Gandhi was an idiot. His declaration that ‘an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind’ is perhaps the epitome of absurdity. It assumes half of the planet is going around stabbing the other half in the face. Twice.
So why is it repeated so often? There is a fear woven into our societal construct which has us
convinced our reality is cantilevered over a chaotic hell and that the only thing holding us to function is punishment. It is a fear that without fear everything breaks down. Science has proven this wrong and it is widely held, even by many who insist on a system rooted in vengeance, that reward is the better manipulator of behavior.
Yet right now, in the wake of the NYC crane collapse, there are two questions on the minds of construction workers, whom will hang and for how long? Seven dead, several injured and no intent considered. Even so, it is almost certain there will be arrest and jail time.
The idea of criminal negligence is at play and raises the question of what exactly makes negligence criminal. Were a person to have a car accident in which someone is killed, it is rare (barring accidents involving substance abuse) criminal charges are even considered. Perhaps it is because we feel the person in the other car was partly at fault. Perhaps it is because there is no one to charge whom has not already been victimized by the accident. We already have our pound of flesh.
When there are survivors whom are unscathed, the spectators taste blood in the water. Whether it is the owner of a company, or a man who slung a load, or a cop who could not see clearly in the dark, people want justice. If there is no crime, they will make one out of tragedy. No victim, no crime. Victim? Crime.
Make no mistake; there is a place for criminal negligence. Where a person acts with depraved indifference for profit or other motive, when that person knew well the odds and made a conscious choice to disregard consequence, that person must pay.
When the desire for punishment is a greater motivation than the desire for justice, we are in the land of the sadist. It is in sadism that injustice flourishes.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Hell is a Karaoke Bar
If it’s true that people are often given the choice of being a slave in heaven or a star in hell, when your turn comes, choose wisely. At ten o’clock in bars all across our country, failed musicians and drunken patrons grab hold of a microphone and MC or compete (Oh make no mistake, it is a competition.) to be the one whose karaoke skills woo dozens. Has-beens hosting never-beens.
There will be girls exhaling, old men ogling young women, and college men saying they love each other… man. On stage will be a guy who thinks he’s funny or a woman who has “stage personality.” The performers run the gamut from people with no confidence who ham it up, to those who think they’re incredible (they aren’t,) to those who are genuinely good, to those who, regardless of their vocal ability, take it all way to seriously.
At the bar there’s a couple going through a circus-like drama. You don’t want to hear it, but you can’t turn away. In a few moments they’ll get up and sing “Paradise by the Dashboard Light” together.
On your other side is a middle-aged woman who is unbelievably hot. You know this because she’s telling you so. She tells you she’s unavailable. You can’t have her even though you want her so badly. You must, she’s just told you so. Try all you want, she’s not going to sleep with you. You know how this will end. She fills out a request slip for “Don’t You Want Me Baby.”
At the end of the bar is the girl from last summer. You’re embarrassed to be talking to the woman next to you, but you can’t walk away without the summer girl thinking you want to make yourself available to her. If you stay, she’ll assume talking to the soon-to-be grandmother is some pathetic attempt to make her jealous. You hope Summer Girl leaves soon. She gets up and sings “These Boots Were Made for Walkin’.”
Next, an old fellow gets up and sings Britney Spears. (Not bad actually.) A high school student with a fake ID sings Sinatra. (He oversells it.) A longhair with white cowboy boots sings Ozzy. (He totally shreds. Gets up on a chair and everything.)
You leave with the super hot unavailable chick. Ah, salvation. Drunken fools seeking out a piece of pleasure in a tortured night. The door breaks open and together you fall into her war zone of an apartment. (Thank god she can’t see yours.) She asks if you want a drink or something to eat. No. Want to talk? (Great, here come the hoops.) No. Are you just here for sex? Yes. Told what a pig you are, you get up and leave. Halfway down the stairs she calls you back. The cat poops on the coffee table and you have to wait for her to clean up. (The table and the cat.)
Sex.
The sun is rising and you walk home, taking white smoke into your lungs and tasting it wisp back out over your tongue. There is a desperately unkempt apartment, a hangover, and a distant sense of regret waiting for you a block away. Why do you do this to yourself?
Someone has to be Satan laughing with delight.
There will be girls exhaling, old men ogling young women, and college men saying they love each other… man. On stage will be a guy who thinks he’s funny or a woman who has “stage personality.” The performers run the gamut from people with no confidence who ham it up, to those who think they’re incredible (they aren’t,) to those who are genuinely good, to those who, regardless of their vocal ability, take it all way to seriously.
At the bar there’s a couple going through a circus-like drama. You don’t want to hear it, but you can’t turn away. In a few moments they’ll get up and sing “Paradise by the Dashboard Light” together.
On your other side is a middle-aged woman who is unbelievably hot. You know this because she’s telling you so. She tells you she’s unavailable. You can’t have her even though you want her so badly. You must, she’s just told you so. Try all you want, she’s not going to sleep with you. You know how this will end. She fills out a request slip for “Don’t You Want Me Baby.”
At the end of the bar is the girl from last summer. You’re embarrassed to be talking to the woman next to you, but you can’t walk away without the summer girl thinking you want to make yourself available to her. If you stay, she’ll assume talking to the soon-to-be grandmother is some pathetic attempt to make her jealous. You hope Summer Girl leaves soon. She gets up and sings “These Boots Were Made for Walkin’.”
Next, an old fellow gets up and sings Britney Spears. (Not bad actually.) A high school student with a fake ID sings Sinatra. (He oversells it.) A longhair with white cowboy boots sings Ozzy. (He totally shreds. Gets up on a chair and everything.)
