Privateers: Outsourcing U.S. Sovereignty
Posted on March 25, 2007
7 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!
Jeremy Scahill exposes in his video for The Nation the alarming and little-known outsourcing of security and military operations supported by the Bush administration. In government rhetoric and that of the individual contractors, they are referred to as “private security.” In a militarized area in the midst of conflict, protecting clients by means of armed battle, the distinctions between security and military can be all but lost.
The cryptic words of the 2nd amendment come to mind.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
With these “security” contractors, we’re hardly talking about a well-regulated militia, in the sense of anything close to adequate government regulation. PBS’s Frontline highlights, Erinys, a British firm as well as Blackwater and the larger question of war contractors. Blackwater may be the largest, but is far from alone among these firms. Most disturbing is the unclear accountability of these (mostly) men with guns.
In the world of government contracting, the man on the ground might be the sub of a sub of a subcontractor. Somewhere there is a government official who is the contract manager. The employee of the subcontractor likely will have no idea who or where that person is. The government manager can only control
- what they know about,
- what is required or prohibited in the contract.
The contract document cannot cover all contingencies. When things go wrong, to whom is the contractor accountable? The current answer seems to be no one. Men with guns answerable to nobody: It might be an anarchist’s dream, but such a situation can hardly serve the stated goals of the U.S. or Iraqi governments.
What are some of the issues regarding this movement toward raising private-sector armies?
- Soldiers of Fortune. What happens when the most powerful nations create a profit motive in war? There have always been builders of bombs and airplanes who benefit financially from war, but their profits have never been so closely linked to a specific conflict. They can design and build for years while hardware remains idle. What happens when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and we have 20 thousand or 200 thousand private soldiers to maintain? Can private security companies simply lay the soldiers off and send them packing? Won’t the owners and the investors in such firms, who contribute heavily to political campaigns and lunch with political and military leaders, be looking for a new war to engage in? Blackwater alone, is now involved in multiple “security” situations and has sought to insert themselves into other conflicts already. The opportunism of business seems fundamentally incompatible with the restraint that governments must exert in military situations.
- Who’s in charge? Some military and ex-military officials are already voicing concerns about questions as simple as coordination of efforts, to chain-of-command, to accountability. What happens when the military and a contractor for a private individual find themselves working at cross-purposes? It’s easy to imagine where an operation and the protection of a single individual could be in conflict. Imagine that the contracting company is from a different nation from the military commander of the operation. The contract employee in charge of the security detail is from another nation, not even involved in the larger conflict. Loyalties mean something entirely different for the hired gun. In a strictly military situation, there are direct lines of command. In the end, every sergeant is answerable to every general. Identifying insignia are worn. There’s a real accountability and chain of command in the military situation. The contractor may not be able to say who gave the order that resulted in his actions, and when things go horribly wrong, it’s unclear who, if anyone has jurisdiction to sort it out.
- Questionable neutrality. The military, in theory, respects all faiths and no faith. The military is an arm of government, and the constitution and non-establishment fully applies. Likewise, the military respects no party. They answer to the duly elected commander-in-chief (even in the case of a botched election). Private entities operate with no such requirements. Some are known to be partisan and sectarian. When a president wants to bring about the apocalypse as foretold in his particular perversion of the Christian faith, there are, thank God, protections for the rest of us in the constitution and in the other branches of government. If a right-wing Christianist privateer wants to commit idiocy in the name of his faith, what’s it going to take to stop him? The same worry might apply, however unlikely, to a left-wing vegetarian with a serious lack of perspective.
- Political cover. Reports suggest that American leaders enjoy political cover by using contractors. In a chain of subcontractors, if one of the subcontractors involved happens to be headquartered in Kuwait or Dubai, the subcontractor outside the U.S. can be scapegoated for anything that goes wrong or appears to be illegal or scandalous. The foreign company becomes a black hole from which no light can escape, protected by it’s own government and lack of relationship and accountability to the U.S. government. Haliburton has expressed intent to move its headquarters to Dubai, they say it’s because that’s the region where the oil is. Could it be, also, that they believe they can do more business for the U.S. government by moving out? We have an intricate system for keeping our leaders in check. Whom does it serve to have a private by-pass for public accountability?
