Recently, I was reading something on the web that mocked the marketing of policies with the statement, “we are engaged in a ‘war on (insert threatening noun here)’”. The target of the mocking was the utterly misnamed “war on terror”, the naming of which follows a dubious legacy left by the “war on drugs” and the “war on poverty”, neither of which has been very successful by any meaningful, objective measure. Given how I have to be precise in my use of language in my job (mis-description can cost us a lot of money), I become particularly irritated by the continual use of the phrase “war on terror” to describe what to most people started on September 11, 2001. That was not the first day of conflict (it was indeed the second time the New York World Trade Center towers had been subject to a terrorist attack), and our collective ignorance of the world played no small role in the ultimate origins of the attacks.

Calling our efforts to counter terrorists attacks a “war” is elevating criminal acts above their true station, but if we insist upon using the term “war” then a more proper name is the blowback war.

“Blowback” refers to how the actions of the United States in Afghanistan and other regions in efforts to stymie the Soviet Union ended up creating more enemies of the United States than friends.

Using the correct terms may be the only way we can gain in this conflict, but unfortunately we are only capable of focusing on the here and now, not the too recent past.

The word “nigger” is bleeped out in television broadcasts (at least it was in a clip shown on a cable news show I saw the other day).

The word “bitch” is used routinely in television shows now, often as a laugh line.

Not meaning to pull a Ferraro, but does this reflect something about our culture that we refuse to face honestly?

“I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.”
   -Will Rogers

That disorganization was certainly evident tonight in my precinct Democratic Party caucus. The photo above shows the most organized part of the evening, when people filed into the combination cafeteria/gym. There were questions about party rules regarding whether voters had to remain after signing in for their preferred candidate, and the Obama volunteers were loudly insisting their supporters remain so they could dominate the debate because the Clinton volunteers were supposedly going to challenge the vote count for delegates to the county convention.

It has been reported that the Clinton campaign was behind the curve in organizing for the caucuses in Texas, and that was evident in the lower numbers of Clinton volunteers than Obama volunteers, well out of proportion to the ratio of supporters of each candidate at the caucus. Unfortunately, the Obama volunteers were rather obnoxious, and the ill manners were not limited to the young cohort.

Eventually, after much commotion in setting up tables so that the disabled and those who had small children could have a shorter line to wait in before signing in their preference, a quasi-organization arose out of the confusion, and the registration of the caucus proceeded with reasonable smoothness. Although I have been hard on the Democratic Party organizers of the caucus, some acknowledgment must be made that at least ten times as many voters came to the caucus this year as compared to four years ago. Still, some better planning would have reduced the confusion.

Overall, it was an interesting experience, reminding me of how much I hate the inside maneuvering that is inherent in party politics.

Texas, a whole other country, that’s a slogan used to promote tourism a few years back, and there is more truth to it than most people realize. I live in Austin, which although it is the capital of the state does not really reflect the culture of the state as a whole. The main campus of the University of Texas is located in Austin, and both the students and the professors have a huge impact on the character of the city. Austin is much more liberal than the rest of the state, but that liberalism is tempered by a conservative streak that would seem contradictory but somehow makes sense here. The local support of Ron Paul is a result of this seeming dichotomy. There have been large signs, both printed and handmade, promoting Paul for President posted around town for months, even before the race truly began. Some of the posters have slogans that sound much like the ones we are now hearing from supporters of Barak Obama, with claims that Paul inspires hope.

In this strange political cycle, Texas is in the position of king-maker for the Democratic Party nomination, and it also may lock-up the nomination for John McCain on the Republican side. Ordinarily, Texas came too late to play any kind of role in the nominating process, and in the past few cycles has been considered a Republican stronghold in the general election, so the state tends to get ignored in campaigns beyond a potential source of donations. Not this year, with a nationally broadcast debate between the two Democratic contenders along with many public events, including a large, open air gathering of supporters of Barak Obama that closed down the center of Austin for an entire day.

Last night Senator Hillary Clinton held a “town hall” meeting at the Austin Convention Center followed by a campaign rally in the Berger Center, where many area high schools hold their graduation ceremonies along with using it for various indoor sports and other activities. I had the opportunity to attend the rally and hear Senator Clinton speak. It was very enlightening for me, because I found her a much more effective speaker than I expected, the short sound-bites typically included in the news shows do not convey the emotion that she obviously feels regarding public service. Despite my skepticism, and despite the widely held cynical view of her, she comes across as very genuine in what she wants to accomplish in terms of using government to help the less fortunate.

As the events of the last 8 years have illustrated, my mistrust of the Republican Party in preserving the rights of individuals against the powerful, such as corporations or even the government itself, was very well founded. The intolerance and religious zealotry endemic in the Republican Party has also disturbed me; the embracing of the endorsement of John Hagee by John McCain is a good example of how the party includes such tendencies. I tend to vote Democratic not because I have overwhelming support for the entirety of their platform, but because I feel they are less damaging than the Republicans. This year, my choice for whom to vote in the Texas Democratic primary has been difficult, because I do not like the appearance of political dynasty that would come from a victory by Senator Clinton. The roll of the Presidents starting in the 1980s would read Bush – Clinton – Bush – Clinton, which I do not believe would be healthy for our system of representative democracy. However, I have serious concerns about Senator Barak Obama in terms of both experience along with the feeling that there is more rhetoric than accomplishment behind his candidacy. I believe that only after many trips around the sun does one develop the judgment necessary for an office like President of the United States.