You leave with the super hot unavailable chick. Ah, salvation. Drunken fools seeking out a piece of pleasure in a tortured night. The door breaks open and together you fall into her war zone of an apartment. (Thank god she can’t see yours.) She asks if you want a drink or something to eat. No. Want to talk? (Great, here come the hoops.) No. Are you just here for sex? Yes. Told what a pig you are, you get up and leave. Halfway down the stairs she calls you back. The cat poops on the coffee table and you have to wait for her to clean up. (The table and the cat.)
Sex.
The sun is rising and you walk home, taking white smoke into your lungs and tasting it wisp back out over your tongue. There is a desperately unkempt apartment, a hangover, and a distant sense of regret waiting for you a block away. Why do you do this to yourself?
Someone has to be Satan laughing with delight.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
In Defense of Deception
Politics is inherently dishonest. It’s like life that way. The trick is for a person to be honest with themselves. What seems to bring people down is their ability to believe their own lies. Barack Obama may well survive the comments of his pastor because he knows exactly where the reverend’s beliefs separate from his own. Where he chooses to place his truth should largely be up to the public. After all, we’ll only see what we want anyway.
However, Mr. Obama has displayed an impressive ability to speak honestly about that which normally is so inflammatory, it is largely avoided by others. The obvious exception is when a person uses the issue against one they feel clearly is inferior to themselves in terms of record. Think Larry Craig.
The truth is we are all guilty of lying. We tell one boss one thing and another boss the opposite because the first boss cannot handle the truth or doesn’t remember their own lie. We neglect to tell our spouse about an expense to protect them from their own anxiety. We tell ourselves that our also being protected from that anxiety doesn't play into it. A candidate is dishonest about that which does not matter because that which does not matter seems to be all that matters. Clinton lied! Clinton lied! Well, whoop-dee-not-do. Bush lies, who dies? No one. A lie never killed anyone. Choosing to believe it? Maybe.
It falls on us. We have the government we deserve. We go out to the polls to ban a practice that doesn’t exist and while we’re there vote against a man who lied about something once. We’ll vote for a man who is honest about who he is. He doesn’t pretend to be a war hero when he’s not. He’s a real life cowboy, from Connecticut.
So how does this happen? How is it that we pick and choose the phony we find okay? How do we decide to believe the right lies? Does character matter? Define character.
What we seem to care about is that these people are better than we are. That’s character. And once we’ve bought that lie, we hate to be let down. So we deceive ourselves. McCain’s a hero, so vote for him. Heroism is what matters. It wont help with the economy or change the fact that he doesn't have a clue about the dynamics of the war he's running on, but maybe if we try hard enough we can fool the creditors into believing the money's comming in and convince the Shia they love the Sunni. Hillary’s the tough, go-getting, sensitive, caring, tough as nails, tried and true, invested, honest, nurturing fighter. We all decided on that, or at least one of those, a long time ago. We can’t stop now.
Lie to everyone else. To thine own self be true.
However, Mr. Obama has displayed an impressive ability to speak honestly about that which normally is so inflammatory, it is largely avoided by others. The obvious exception is when a person uses the issue against one they feel clearly is inferior to themselves in terms of record. Think Larry Craig.
The truth is we are all guilty of lying. We tell one boss one thing and another boss the opposite because the first boss cannot handle the truth or doesn’t remember their own lie. We neglect to tell our spouse about an expense to protect them from their own anxiety. We tell ourselves that our also being protected from that anxiety doesn't play into it. A candidate is dishonest about that which does not matter because that which does not matter seems to be all that matters. Clinton lied! Clinton lied! Well, whoop-dee-not-do. Bush lies, who dies? No one. A lie never killed anyone. Choosing to believe it? Maybe.
It falls on us. We have the government we deserve. We go out to the polls to ban a practice that doesn’t exist and while we’re there vote against a man who lied about something once. We’ll vote for a man who is honest about who he is. He doesn’t pretend to be a war hero when he’s not. He’s a real life cowboy, from Connecticut.
So how does this happen? How is it that we pick and choose the phony we find okay? How do we decide to believe the right lies? Does character matter? Define character.
What we seem to care about is that these people are better than we are. That’s character. And once we’ve bought that lie, we hate to be let down. So we deceive ourselves. McCain’s a hero, so vote for him. Heroism is what matters. It wont help with the economy or change the fact that he doesn't have a clue about the dynamics of the war he's running on, but maybe if we try hard enough we can fool the creditors into believing the money's comming in and convince the Shia they love the Sunni. Hillary’s the tough, go-getting, sensitive, caring, tough as nails, tried and true, invested, honest, nurturing fighter. We all decided on that, or at least one of those, a long time ago. We can’t stop now.
Lie to everyone else. To thine own self be true.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Requiems
All that lives dies. All around that which dies continues to live on. It feeds off of what is left behind and flourishes in the place where the dead suffered until its end. The human psyche is no different.
When someone passes those who survive them search for lessons from their life. We want meaning and seek to find it in the intangibles they left behind. Artifacts are only reminders of what we now see as so important, yet took for granted, belittled, or even outright dismissed before death punctuated their significance.
Death. Those with soft minds and tongues honeyed by old rhetoric tell us it is what gives life meaning. It is easily believed, if resented, in times of mourning. The truth is more difficult to accept at any time. Meaning is given by those who are still alive. It is the ones standing next to us we depend on for meaning, not those who lie below.
We can learn a lesson now, before death. The fear that the lives of those already gone will be somehow less meaningful is meaningless. We face a thousand pains we’ve faced before. No amount of death or lessons learned in suffering make that easier. Death has come and will come again.
Life is here now.