- Domestic operations. Blackwater provided private security forces in New Orleans after Katrina. Our own military is not allowed to conduct search, seizure or arrests on American soil. Could the use of private security by government provide an end-run around Posse Comitatus? One report said a Blackwater member (do you say commander, associate — what?) was locally deputized, so there seems to have been some legal basis for their operations there. If a contractor is military one day, state department, the next, and later a local deputy, what is it really? Is the contractor some kind of chameleon that becomes the thing that hires it, or is it something else? Can a contractor really be hired federally and deputized locally if that’s what happened? Again, who does he answer to — the corporation, the local government, or the federal government? If a contractor’s employee uses excessive force, is he prosecuted as a private citizen for assault, or disciplined with the extra latitude a police officer may be granted? Can a domestic security contractor be expected to train all their personnel to protect civil rights and observe rules of evidence — for any jurisdiction they may be called to serve?
- Unknown continuity. Corporations are bought and sold every day. Personnel, from CEOs to the lowest-ranking, change positions and companies at will. Expectations for continuity in no way resembles military continuity. A contractor that delivers on its contracts today could be bankrupt tomorrow. A trusted CEO who has at his command aircraft, personnel, and weapons could change jobs, sell his interests, or die, and the assets he controls could fall into the hands someone less qualified to manage them. To allow a non-state entity to control massive lethal forces, in the best of situations, feels wrong in the gut. The stability and controls we exercise on our military makes their support a more reasonable proposition. The comparative instability of a private entity changes that equation considerably.
To be clear, and to cover my ass, I make no claim or suggestion that either Blackwater, Erinys, or any of their people, have ever or would ever do anything illegal or that they believed were not in the interests of their governments. My concerns are more philosophical and structural.
Credit for what is factual here goes to Jeremy Scahill and The Nation, and to Frontline. I draw heavily from those sources as well as Amy Goodman’s interview of Jeremy on Democracy Now and NPR’s Fresh Air.
Sphere ItElizabeth and John
Posted on March 23, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
I’ve been a fan of Elizabeth Edwards since the first time I saw her, conducting a town hall meeting on her own, during John’s run for the Vice Presidency. She had such a command of the facts and the issues and delivered her answers with ease and with heart. Just imagine the contrast of Elizabeth, the spouse of the candidate for Vice President, with George W. Bush, the candidate of the other party for President — and the sitting president. There would be no contest for intelligence, good humor, command of both language and the issues, and grace.
Yesterday we learned that Elizabeth’s cancer has returned. Even my Fox news-watching coworker was saddened, knowing the difficulties she and John and their children face, even with the best of outcomes. Who can know what this means for Elizabeth and her family? I don’t expect the Edwards’s to share their private conversations with physicians, and don’t expect the doctors to truly know. By appearances, Elizabeth is full of life. That’s more than can be said of many of the shoppers you’ll see at the local mall.
I was actually surprised when John said he would continue to run for president. Then I questioned why I should be surprised. On a personal level, who would want a spouse to cancel such a grand plan as running for president because of their own illness? What could better generate hope than someone whose values you believe in, seeking to turn out the current corruption and to heal the nation’s wounds?
Still, I wonder about this rarefied air any viable candidate must be breathing. Add to that Elizabeth and John’s situation of hanging between public hope and private fears — and the reverse — these two will find themselves navigating situations and feelings unprecedented in size, public nature, and complexity.
I’m glad that John and Elizabeth have decided to continue their campaign. I had not yet chosen my favorite Democrat — and still haven’t. I have a great top three. I wish the Edwards family the very best. I would be so pleased to have in the White House another strong, brilliant First Lady.
Sphere ItWhy Little Rock?
Posted on March 23, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
The first of the U.S. Attorneys to be fired in order for the administration to replace them with political operatives was Bud Cummins, in Little Rock Arkansas. The Washington Post reports today on emails demonstrating the “machinations” of the administration as early as April 06 to make a place for Karl Rove protege Tim Griffin. The question that continues to nag is “why Little Rock?”
The U.S. Attorney’s office in Little Rock is one of the smaller ones, hardly the plum job for someone the Justice Dept. finds “more qualified to hold that position than most of the people who came to that job in the first term” as the Post quotes Mark Corallo, a former Justice Dept. communications director. There were other locations with more prestige which lacked appropriately loyal “bushies.”