There is strong support for Senator Obama in Austin, likely reflecting the large student population of the University of Texas. I have seen people standing on street corners nowhere near early voting locations holding Obama for President signs. On my route in to work through a sparsely populated area, parked beside the road was an ancient RV with “Obama for President” painted on the front and a cowboy-hatted man standing on the roof with a handmade sign reading simply “Obama”. The Clinton supporters seem to be more targeted, clustering with signs and enthusiasm on curbs near the early-voting polls, and sending emails explaining the caucus process as practiced as part of the “Texas two-step primary”.

In Austin, at least, it seems to truly be coming down to the wire. It will be interesting to see what happens when I attend the caucus tonight.

Who said this:

Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical. And it is not the only option before us.

Do you know?

Wait for it…

It was George W. Bush when issuing his second veto of a bill on federal funding of stem-cell research.

You know, the guy who in response to the question, “Who is your favorite philosopher?” replied, “Jesus Christ,” whose philosophy was “turn the other cheek.”

How has George W. Bush approached problems facing the United States during his Presidency?

Think about it.

…explained in 30 seconds by Russ Feingold:

I lived in France for just under two years. During that time the current version of FISA (which was just extended by voice vote for another 15 days to allow for more time to negotiate the next version) was in effect, and any of my phone calls home could have been monitored without judicial oversight, despite the fact I am an American citizen for whom no probable cause exists for any type of search.

“Trust us” wasn’t good enough for the founders, and it isn’t good enough for me.

The people I am most afraid of are those who are the most afraid.
   -Robert Frost

Let us take at face value the nominal, stated reasons as why various office-holders claim the have for taking their various actions.

So, President George W. Bush vetoes the recent renewal/expansion of the S-CHIP bill because he is concerned that it is “creeping socialism” that would ultimately result in publicly funded healthcare, which goes against the libertarian philosophy of self-sufficiency and avoiding governmental interference.

Yet, he promises also to veto any bill regarding the FISA courts and wiretapping statutes that limits the ability of the executive branch to monitor communications that the government claims are important to preventing “terrorists” from attacking.

In other words, do not trust the government to be involved at all in health care, but do trust the government to know when to and when to not monitor the activities, statements, communications, and other matters routinely regarded as private in order to “prevent terrorism”.

Do not trust the government when it comes to protecting collective heritages, such as the environment in the form of clean air, clean water in the rivers, and land preserved in its natural state, do not interfere with property rights, but it is OK to search citizens in the most personal way when they want to fly or have any other kind of interaction with the government such as attend court sessions.

Unfortunately, those in nominal opposition to George W. Bush are no better, promoting agendas that interfere with the rights of individuals when it comes to the “collective good” while decrying the individual invasions of quasi-impersonal searches using millimeter wave radar, which reveals in images far more than a pat down search without the indignity of having someone actually touch you in a far more invasive manner.

In the end, both the right and the left are hypocrites.

What we, the people, need to decide is what exactly is the role of government in our lives.

It has been publicly proclaimed by President George W. Bush that he feels that one of the primary goals of the United States’ government is to “protect the people from terrorists.”

Does that come under the fundamental right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the preamble? That assertion would be debatable at best if the “protection” involved the invasion of “liberty” explicitly stated because of a self-proclaimed power of the Presidency to declare any US citizen as an “enemy combatant” who can be imprisoned indefinitely with no appeal, no access to legal counsel, and subject to treatment that by any reasonable definition would be called torture.

By contrast, one of the largest goals of the Democrats has been to establish a nationally financed system of health care. This is invasive upon liberties because it would force those who have large incomes to pay for the medical care of those who do not have have the same level of income.

Is that fair?

It depends upon what factors one chooses to consider in your personal calculus.

Both the left and the right are now on paths that lead to creeping authoritarianism, where the government knows what is best for you, The only difference lies in whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not a “terrorist” who threatens the authority of the state and its protection of the collective good against “terrorism” or whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not engaged in any behaviors that are a threat to your own good or the collective good as defined in fuzzy terms such as health and societally good or bad behaviors ensuring conformance to the notion that it is good for you.

Many like to label themselves as “small ‘L’ libertarians” yet they continue to participate in the kabuki play that we call our representative democracy, assuming they choose to vote at all.

Is that sufficient?

I say it is not.

Thomas Jefferson warned against the very situation in which we find ourselves, and he stated flatly, in no uncertain terms, “The tree of liberty occasionally needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots.”

Where are our patriots, who are not beholden to parties, but to ideals?

Ideals are worth dying for, parties and ideologies are not.

Are the ideas and ideals of 1776 and 1790 still too radical for the majority to fully understand?