When someone passes those who survive them search for lessons from their life. We want meaning and seek to find it in the intangibles they left behind. Artifacts are only reminders of what we now see as so important, yet took for granted, belittled, or even outright dismissed before death punctuated their significance.
Death. Those with soft minds and tongues honeyed by old rhetoric tell us it is what gives life meaning. It is easily believed, if resented, in times of mourning. The truth is more difficult to accept at any time. Meaning is given by those who are still alive. It is the ones standing next to us we depend on for meaning, not those who lie below.
We can learn a lesson now, before death. The fear that the lives of those already gone will be somehow less meaningful is meaningless. We face a thousand pains we’ve faced before. No amount of death or lessons learned in suffering make that easier. Death has come and will come again.
Life is here now.
Monday, March 17, 2008
In Vain
It is hilarious to listen to a discussion over the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Those involved in the discourse argue over whether it was racist or whether it is reasonable to believe Mr. Obama knew about the preacher’s opinions. (It is not.) They discuss what the senator knew and when. (As if he was accused of espionage.) The rebuke of the statements is questioned, its sincerity suspect. The more intellectual go deeper, engaging in debate over whether it is possible Obama sat there and believed everything he heard or behaved more like a churchgoer. Is it possible he took what his minister said with a grain of salt, picking and choosing what to believe, if he even listened at all? Could it be that Mr. Obama sat in the pew, went through the motions, and never really gave a damn?
The irony is Obama has to belong to some church or he doesn’t have a prayer. Our country is ruled by the bible so its leaders must be too. But then we have the opportunity to criticize them for every interpretation of the bible, every way of worshipping its pages, every sermon and pastor. Not the bible though, cause that would be sinful.
The issue to be explored here, once we get past the spin, is Wright himself and men like him.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.”
We? Really? I thought this church was separatist? Never batted an eye? Umm… why exactly did we bomb Nagasaki as well as Hiroshima? But I don’t want to be unfair and exploit the man’s ignorance and contribute to spin when there’s another issue at hand.
Let us move on to his rant about Hillary, Obama, and White America. “I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! … Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had her people defined a non-persons. Hilary ain't had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folk who run everything or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than that C-student sitting in the white house.”
Talk about a Negro who doesn’t get it. (That’s right, I SAID IT!) Of course he’s right, sort of. I am not sure you can make the case a woman does not know what it is like to work harder for less credit. But then, this man is an idiot who… wait sorry. I promise I’ll stop.
God damn America. “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
In the bible? Really? Damn! I did it again.
This man is a Christian. He calls America to task on its arrogance while commanding God to torture its people for all eternity. This goes beyond mere hypocrisy. This is poorly thought out rhetoric designed to incite and inflame for the purpose of euphoric manipulation. It’s religion, stupid.
When we stop making religion an issue, we can start getting leaders. When we stop demanding a general personal behavior and then condemning the details, we can start criticizing and praising what matters. We can begin judging a person, not by the church we force them to attend, but by the content of their character.
The irony is Obama has to belong to some church or he doesn’t have a prayer. Our country is ruled by the bible so its leaders must be too. But then we have the opportunity to criticize them for every interpretation of the bible, every way of worshipping its pages, every sermon and pastor. Not the bible though, cause that would be sinful.
The issue to be explored here, once we get past the spin, is Wright himself and men like him.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.”
We? Really? I thought this church was separatist? Never batted an eye? Umm… why exactly did we bomb Nagasaki as well as Hiroshima? But I don’t want to be unfair and exploit the man’s ignorance and contribute to spin when there’s another issue at hand.
Let us move on to his rant about Hillary, Obama, and White America. “I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! … Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had her people defined a non-persons. Hilary ain't had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folk who run everything or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than that C-student sitting in the white house.”
Talk about a Negro who doesn’t get it. (That’s right, I SAID IT!) Of course he’s right, sort of. I am not sure you can make the case a woman does not know what it is like to work harder for less credit. But then, this man is an idiot who… wait sorry. I promise I’ll stop.
God damn America. “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
In the bible? Really? Damn! I did it again.
This man is a Christian. He calls America to task on its arrogance while commanding God to torture its people for all eternity. This goes beyond mere hypocrisy. This is poorly thought out rhetoric designed to incite and inflame for the purpose of euphoric manipulation. It’s religion, stupid.
When we stop making religion an issue, we can start getting leaders. When we stop demanding a general personal behavior and then condemning the details, we can start criticizing and praising what matters. We can begin judging a person, not by the church we force them to attend, but by the content of their character.
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Race Card
I did not want to write about this. I find it angering and dismal and a sad display of stupidity.
Obama has not played the card. His people have not played the card. He has been attacked, and race has come up. He has responded in a way that rises so far above race as an issue people find it difficult to believe. In fact, it seems they find it so difficult they would rather believe nonsense.
A politician makes a comment involving race and it’s racist. Some people believe it, some people don’t. Obama criticizes the statement, never once bringing up race, and he’s sneakily bringing up race. Apparently he orchestrated Geraldine Ferraro’s statement, using some kind of nigger magic to compel her to say what she said and when she said it, and then dig a deeper hole. That boy’s got the voodoo. If he were not playing the race card, he would wait until his deathbed to comment on anything anyone else ever said involving race.
Then, there’s the Reverend Wright. He said some stuff a few years ago that many other people said before and many have said since. Nothing unusual or surprising. Very little was actually “bad,” even if it was historically inaccurate. But we can’t be bothered top talk about that, let’s just bash the guy, his congregation, and the guy he supports for president. An opportunity to bring up history and fight about that would be a waste.