The term “loyal Bushies:” — is this starting to sound like a cult? If not a cult, certainly it is an exclusive, invitation-only club. Being loyal to the president does not buy entrance; your loyalty has to be acknowledged from on high. What kind of government is it that categorizes who is loyal and who is not, and politicizes all positions and outcomes by placing loyalists even in jobs where a lack of bias should be a primary qualification?
If the question is raised, it seems certain that Griffin’s post to Little Rock will be explained by his being an Arkansas native. I’m not buying it. People leave home all the time, and especially people of education and means. Griffin’s education includes a stint at Oxford.
You have to wonder, given the eight years of Republicans trashing the Clintons while Bill was Prez, whether this placement has anything to do with getting a political operative with plenty of access into Little Rock precisely while Hillary is running for president. Her law practice was there along with the beginnings of Bill’s political career. This Karl Rove initiative smells funnier even than it looks. A U.S. Attorney would not have to find anything illegal on either of the Clintons: it need be only questionable, so the questions can be floated.
If there was a specific objective in Little Rock, what about the other U.S. Attorneys to be appointed without Senate advice and consent? What are the objectives for other interim appointees?
Sphere ItBush Seeks To Allow Staffers To Pretend To Testify
Posted on March 21, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
President Bush, yesterday, offered to allow “interviews” of 4 administration officials, past and present, including Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, on the firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys. The catch is that that the interviews must be private, the administration will allow no transcripts to be made, and none will testify under oath. Basically it is an opportunity for the four to spin the stories anyway they and the administration agree with no accountability.
We’ve had six years of no accountability, now it’s time to require it. What is the point of putting Rove into a room with Chuck Schumer and 1 or 2 aides each and having no record of what was said? When later the statements made in the interview are proved to be false, it’s just one camp’s word against the other. If there is no threat of sanctions for perjury, how can one expect to concentrate the minds of those being questioned on the facts that must be kept straignt to keep them out of jeopardy?
The administration has given us no reason to trust them to be truthful.
Bush called the idea of Rove et. al. testifying under oath “show trials.” No, Mr. President, that would be real trials. A show trial would be if testimony was allowed to be falsified with no consequences. A show trial would be trotting out your staff but requiring no accountability. A show trial would be to pretend that there was accountability when there was none.
Sphere ItImpeachment, continued
Posted on March 18, 2007
6 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!
|
|
| Photo by mystical_swirl. |
Yesterday, I stirred up some reaction around the web with my post, “Impeachment in all but name.” Mostly, I heard from the “throw the bum out” crowd, suggesting my approach is too incremental at best. Many believe that a full-blown impeachment is the only correct course. One went so far as to suggest that we are in persistent danger of the administration declaring martial law and suspending elections.
I don’t share the extreme pessimism of the most fearful among us and have vastly more confidence in the military than that. The leaders and enlisted members were raised with the same values I was raised with, and would protect the constitution, not a petty dictator.
I was moved more by the comments that suggest the issue should be addressed honestly and cleanly. While I suggested the administration would impeach themselves by their actions, a formal impeachment process initiated by a bipartisan vote in congress would be the best course. I would not argue against that. While I doubt we can move enough Republicans today to do the right thing, I obliquely suggested that the present scandals will increase the chances for impeachment:
When, in time, the cronyism, incompetence, corruption, and contempt for democracy and the American people of the current administration is fully exposed, all reasonable alternatives become, once again, possible.
An Impeachment would send a message to the world that Americans are not represented by the cynicism and cowboy diplomacy of the current administration. We could disavow this administration’s misdeeds foreign and domestic and set a new course. We will still have to take responsibility for cleaning up our mess. To do so will help associate our deeds with our words and help clean up our image around the world.
Further, and just as importantly, we communicate to our children and future generations that we do embrace our founders’ values. We would provide an object lesson of how even a great nation can slip to the brink of fascism and find our way back.
There is entrenched opposition to such a national repentance.
Republicans are fooling themselves right now, making the calculation that the fallout from the Bush presidency can be minimized. They are looking at a future of uncertain duration when their party will be discredited by the last 6 years and whatever comes next. To my thinking, they serve their party better by quickly ending the charade and disassociating themselves from their past.
Additionally there are powerful moneyed interests that are just fine with the status quo. It will take a vast popular movement to break politicians, whom they think they own, away from their control.
I don’t know whether a formal impeachment is possible. I hope it is. Just the same I’m happy, for now, believing things are moving in the right direction.