I fear they are…

—

Related links that you can parse for yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21205942/

http://www.courierpostonline.com/specialreports/statesecrets/m062403b.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2142155

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/01/012604.html

http://www.privacydigest.com/2007/09/20/state+secret+overreach+editorial+barry+siegel

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2006/05/70785?currentPage=2

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/09/1013076-supreme-court-refuses-torture-case

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3876/

http://supreme.justia.com/us/345/1/case.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=345&invol=1

After spending some time to digest what was presented by General George Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker, and the more I think about it and consider the constraints on the US military coupled with the mission in Iraq, all I can conclude is that the promised troop reduction is simple choreography that is bending to the will of necessity rather than a reflection of true progress regarding the situation in Iraq.

In other words, the “surge” cannot be maintained, so the need to reduce troop levels is presented as a sign of “progress”…

The mathematics required the choreography, and the politics of outrage required the unquestioning supporters of the administration to demonstrate their outrage at anyone who questioned the sainted General.

A sad state for our democracy to have arrived.

Upon becoming a stepdad, I’ve been introduced into the wonderful world of middle-school homework. One of the prevalent tasks (appearing in more than one class in more than one grade) is a “current event” summary. The student is to find a news article related to the class (this year we have two, one for Social Studies and one for Science) from a reliable source, primarily a newspaper or one of the major media websites, read the article, and write a summary that includes a summary, any points being pushed in the article, and the student’s reaction to the content. In helping with this assignment, I’ve noticed two changes in how news articles are written that I find very disturbing.

First, it seems that the “inverted pyramid” that I was taught to use when I was writing for my high school newspaper has been abandoned. Instead of starting with the most essential elements of the story in broad strokes with progressively more details as the article continues, a narrative style seems to be taking hold. The inverted pyramid (or painting style as I liked to think of it, where an outline sketch is the starting point, then broad background colors are added, then the final shading and details are painted) allowed the hurried reader to get the gist of a story quickly and if the story merited further interest, all one had to do was keep reading. Now, it is difficult to extract the news from most stories until halfway or more through the article, and even then some of the key points may not be written about until near the end.

The more troubling change I find is related to the loss of the inverted pyramid; it is the lack of context provided, especially for complex topics. To take one non-political example from the recent news, the so-called “comeback performance” by Britney Spears at the MTV Video Music Awards was reported cruelly focusing on her weight and her seeming lost on stage, completely lacking in the context of how she is a mother twice over and has had what can best be described as a turbulent personal life in the past year. While I am not advocating sympathy for the barely-clad Ms. Spears, understanding that she was trying to reclaim her status in the music industry as a mover and player and contrasting that attempt with the result makes her and her story a tragedy rather than an object of ridicule and fun that is obviously cruel when the context is considered.

Regarding a topic of significantly more importance to the future, few articles I saw about the widely discussed “Petraeus Report” noted that General Petraeus had previously made a progress report during the period where he was responsible for training of Iraqi security forces. This earlier report was very optimistic regarding the progress being made by the same security forces that are now said to be completely unreliable and better to be disbanded than kept. Instead, the testimony before Congress has been reported as part of a tale of Democrats versus President Bush instead of with the context of the previous history of the commands of this general and the results he claimed to achieve versus what has subsequently come to light. Placing the report as a set-piece in a narrative of political conflict forces the reader to view it through a partisan lens rather than accepting or rejecting the conclusions reported based upon the history of accuracy of those drawing the conclusions.

Is it any wonder with this type of forced narrative that political discourse has descended into accusations of “treason” and “warmongering” instead of discussions and yes, arguments, that still accept the good intentions of all parties involved?

…this photo is worth a million words on the human cost of the decisions made by one who strives to preserve embryos while seemingly indifferent to the effects of his disastrous choices on those already here.

Dr. Stephen Taylor, the proprietor of PoliBlog, has frequently posted in a manner that belies his “conservative” labeling that has been apportioned to him by others. He is indeed a conservative by the traditional meaning of the word, suspicious of change and wishing to preserve the currently existing ways and means of governing, but he strives and often achieves an objective view of how recent actions by the United States government may not coincide with the principles we claim underly our system.

Here is a good example

Mike Nifong is an actor in a portion of that governmental system who was both oriented towards providing security to his community and towards his own political ambitions. Indeed, he no doubt thought (as most politicians do) that his job was an honorable one that could be furthered by his own political power. As such, he clearly got caught up in his own personal ambition and one would assume that he thought that he was doing the right thing in regards to prosecuting persons he thought were guilty of serious crimes (although it is certainly possible that he cynically pursued the Duke case knowing that his targets were innocent).

In any event, the case underscores that members of the government, even in a democracy, can overzealously pursue their policy goals and when those policy goals are linked to issues of security (whether we are talking about crime or terrorism) the outcomes can be disastrous if the power held by the government is inappropriately applied.

Indeed, the potential for abuse grows as the power to act is concentrated in the hands of one actor or a small number of actors—as was the case here and explains, at least in part, why I have often written about executive power.

I encourage you to read his entire post.