This is the politics of psychological association. It doesn’t have to be true. It doesn’t even have to have the appearance of truth. Tap into people’s fears and resentments and equate them with whatever you hope to bring down. Obama doesn’t have to be a Muslim, he just has to have worn a turban. He can be as accomplished as anyone at his age can be and it won’t be enough if you keep bringing up that he’s younger and call it inexperience. When you’ve got nothing left, give it all you’ve got. Admirable in it‘s sentiment, but potentially diabolical in application.
Obama has made a point of running as who he is without making race an issue. The fact is it is an issue people are concerned with, and at times with good reason. At other times, fear and evil take hold. Fear got us into this mess, and it is fear alone that will keep us here.
It is difficult to combat the associations of the ignorant and simpleminded with reason. Reason requires desire for wisdom. Americans want to know without learning. They need to believe in magic. They need to believe they intrinsically know all that really matters and it is the rest that is hubris.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Redemption
From the beginning, there was sin. Sin lives. Inescapable. From those who believe in a heaven and hell to those who believe in reincarnation to the atheists who resent it all and seek psychoanalysis to fix the past, we all believe there is something ill in each of us. Sin is original, but not unique.
We label it, judge it, condemn it, and excuse it. We forgive it and punish it. On the rarer occasions we tolerate it. Most often of all we seek it. Engagement in sin is as universal as the desire to crush it. The belief in balance in the universe, in karma is a need. Without the ever-disappointing goal of justice, we feel doomed.
As with most of life, time reveals it to be about the journey, not the destination. We struggle on “finding justice where we can,” “fighting the good fight,” “keeping the faith.” When we come across those among us who seem outside the quest we are disheartened, particularly when they appear succeeding where we fail. Politicians rise to the heights of power and dimwitted prostitutes earn thousands. When they’re found out the people who pay most are those who were victims. Citizens, spouses, children. It seems unfair they get a second chance.
They deserve it. It is the sinned against who forgive. It is the sinless alone who can dole out the proper punishment. We do the best we can. We balance our flaws and emotion against reason and pragmatics. In showing mercy or vengeance, we look to redeem ourselves, to be more the solution than the problem. In our best moments we search within. It is in that search we find both discomfort at the sight of our dereliction and the satisfaction of empowerment.
The world is not an evil place. Our everlasting quest for progress, failing repeatedly within each generation but triumphing greatly in the generations that follow, is proof enough.
We label it, judge it, condemn it, and excuse it. We forgive it and punish it. On the rarer occasions we tolerate it. Most often of all we seek it. Engagement in sin is as universal as the desire to crush it. The belief in balance in the universe, in karma is a need. Without the ever-disappointing goal of justice, we feel doomed.
As with most of life, time reveals it to be about the journey, not the destination. We struggle on “finding justice where we can,” “fighting the good fight,” “keeping the faith.” When we come across those among us who seem outside the quest we are disheartened, particularly when they appear succeeding where we fail. Politicians rise to the heights of power and dimwitted prostitutes earn thousands. When they’re found out the people who pay most are those who were victims. Citizens, spouses, children. It seems unfair they get a second chance.
They deserve it. It is the sinned against who forgive. It is the sinless alone who can dole out the proper punishment. We do the best we can. We balance our flaws and emotion against reason and pragmatics. In showing mercy or vengeance, we look to redeem ourselves, to be more the solution than the problem. In our best moments we search within. It is in that search we find both discomfort at the sight of our dereliction and the satisfaction of empowerment.
The world is not an evil place. Our everlasting quest for progress, failing repeatedly within each generation but triumphing greatly in the generations that follow, is proof enough.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Wiretap Dancing
As calls for retroactive immunity for telecom companies who participated in the bush administration’s illegal wiretapping program go unanswered, the democrats have announced a plan to allow judges to be presented defense evidence without the plaintiff present. This compromise is designed to give everyone their day in court, but allows the defendant the opportunity to plead their case for forgiveness on an individual basis. Time will tell whether this is a fair legal compromise, but it does not address the broad question raised in the debate.
I have been torn over this for some time. On the one hand, we have people who helped the government to break the law. Whether it was under duress is beside the point. That is an issue for court. The legal case for immunity revolves around whether they knew it was illegal or genuinely believed that mitigating circumstances and the interest of public safety justified the decision.
On the other hand, there are outraged citizens who feel this is the very epitome of government overstepping and violating the most basic expectations of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
I think of the controversy in post WW II France involving industrialists who honored the armistice and through their businesses furthered the German war effort. It has been said that Arthur Miller was the conscience of America and the same can be said about Albert Camus and France. He wrote on the trial of Louis Renault with the same mix of emotion and reason intrinsic to all his works.
Camus argued it was a responsibility higher than law to honor France. French big business was charged with not breaking the law to protect France against its enemy. American business was asked to break the law for the same reason. Of course, the comparison goes astray. Renault was asked to act within the law by a government under the influence of the enemy. The telecom companies were asked to break the law by a government under the influence of, well the enemy. And by enemy, I don’t mean al Qaeda.
The very spirit of the Declaration and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against an overzealous and tyrannical government. In fact, these documents assume it is in the nature of a government to behave that way. One of the great themes of the American Experiment is that the rebellion against tyranny is ongoing and rooted it the mistrust of government. It is expected that this mistrust be maintained and loyalty sacrificed to it in the name of keeping our government viable in its designed purpose. It is ridiculous to ask a person to break the laws protecting us from tyranny in order to preserve the government charged with enforcing those laws.
Perhaps the executives charged with aiding the government in breaking the laws and violating the rights of the citizenry were afraid, of both the government and al Qaeda. Of course, they were violating laws that were created to save them from the governmental oppression, so it must have been al Qaeda.