Sphere ItImpeachment In All But Name: Scandal in the Bush Administration
Posted on March 17, 2007
24 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!
The new Democratic Congress is finally getting down to some of the business for which it was elected. I don’t want to make light of the things already accomplished. There were business items long overdue that had to be taken care of in the first few weeks. To a large degree, these items were “low hanging fruit,” items that had only minimal opposition and could be passed quickly. Some of the “first 100 hours” reforms passed in the House include:
- Ethics reform,
- An increase in the federal minimum wage for the first time in 10 years,
- Enactment of the 9-11 commission’s recommendations,
- Expanded stem-cell research,
- Government negotiation of prices with prescription drug companies,
- Student loan interest rates cut in half,
- The elimination of billions in subsidies for big oil companies.
It is to the leadership’s credit that before becoming bogged down in contentious issues that they should clear away what could be quickly accomplished. Efforts to hold the administration accountable will meet with much stiffer opposition.
All but the bluest of the blue dog Democrats are on record against the war, but so far have not been able to get past Republicans in the Senate. Ending the war should remain Congress’s first priority, but again, it would be foolish to get bogged down on the one issue, even one so important as this. Instead, we are beginning to see, through many hearings and inquiries, the wearing away of the administration’s armor. When in time the cronyism, incompetence, corruption, and contempt for democracy and the American people of the current administration is fully exposed, all reasonable alternatives become, once again, possible.
Last week, through his connection to the Libby verdict, Vice President Cheney was under fire. This week Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wishes he had it so easy, now being investigated on at least three separate issues.
The serious but esoteric question of the firing of at least 8 U.S. Attorneys grew some legs this week, further questions are being asked about warrantless spying on American citizens, and especially about his role in blocking an independent investigation of the wiretapping. Last week’s revelation of the FBI’s abuse of “National Security Letters,” still requires further investigation.
Investigations of Karl Rove’s involvement in the Valerie Plame Wilson affair, as well as the U.S. Attorney firings are only getting started.
Activists are calling on Congress to impeach the president and Dick Cheney. I’m fully sympathetic with those feelings. But, when the Republican opposition is still unwilling to bring our troops home from a vastly unpopular war, and have been successful blocking legislation for that purpose, the writing is on the wall against the more controversial and less concrete goal of holding impeachment hearings.
In the current election cycle, removing Bush and Cheney from office, given the time it will take, will serve the public interest only marginally more than a clean election. Impeachment might provide some [read immense] satisfaction to those who have watched this administration trample American values and spit on the Constitution. Holding Bush / Cheney to account for the last 6 years and more will do approximately the same thing. Exposing their contempt for ordinary Americans, demonstrated in their actions, will take away much of their support and render them mostly harmless—and mostly harmless is pretty good in today’s politics.
When we look at the meaning of impeachment, that of exposing the misconduct of office holders and holding them to account, Democrats need mostly to do what they’ve begun to do: hold hearings and press conferences, doggedly turning up all available examples of administration malfeasance. Actual crimes uncovered should be prosecuted. The argument of executive power allowing the president to do what is criminal should be thoroughly discredited. If public servants and the media bring the truth to light, the administration, through past and present actions, will impeach itself.
Sphere ItMen stare at crotches more than women
Posted on March 15, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
This is hardly surprising. I am not one to jump to the conclusion that most men are a little bit gay, at least no more than Kinsey did. This might, with some study, help explain why men are so much more homophobic than women.
|
Sen. Chris Dodd Calls For Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Posted on March 15, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
This appears to be a campaign message, but I don’t doubt Dodd’s sincerity. Because of perceived hawkishness, I’ve never thought of him as being liberal in the broadest sense. It’s fitting that he makes a credible hawkish argument for ending discrimination against gays in the military.
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, by the way, was a bad compromise made during Bill Clinton’s administration. Before DADT, gays and lesbians were not allowed to serve, period. At the time it was passed, it was a major change, because of the “don’t ask” part. GLBT folks have always had the choice to tell or not tell with the result being the same. “Don’t ask,” was intended to to head off witch hunt kinds of purges. Unfortunately, many in the military missed the spirit of the compromise.
