

The age of the President-Pontificate of the U.S.A.;

You see, it's all about intellectual sloth-driven search ror instant gratification;

Elections: a tale of two sides of the 49th parallel;

As polls come and go ...

While no one was paying attention ...

Dramatic drop in youth voting, institute warns.

Food for thought, eh?

jock doubleday

the revolution will not be organized- read all here

"You will not march in file.
You will not march.
The revolution will not be organized.

In your darkest hour,
beneath the burning moon,
you will pledge allegiance to the truth,
as those before you pledged allegiance to the truth.

The truth cannot be organized."

The Grand Spectacle

(Expand the post)

(A Poetic Justice Photomontage)

250 Protesters Arrested, Including Amy Goodman

Looking from the opposite side of this other world
Wondering what it is that they must truly think of us

The mind awakens to their jarring ovation
And thoughts swoop in like dark winged beasts

I see them calling, “God damns you to hell!”

They shouldn’t tell peacekeepers that their voices can’t soar
They shouldn’t try breaking those who see the ugliness of their fears
They shouldn’t damn an outstretched hand while offering raging teeth
in exchange
And smile as they bring such reckless blades to neck
Because we will not kneel down and wait

Lions charging across the plains
Feel their razor claws as they seek the fearful ground
And thrusting wild boars come crashing
A victim’s quivering lips that have turned their hearts pale
Of cradling fear held up like a frozen hand

And their god will return to find them this way



© 2008 mrp/tpm

Rolling along "Q"... Quasar9

On The Final Steps In "Crossing The Rubicon"

Last year, I wrote the following concerning President G.W. Bush and his seeming never-ending quest for absolute dictatorial powers (emphasis added):

(Expand the post)

Let us fast-forward to today and focus on the following recent news items:

A) President G.W. Bush considers himself not just the Commander-in-Chief , the Decider and the Decision-Maker anymore, but also simply the Commander Guy;

B) The Bush administration has stipulated that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants and therefore does not need the consent of Congress to do so;

C) This is in line with the fact that President G.W. Bush has brushed aside hundreds of laws already with his signing statements;

D) Congress has already put in the books the Patriot Act and the Military Commission’s Act, both giving the President the power to deal effectively with America’s enemies (powers which include looser surveillance restrictions, indefinite detentions, use of torture, loss of habeas corpus, etc.);

E) President G.W. Bush, in defense of his veto of an Iraq war spending plan passed by the Democratic-led Congress that would have forced him to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, sent the message to Congress that he considered the legislation unconstitutional because it infringed on his presidential powers;

and F) Meanwhile, cries continue to clamor for the need of a Unitary Executive, of a strong and powerful leader who must be above the quaint laws of the republic, because "in stormy times, the rule of law may seem to require the prudence and force that law, or present law, cannot supply, and the executive must be strong".

With these items in mind, go read the U.S. Constitution (especially Articles I-III which define the powers of the three equal branches).

One does not need be a Constitutional lawyer or expert to understand that, especially with regards to item E), President Bush is essentially claiming that the constitutional roles and powers of the Congress are unconstitutional.

In short: the President now stands above the Rule of Constitutional Law - particularly in times of crisis presented by external (re: global terrorism) or internal (re: home-grown terrorism) threats.

History clearly shows that such points of view and radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, along with the slow erosion of the rule of law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crisis, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of the Roman republic.

Has President George W. Bush effectively "crossed the Rubicon"?

Do these days represent the critical period which will lead eventually to the end of the American republic?

Now read this news item (emphasis and extra links added):

(...) President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention -- and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."

Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The New York Times' page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans' civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.

It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans' information and exchanges online.

"War powers" have also given President Bush cover to hold Americans without habeas corpus (...)

Times reporter Eric Lichtblau notes that the measure is the latest step that the Administration has taken to "make permanent" key aspects of its "long war" against terrorism. Congress recently passed a much-maligned bill giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their participation in what constitutional experts see as an illegal or borderline-illegal surveillance program, and is considering efforts to give the FBI more power in their investigative techniques.

"It is uncertain whether Congress will take the administration up on its request," Lichtblau writes. "Some Republicans have already embraced the idea, with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introducing a measure almost identical to the administration’s proposal. 'Since 9/11,' Mr. Smith said, 'we have been at war with an unconventional enemy whose primary goal is to kill innocent Americans.'"

If enough Republicans come aboard, Democrats may struggle to defeat the provision. Despite holding majorities in the House and Senate, they have failed to beat back some of President Bush's purported "security" measures, such as the telecom immunity bill.

Bush's open-ended permanent war language worries his critics. They say it could provide indefinite, if hazy, legal justification for any number of activities -- including detention of terrorists suspects at bases like Guantanamo Bay (where for years the Administration would not even release the names of those being held), and the NSA's warantless wiretapping program.

Lichtblau co-wrote the Times article revealing the Administration's eavesdropping program along with fellow reporter James Risen.

He notes that Bush's language "recalls a resolution, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001... [which] authorized the president to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to prevent future strikes. That authorization, still in effect, was initially viewed by many members of Congress who voted for it as the go-ahead for the administration to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, which had given sanctuary to Mr. bin Laden."

"But the military authorization became the secret legal basis for some of the administration’s most controversial legal tactics, including the wiretapping program, and that still gnaws at some members of Congress," he adds.

And let us not forget about torture and other "necessary" actions required to "fight" this now-official, never-ending Global War on Terrorism(TM).

Once again, we should keep very much in mind the ever convenient rationale of security agencies as they perform their "duty":

(...) This means that anything can and will be viewed by our security agencies within the narrow, paranoid prism of terrorism and threats to security.

Anything.

From blogging to writing a dissenting letter to a newspaper editor to a journalist trying to do investigative work to gathering at a coffee shop to rant about politics to reading "suspicious" stuff (books, blogs) to organizing/participating in activist actions (letter/phone/email campaigns, peaceful protests), etc., etc., etc.

Because any such activities may or may not - immediately or at some point in time or never at all - lead to acts which may or may not "threaten the safety and security of citizens or the integrity of the country's critical infrastructure".

So just in case and to be safe, let's monitor and survey and spy away on the citizenry.

And that is the ever convenient rationale of authoritarian security states for spying on their citizens.

Conclusion - no one is safe indeed:

It is a given, demonstrated fact that governmental security agencies are not seekers of truth, but seekers of guilt. Whenever they are given any powers to spy on their own citizens, they will do so - for reasons frivolous, paranoid or (apparently very rarely as shown so far) actually justified.

Anything and nothing can - and will - be held against you.

Because in the mindset of governmental security agencies, everyone is suspect, everyone is guilty. Period.

Welcome to the Security State governed by the all-powerful President-Pontificate, who will win (someday in the far, distant future, perhaps) the never-ending Global War on Terror(TM).

The last, final few steps in crossing the Rubicon are being be taken.

Should he be still alive today, I am convinced that George Orwell would say: "I told you so".

Thus the slow march toward tyranny is nearing its completion.

Any questions?


(Cross-posted from APOV)