This will turn out to be a fascinating set of civil trials. No one will watch and no books will be written. All that will happen is that precedent will be set that affects every future generation of America. The Constitution has been put on trial before, but it seems this is the only time in my generation its fiber and underpinnings are being challenged. These people broke the law. There defense must be heard, but we all must hear it. It should be covered with the same zeal as a celebrity murder trail.
After all, Camus also believed the industrialists should have their day in court, and that their defense should be heard with reasoned ears. Now we find ourselves in a situation where big business is asking to avoid a day in court. Would that not be as great a transgression as that of which they are being accused? Is it not at least comparable? And does this not indicate a troubling pattern?
I may still change my mind. Camus was known to do that, and from one extreme to the other. But then, I’m no Camus.
I have been torn over this for some time. On the one hand, we have people who helped the government to break the law. Whether it was under duress is beside the point. That is an issue for court. The legal case for immunity revolves around whether they knew it was illegal or genuinely believed that mitigating circumstances and the interest of public safety justified the decision.
On the other hand, there are outraged citizens who feel this is the very epitome of government overstepping and violating the most basic expectations of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
I think of the controversy in post WW II France involving industrialists who honored the armistice and through their businesses furthered the German war effort. It has been said that Arthur Miller was the conscience of America and the same can be said about Albert Camus and France. He wrote on the trial of Louis Renault with the same mix of emotion and reason intrinsic to all his works.
Camus argued it was a responsibility higher than law to honor France. French big business was charged with not breaking the law to protect France against its enemy. American business was asked to break the law for the same reason. Of course, the comparison goes astray. Renault was asked to act within the law by a government under the influence of the enemy. The telecom companies were asked to break the law by a government under the influence of, well the enemy. And by enemy, I don’t mean al Qaeda.
The very spirit of the Declaration and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against an overzealous and tyrannical government. In fact, these documents assume it is in the nature of a government to behave that way. One of the great themes of the American Experiment is that the rebellion against tyranny is ongoing and rooted it the mistrust of government. It is expected that this mistrust be maintained and loyalty sacrificed to it in the name of keeping our government viable in its designed purpose. It is ridiculous to ask a person to break the laws protecting us from tyranny in order to preserve the government charged with enforcing those laws.
Perhaps the executives charged with aiding the government in breaking the laws and violating the rights of the citizenry were afraid, of both the government and al Qaeda. Of course, they were violating laws that were created to save them from the governmental oppression, so it must have been al Qaeda.
This will turn out to be a fascinating set of civil trials. No one will watch and no books will be written. All that will happen is that precedent will be set that affects every future generation of America. The Constitution has been put on trial before, but it seems this is the only time in my generation its fiber and underpinnings are being challenged. These people broke the law. There defense must be heard, but we all must hear it. It should be covered with the same zeal as a celebrity murder trail.
After all, Camus also believed the industrialists should have their day in court, and that their defense should be heard with reasoned ears. Now we find ourselves in a situation where big business is asking to avoid a day in court. Would that not be as great a transgression as that of which they are being accused? Is it not at least comparable? And does this not indicate a troubling pattern?
I may still change my mind. Camus was known to do that, and from one extreme to the other. But then, I’m no Camus.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
American Guillotine
I first thought that perhaps Eliot Spitzer should consider resignation last summer. Less than seven months into his term he was accused of using state resources to pursue a vendetta against Joe Bruno, republican state senate majority leader, who was already under FBI inquiry at the time of Spitzer’s inauguration. I don’t like Joe Bruno, but I hate abuse of power. I saw shades of Rudolph Guliani and the ever-tragic belief that the end justified the means. It would seem the governor, whom had run on a platform of ethics, was operating on the premise that turnabout was fair play.
After that, we were subject to one display of incompetence after another. From his politically disastrous my way or the highway methodology, to his handling the MTA with blissful oblivion and his kooky illegal alien driver license plan, to the failures in public works agendas, including the inability to facilitate desperately needed renovations at the Javits Center and most recently the apparent scrapping of the plans to replace Penn Station, we have witnessed a perfect example of bad government.
I refused to tolerate this pattern of behavior from the Bush Administration and I am no less forgiving for a Democrat. It would seem Mr. Spitzer believed the headlines equating him to another famous crime fighting Eliot. However, Ness wasn’t actually untouchable, he was innocent.
So Spitzer made enemies in government the same way, and for some of the same reasons, he made them on Wall Street. And they wanted him. They berated and attacked him but they couldn’t get him. For all his bad, unethical, and perhaps even criminal behavior it would seem Mr. Spitzer’s hype was well founded.
But then, amidst an ordinary investigation, wink wink, some suspicious transactions came to light. And low and behold, Mr. Spitzer appears guilty of using state accounts to hide personal transactions. Worse, those transactions were for sex.
Bells rang, the earth shook, and sirens wailed. A man likely guilty of real crimes, was unhorsed by the only thing that can take a politician down. When the story broke, it was all about the sex. The public clamored for more. They ignored the last fourteen months but now, mouths dry, appetites whetted, pulses quickening, the public was ready to hear about slander, hypocrisy, and abuse of power. They would ransack news stories, overturning details of corruption, deception, and revenge, in the hopes of finding something dirty. Just one more juicy detail, please.
That’s ironical for those who missed it.
It is sex we care about. It sells. We are obsessed with it, much like Eliot Spitzer, and much like Mr. Spitzer we condemn and attack it. We don’t know a politician’s policy or party. Until they are caught in a public bathroom or a hotel, all we base our level of involvement on is whether there is money in our pocket. There’s a war on and, if we believe the exit polls, the last midterm election was decided based on “morality”. Do we really care if a Democrat is cheating on his wife or if a Republican is a homosexual?