It’s really sad that Andrew Sullivan in his blog insinuates that discrimination in the military began with Bill Clinton. I find that pretty distorted. To his credit, Sullivan in his book, Virtually Normal,
The good part is that during and after Clinton, we began to acknowledge that many, many glbt folks serve honorably, and without all the tensions that opponents claimed would happen. Now it’s time to address the reality that many military folks will not act in the spirit of the law, and make all discrimination against glbt service members illegal.
Sphere ItJoe Biden’s Rant: Mr. President Stop!
Posted on March 15, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
I used to think Sen. Biden was too mild, and really…bland. Much has been made lately of his frequent insertions of foot in mouth. While his mind may not fully rule his mouth, by the same means he can also appear to be fearless. The video clip above demonstrates one of those fearless moments.
As an aside, I was fully amused when all the candidates, Republican and Democratic, gathered to campaign for and honor firefighters, yesterday. Each candidate tried to top the next. Sen. Biden scored when he said, “some of you are real horse’s asses,” in a brotherly way, while thanking firefighters as a profession, for saving members of his family.
Sphere ItChuck Schumer Connects Dots on Gonzales: Video
Posted on March 14, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
The video is long, but worthwhile. Listen for cute “Schurmerism” trying to say “Arkansas.” The issue seems esoteric but it’s important for people to understand. This goes to the heart of the administration’s abuses of power and shows how this particular power grab was orchestrated by the president’s closest advisors. It’s hard to imagine how all of Bush’s closest political allies and functionaries engaged in this effort without the president also being involved.
If you’re still fuzzy after the video, the Daily Background restates the events clearly.
Sphere ItMore White House Malfeasance Exposed In U.S. Attorney Firings
Posted on March 13, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
From reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post today, it’s clear that the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys was purely political, demonstrating a coordinated attempt by the Justice Department and the White House to further politicize prosecutions in the United States.
More specifically, it’s clear that some of the firings were prompted by the unwillingness of Republican-appointed prosecutors to compromise the integrity of their offices by carrying out politically motivated efforts to disenfranchise voters and to discredit Democratic Party candidates.
New Mexico’s Pete Domenici (R) is up to his neck in the mess reportedly having contacted one of the prosecutors, David C. Iglesias, apparently to influence the New Mexico prosecutor to bring indictments against a Democratic candidate before the November election. Iglesias testified before Congress last week that he had told Domenici, when he called, that he would not indict the candidate in question before the elections, but felt pressured by Domenici, nonetheless.
It is reported that Domenici later complained directly to President Bush about Iglesias, and there’s a strong suggestion that Domenici’s office remained closely involved in the firing as the Post reports:
On the day of the Dec. 7 firings, [Harriet] Miers’s deputy, William Kelley, wrote that Domenici’s chief of staff “is happy as a clam” about Iglesias.
Miers, the former White House counsel was, of course, is also deeply involved. She was reported as having asked Gonzales whether all U.S. Attorneys could be fired.
One of the controversies concerns Justice and White House denials that the firings were initiated in order to exercise, for political purposes, the special powers to appoint “interim” U.S. Attorneys by the Justice Department (Gonzales) without Congressional oversight, granted by the former Republican Congress in the Patriot Act.
Miers’ desire to fire them all seems to speak to that desire, and the notion of a political goal is reinforced by communications by Gonzales’s former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to Harriet Miers, reported in the Post:
“I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed,” Sampson wrote in a Sept. 17 memo to Miers. “It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don’t have replacements ready to roll immediately.
“I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments,” he wrote.
By avoiding Senate confirmation, Sampson added, “we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House.”
Sampson, apparently Gonzales’s cover for inaccurate statements made to Congress, symbolically “fell on his sword” for the administration on Monday as documents were being released, but it was reported in an interview on NPR with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), that Sampson is being allowed to continue in some capacity at Justice until he can find other employment. Justice, at least, appears lenient for the scapegoat.
Sphere ItI Am A Liberal, Really!
Posted on March 10, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
I expect that among my 2 or 3 readers I will confuse some people, trying to figure out where I’m coming from. I supprise myself with my own moderation. It’s funny, I listen almost exclusively (actually embarrassed to say) to liberal and progressive voices. I have so little patience for the O’Reillys and Coulters of the world, that I tend to listen to them only through the filter of third-party sources. I think I could spit actual nails if I had to sit through an hour of Limbaugh or Hannity.