Let us not lose sight of the crime being talked about. Sex for money is only a part of it. No one is hurt by the crime, and volumes have been written about the validity of the legislation, but the irony here falls in another hypocrisy. Prostitution isn’t illegal in every state, but you can’t bring a prostitute across state lines. Talk about regulating a woman’s body!
Americans feel a need to protect their children, and other people’s children, from overt sexuality without explaining why. One side tells kids, “Just don’t.” or they bring an unreasonable, unfounded morality into play the adults don't follow or fully accept themselves. Of course, they’d never admit it. The other side tells children it’s perfectly natural and believes if they simply throw information out, children will make the right decision. Just once I would like to see someone sit down and explain, not just all the consequences of sex, be they real or imagined, but the benefits of responsibility. Let us not be afraid to admit the power of a sexual bond and the need to guard against its exploitation or its dismissal. It’s health, people.
Finally, there will soon be the anger, much like during the Clinton scandal, over people feeling forced to parent their children and explain sex to them. There was anger and resentment over having to discuss oral sex and this time it appears the same emotions will be present surrounding anal sex. I wonder if anyone will be upset about having to discuss the epidemic of infidelity highlighted by this type of story. Not to worry. No one will think to tell little Timmy or Sally that it isn’t okay to cheat, and that it only seems common because of the attention given to it. No one will bother to see what really needs to be discussed with a child. They won’t use the opportunity to point out this attention comes precisely because cheating isn’t acceptable behavior. Children will again miss out on the reassurance of stability that in their formative years negatively affects them far more than the existence of sexuality.
We’re obsessed with, terrified by, and enslaved to sex. It is a constant distraction from the issues with true weight. We seem to wish to have sex taken away from us, locked in a box, and released only when it is safe.
The time is here to take sex out of politics. But then, how would we get people to pay attention?
After that, we were subject to one display of incompetence after another. From his politically disastrous my way or the highway methodology, to his handling the MTA with blissful oblivion and his kooky illegal alien driver license plan, to the failures in public works agendas, including the inability to facilitate desperately needed renovations at the Javits Center and most recently the apparent scrapping of the plans to replace Penn Station, we have witnessed a perfect example of bad government.
I refused to tolerate this pattern of behavior from the Bush Administration and I am no less forgiving for a Democrat. It would seem Mr. Spitzer believed the headlines equating him to another famous crime fighting Eliot. However, Ness wasn’t actually untouchable, he was innocent.
So Spitzer made enemies in government the same way, and for some of the same reasons, he made them on Wall Street. And they wanted him. They berated and attacked him but they couldn’t get him. For all his bad, unethical, and perhaps even criminal behavior it would seem Mr. Spitzer’s hype was well founded.
But then, amidst an ordinary investigation, wink wink, some suspicious transactions came to light. And low and behold, Mr. Spitzer appears guilty of using state accounts to hide personal transactions. Worse, those transactions were for sex.
Bells rang, the earth shook, and sirens wailed. A man likely guilty of real crimes, was unhorsed by the only thing that can take a politician down. When the story broke, it was all about the sex. The public clamored for more. They ignored the last fourteen months but now, mouths dry, appetites whetted, pulses quickening, the public was ready to hear about slander, hypocrisy, and abuse of power. They would ransack news stories, overturning details of corruption, deception, and revenge, in the hopes of finding something dirty. Just one more juicy detail, please.
That’s ironical for those who missed it.
It is sex we care about. It sells. We are obsessed with it, much like Eliot Spitzer, and much like Mr. Spitzer we condemn and attack it. We don’t know a politician’s policy or party. Until they are caught in a public bathroom or a hotel, all we base our level of involvement on is whether there is money in our pocket. There’s a war on and, if we believe the exit polls, the last midterm election was decided based on “morality”. Do we really care if a Democrat is cheating on his wife or if a Republican is a homosexual?
Let us not lose sight of the crime being talked about. Sex for money is only a part of it. No one is hurt by the crime, and volumes have been written about the validity of the legislation, but the irony here falls in another hypocrisy. Prostitution isn’t illegal in every state, but you can’t bring a prostitute across state lines. Talk about regulating a woman’s body!
Americans feel a need to protect their children, and other people’s children, from overt sexuality without explaining why. One side tells kids, “Just don’t.” or they bring an unreasonable, unfounded morality into play the adults don't follow or fully accept themselves. Of course, they’d never admit it. The other side tells children it’s perfectly natural and believes if they simply throw information out, children will make the right decision. Just once I would like to see someone sit down and explain, not just all the consequences of sex, be they real or imagined, but the benefits of responsibility. Let us not be afraid to admit the power of a sexual bond and the need to guard against its exploitation or its dismissal. It’s health, people.
Finally, there will soon be the anger, much like during the Clinton scandal, over people feeling forced to parent their children and explain sex to them. There was anger and resentment over having to discuss oral sex and this time it appears the same emotions will be present surrounding anal sex. I wonder if anyone will be upset about having to discuss the epidemic of infidelity highlighted by this type of story. Not to worry. No one will think to tell little Timmy or Sally that it isn’t okay to cheat, and that it only seems common because of the attention given to it. No one will bother to see what really needs to be discussed with a child. They won’t use the opportunity to point out this attention comes precisely because cheating isn’t acceptable behavior. Children will again miss out on the reassurance of stability that in their formative years negatively affects them far more than the existence of sexuality.
We’re obsessed with, terrified by, and enslaved to sex. It is a constant distraction from the issues with true weight. We seem to wish to have sex taken away from us, locked in a box, and released only when it is safe.
The time is here to take sex out of politics. But then, how would we get people to pay attention?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Welcome to the Murder Machine
The contract for a new fuel tanker and mid-air refueling boom has been awarded to EADS/Grumman and not the traditional and fully American Boeing Corporation. The current controversy over the award of a military contract to a foreign company provides an example of an economic problem coming to a head. Politicians and military personnel argue over the loss of jobs, or security, or loyalty. They complain that Boeing was too comfortable or that EADS simply had the better presentation.
However, the larger issue remains unspoken. It is the real and unconscious reason why the contract being awarded to a foreign company seems so important and elicits such a strong reaction. It is more than one contract worth so many dollars, providing so many jobs vs. another. It is not fear of this beginning a trend, but that the last true stronghold of American manufacturing, military contracts, might be lost to overseas companies. The trend started long ago, but now at it’s fruition we begin to see not only the effects and implications, but also the truth about a major failure in our economic policy. The dirty little secret is this, what was once the American military industrial complex is now the American military complex.
For years we have lost manufacturing jobs not simply to high wages here, but the quality of our products was inferior. If the demand were higher, people around the world would pay more. And they do pay more. When the product is cheaper and better made, it is that much more difficult to convince companies to build here. But it’s okay, we’ve got the military contracts all locked up.
The funny thing about that is it can actually stultify us in the long run. From the shipping company that cannot get parts for their boats because the pentagon bought them all up for the war to the fact that war no longer means an increase in jobs. We have become so economically dependant on the military, there is little need for an increase in production during wartime, because of the buildup during peacetime.
Then there is the fact that invention, the seed of an economy, flourishes during war. But then we have been inventing all along, and only for war. The citizenry doesn’t get the benefits of the declassification of technology after the wars are over because the wars never started. No innovation for you!
If you thought the addiction to oil was bad, consider correcting this problem. If we cut the military (God forbid!) we cut jobs. Not the extra jobs created during time of war, but jobs that have been constant. The number of people either directly employed by or whose job is dependent upon the machine is in all likelihood unknowable. (Currently Boeing employs approximately 161,000 people, over 71,000 of them in integrated defense alone. By one count the DOD employs over three million people. Though it is difficult to get any accurate numbers or breakdowns because anything that ends in dot gov seems to not only malfunction, but also sabotage anything it touches.) Another dirty little secret? The reason war has traditionally increased a country’s economic strength is because people die, lots of people. When soldiers do not come home, the young step up to fill the labor vacuum. No war, no dead. Modern war, less dead, more disabled. Now we have a surplus of labor and the unemployment rolls increase. Moreover, the astronomical number of disabled vets, once they all get back to our shores, will increase an economic burden which historically has not had to be dealt with on such a scale.
Webster’s defines addiction as [the] “compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly: persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful.” We have used the military as an addict abuses their drug. We have become dependant on it to achieve an effect for which it was never intended, the stabilization and drive of an economy.
And it’s killing us.
However, the larger issue remains unspoken. It is the real and unconscious reason why the contract being awarded to a foreign company seems so important and elicits such a strong reaction. It is more than one contract worth so many dollars, providing so many jobs vs. another. It is not fear of this beginning a trend, but that the last true stronghold of American manufacturing, military contracts, might be lost to overseas companies. The trend started long ago, but now at it’s fruition we begin to see not only the effects and implications, but also the truth about a major failure in our economic policy. The dirty little secret is this, what was once the American military industrial complex is now the American military complex.
For years we have lost manufacturing jobs not simply to high wages here, but the quality of our products was inferior. If the demand were higher, people around the world would pay more. And they do pay more. When the product is cheaper and better made, it is that much more difficult to convince companies to build here. But it’s okay, we’ve got the military contracts all locked up.
The funny thing about that is it can actually stultify us in the long run. From the shipping company that cannot get parts for their boats because the pentagon bought them all up for the war to the fact that war no longer means an increase in jobs. We have become so economically dependant on the military, there is little need for an increase in production during wartime, because of the buildup during peacetime.
Then there is the fact that invention, the seed of an economy, flourishes during war. But then we have been inventing all along, and only for war. The citizenry doesn’t get the benefits of the declassification of technology after the wars are over because the wars never started. No innovation for you!
If you thought the addiction to oil was bad, consider correcting this problem. If we cut the military (God forbid!) we cut jobs. Not the extra jobs created during time of war, but jobs that have been constant. The number of people either directly employed by or whose job is dependent upon the machine is in all likelihood unknowable. (Currently Boeing employs approximately 161,000 people, over 71,000 of them in integrated defense alone. By one count the DOD employs over three million people. Though it is difficult to get any accurate numbers or breakdowns because anything that ends in dot gov seems to not only malfunction, but also sabotage anything it touches.) Another dirty little secret? The reason war has traditionally increased a country’s economic strength is because people die, lots of people. When soldiers do not come home, the young step up to fill the labor vacuum. No war, no dead. Modern war, less dead, more disabled. Now we have a surplus of labor and the unemployment rolls increase. Moreover, the astronomical number of disabled vets, once they all get back to our shores, will increase an economic burden which historically has not had to be dealt with on such a scale.
Webster’s defines addiction as [the] “compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly: persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful.” We have used the military as an addict abuses their drug. We have become dependant on it to achieve an effect for which it was never intended, the stabilization and drive of an economy.
And it’s killing us.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Wolves at the Polling Station Door
Yesterday morning a terrorist attacked my city. Again. That evening the Bush administration announced they were worried about possible terrorist attacks centered around the election. I then thought of the three am commercial and the administrations tactic of using the terror alert system to manipulate the polls during the last election.