Still my own writing tends to give the benefit of the doubt to my human subjects. I don’t run in the circles of the powerful and don’t care much for pretense. I can say how the notable and notorious affect me, but have no illusions of affecting them. I’m careful with direct attacks, even when I feel they’re deserved, because I know I only see their public personas and in many cases, see them through others’ eyes. If I say something direct and unflattering I try to make sure I have the direct quote or have seen it delivered myself.
In my college music program I was a strong, clear voice in the chorus, usually on-pitch, and sometimes able to affect positively the singing of those around me. It wasn’t only about the pitch, but also about when to breath, when to push the volume or tempo and when to pull back. The conductor can’t give you the emphasis for every note, you have to hear it in your head and feel it in your gut.
So I hope it is with my writing. I don’t expect to write anything that could change the course of history. I don’t have that kind of voice. My fondest ambition would be to change just a few minds.
It’s fun to vent among those with whom I largely agree. I get much desired positive feedback when I do that. Sometimes I simply have to do that for having so much to vent. In the end, I like to delude myself that I could sometime speak with the kind of voice that manages to cut through and reaches people who are, so far, disengaged, or even change minds.
I don’t think I’m dishonest to refrain from calling the people who offend me the most unkind names. Some choice ones came to mind this week when processing how I felt about Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a “faggot.” I certainly read some interesting comparisons of her to various body parts as well as ripe assesments of her character, looks, tastes, smell, habits, and especially language in comments around the net. I’ll admit I thought of a few myself, but with far less imagination than I found at large. I’m not saying I’m above that; I just don’t want to be about that. I suspect I would be more about that, were such language not already in good supply.
A Liberal World View
Our political system is out of balance. I see a moderate liberal democracy as the governmental and social norm. That means that there’s room for expression of ideas from the left and right of that position, and that ideas not in the mainstream have the opportunity to either move into the mainstream or be practiced in subcultures with little interference. Even then, there would be LOTS of room for public discourse and even activism on behalf of issues and ideas that people feel are not getting the deserved attention. Still, a stasis position would be one where there is a robust social welfare system and broad civil freedoms.
I’m a strong advocate of civil rights for minorities, women, and all types of sexual minorities. I believe in religious freedom including strong support for the non-establishment clause. I believe we all have basic human rights, including adequate shelter, food, healthcare and education. Education, especially should be offered equally to all. We’re created equal, and through education we realize our best potentials. Women should have a right to choose; GLBT folks should have the equal protection of marriage. Folks should not be penalized for remaining single.
Where Liberalism Fails
It’s not actually liberalism that fails; It’s humans that fail. We certainly must share some genes with our Border Collie friends. We can be as dogmatic as they can be dogged. Once we settle on an idea as defining liberalism, we are loath to give it up. But to be a liberal is to be open to new ideas.
Liberalism favors equality and freedom and civil rights. An overarching implication of liberalism is civility or something deriving from the French revolutionaries’ fraternitie. The idea that we share a common brother- and sisterhood. The sense that we all prosper or fail organically, that while individuals, we each contribute to the common good and each benefit when we all prosper. This may be economic; it’s definitely spiritual; but, it is not “trickle down econimics.” That some have to become filthy rich so that there are more crumbs for the poor is not a liberal idea.
Liberalism needs to know when to dig in, and when to be open to change. Not only do we need to hold onto our core values, but we need to constantly reassess whether our policies continue to support those values. If social support systems perpetuate need, we must be able to see and adjust those policies. What we musn’t do is abandon the basic good of a policy in making adjustments. What separates us from conservatives and libertarians is that we move the safety net, enlarge it, contract it, change it’s fabric, whatever, but we do not remove it.
Liberalism, open to new ideas, can embrace sound fiscal policy. We don’t have to paint fiscal “conservatives” amongst us as centrists or as somehow betraying their liberal allies. To be liberal, such policies would have to be fair, meaning you don’t create systems where measurable numbers of people slip through the cracks. There would be the opportunity for wealth, maybe even vast wealth, but the wealthy would be taxed to support the common good. All who can afford to pay taxes would pay, recognizing that there are common goods to be achieved. You could say the common good is not supported by government bloat, by earmarks, by pet projects that serve only a few. It’s easy to argue we serve no one by spending our progeny into deep debt.