I am angry. The shrapnel of cowardice turned to violence littered times square yesterday. For the next few months, and again in November, fear will translate to votes. Hillary will use it to destroy Obama. McCain will use it to destroy Hillary. She’ll counter with the prospect of Americans starving to death.
I think back six and one half years. I refused to be afraid that day and after. But the American public has embraced fear and ignorance as viable tools in the decision making process. It allows us to separate ourselves from responsibility.
There may be an opportunity for a break in the cycle. But it requires the naming of our fear. It requires accepting that fear itself has won. We need to be willing to take the responsibility that accompanies risk. Congress can hide behind the war powers act or vote to “authorize the president to use force” in lieu of declaring war officially. They can wash their hands later. We’ve allowed them to get away with this kind of behavior for so long our own hands are stained. Let us not be afraid. For those who remain afraid, take comfort in the fact that we are beyond the point of saying, “Yes we can!” and are at the point of asking, “How can we not?”
The problem isn’t the negative campaigning on a personal level, it’s about the negatives with which they weigh down the citizenry. Red phones. Wolves. Terror. Lock your doors. Bar your windows. Hide.
We don’t want a president, we want a messiah.
I am angry. The shrapnel of cowardice turned to violence littered times square yesterday. For the next few months, and again in November, fear will translate to votes. Hillary will use it to destroy Obama. McCain will use it to destroy Hillary. She’ll counter with the prospect of Americans starving to death.
I think back six and one half years. I refused to be afraid that day and after. But the American public has embraced fear and ignorance as viable tools in the decision making process. It allows us to separate ourselves from responsibility.
There may be an opportunity for a break in the cycle. But it requires the naming of our fear. It requires accepting that fear itself has won. We need to be willing to take the responsibility that accompanies risk. Congress can hide behind the war powers act or vote to “authorize the president to use force” in lieu of declaring war officially. They can wash their hands later. We’ve allowed them to get away with this kind of behavior for so long our own hands are stained. Let us not be afraid. For those who remain afraid, take comfort in the fact that we are beyond the point of saying, “Yes we can!” and are at the point of asking, “How can we not?”
The problem isn’t the negative campaigning on a personal level, it’s about the negatives with which they weigh down the citizenry. Red phones. Wolves. Terror. Lock your doors. Bar your windows. Hide.
We don’t want a president, we want a messiah.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Case for Obama
When first introduced to Barack Obama I was more than skeptical. I’d never heard an entire speech, but only sound bites. I assumed, incorrectly, the media had chosen his best moments. When I read the texts I was more impressed but only with the language. After glancing at his record I recognized he reflected some of my ideals, and by virtue of the extent of his authorship, saw that he was a worker. Important, yes, but I was still a Hillary supporter. Of course I had my problems with her but I believed she was more than capable as well as on my side and the side of all decent Americans. Taking exception to her war funding, I still might have.
Feeling I owed this man a chance I picked up a second-hand copy of “The Audacity of Hope.” As with other candidates I did not agree entirely with his beliefs. However many of those beliefs, many of the ones I felt mattered most, were quite in line with my own. But what I was most impressed with was that while he admitted to still considering solutions, his grasp of the problems facing our nation was firmer and more complete than any politician I’d heard in my lifetime. This was particularly true with respect to foreign relations.
It is therefore ironic that I now find myself supporting him in place I formerly found suspicious and where his opponents attack him. It is also astounding that this candidate, who has run the best campaign in a generation, is questioned on his ability to execute by those whose candidates can’t seem to balance the budgets of their own campaigns. His level of experience is comparable to that of Kennedy and Lincoln yet he is being painted as a neophyte unfit for the office.
Since “The Audacity of Hope” Obama has gone from stating the problems no one else is talking about to outlining complex and detailed solutions. I feared he would fall into the Kerry trap of posting on his website, where voters wouldn’t dare be bothered to look, and thinking that would be enough. But people are looking, perhaps out of curiosity about the Obamanon. Or perhaps because, unlike Kerry, when attacked for lacking vision he responded. He doesn’t simply tell people to search for themselves but speaks of the outlines on his site in a way that motivates voters to view them. He is a man who moves people.
There is another possibility. With so many pundits pointing out how alike the democratic candidates are, the people have decided to look at the details for once. In Barack Obama, they’ve found them. And no devil in sight.
Feeling I owed this man a chance I picked up a second-hand copy of “The Audacity of Hope.” As with other candidates I did not agree entirely with his beliefs. However many of those beliefs, many of the ones I felt mattered most, were quite in line with my own. But what I was most impressed with was that while he admitted to still considering solutions, his grasp of the problems facing our nation was firmer and more complete than any politician I’d heard in my lifetime. This was particularly true with respect to foreign relations.
It is therefore ironic that I now find myself supporting him in place I formerly found suspicious and where his opponents attack him. It is also astounding that this candidate, who has run the best campaign in a generation, is questioned on his ability to execute by those whose candidates can’t seem to balance the budgets of their own campaigns. His level of experience is comparable to that of Kennedy and Lincoln yet he is being painted as a neophyte unfit for the office.
Since “The Audacity of Hope” Obama has gone from stating the problems no one else is talking about to outlining complex and detailed solutions. I feared he would fall into the Kerry trap of posting on his website, where voters wouldn’t dare be bothered to look, and thinking that would be enough. But people are looking, perhaps out of curiosity about the Obamanon. Or perhaps because, unlike Kerry, when attacked for lacking vision he responded. He doesn’t simply tell people to search for themselves but speaks of the outlines on his site in a way that motivates voters to view them. He is a man who moves people.
There is another possibility. With so many pundits pointing out how alike the democratic candidates are, the people have decided to look at the details for once. In Barack Obama, they’ve found them. And no devil in sight.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)