Ideological Purity Also Fails
Ideological purity is an exercise for liberals to study amongst ourselves, but it is a blunt instrument when used in practice. Through ideological speech, we inform our values and persuade others with the brilliance of our ideas. We celebrate individuals like the late Paul Simon, candidate Dennis Kucinich, future Sen. Al Frankin, and Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold for “walking the walk” and being our liberal standard bearers and our consciences. We get misty-eyed, or militant in their support (militancy being counter-intuitive, to say the least). We long for the day when such persons can lead the whole nation.
I am dismayed, though, when the specter of selling out is raised when we support candidates who can govern the nation as a whole. I know I was ill-prepared for Bill Clinton’s presidency, though I voted for him in the general election. I’d never seen him as my kind of liberal, but I learned to appreciate and admire him during his embattled two terms. These days when I insert his name in my text I tend to write, “Bill Clinton, the best president of a generation.” I write that phrase without a touch of irony (most of the time). Few could have done what he did, just 4 years after the end of the Reagan years. Ronald Reagan would not utter the word “AIDS” in the 8 years of his presidency, the same period win which the plague spread out of control. Bill Clinton had Bob Hattoy, a person with AIDS who died last week, speak at the Democratic National Convention—as a person with AIDS.
If we could make as much progress in the next administration as we made in Clinton’s, I might find myself, often, momentarily dissatisfied, but in total, a happy man.
Sphere ItGay Pornstar Rod Majors aka Republican Darling Matt Sanchez Exposed on Olbermann
Posted on March 9, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!
The interview on the video with Max Blumenthal was not the first mention of Sanchez’s past, which seems to substantially have come out in the blogosphere. Sanchez acknowledges working as “Rod Majors” on the blog, Joe. My. God. He now claims to be straight, or in his words “bad at being gay.”
I don’t fault Sanchez on the grounds of his past. What led him to his choices are his own business; but, the product of his work is quite public. If he’s really straight, I can’t fault him on being a Republican and playing media darling for the personalities of the far right. I certainly don’t agree with his choice to be Republican, but we all make bad choices from time to time. And now, all those right-wingers want a piece of him, figuratively—of course. I don’t know what the Republican haters who rushed to stand with their new “darling” knew about his past, if they did know there would be the motive to call them hypocrites.
In the interview on “Joe My God,” he comes off as smart and basically decent (though wrong or mis-led on the issues), I’m not ready to call him a hypocrite (at least no more so than many Republicans deserve). I will suggest that if his old gay films give him royalties, he’ll want to remember not to alienate his old fans.
Still, the whole incident presents the greatest of ironies. If there was a good gay-themed joke from CPAC, it wasn’t Ann Coulter’s nasty “faggot” line. The joke was on the haters. And Sanchez, while not himself the joke, provided the punchline.
Sphere ItSad For Scooter Libby, Sort Of
Posted on March 8, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
The airwaves have been filled with the ubiquitous juror Denis Colins describing the feelings amongst fellow jurors as sympathetic to Libby and how they did not relish the job they had to do. I’m not ragging on Collins: it’s our news culture. He seems bright, careful and sincere. Interviewers and commentators were happy to jump in saying they, too, felt sorry for Libby. Frankly, I feel a little bit sorry for I. Lewis Libby, myself.
My reality check came when listening to “On Point” on NPR this evening. Someone was saying how Scooter was a regular guy with a family and any number attributes many people can identify with. No one but White House insiders knows whether Libby will ever serve time for his convictions. I think for me and for a lot of people, the sympathy stems from a belief that there were larger crimes instigated and perpetrated by others that will go unpunished. There is a sense of injustice here, but really, that someone else did something worse does not nullify Libby’s bad actions. I might feel outrage if I’m given a ticket for going 70 mph right after being passed by cars going much faster, but that does not change the fact that I was doing 70.
My sympathy is blunted, also, by the knowledge that less well-connected people are incarcerated every day for non-violent or victimless crimes. Small-time dealers and consumers of drugs may harm fewer people than the proprietor of a liquor store, but somehow they offend societal sensibilities and can be forced to serve time. A single dealer who supplies marijuana to a small circle of friends and acquaintances really does little harm by those actions alone. One may argue that while the single dealer does little harm, the network that supplies him may be harmful indeed.
I suspect that may be true in Libby’s case as well. While his untruths may seem minor, those lies facilitated more serious crimes, and on a much grander scale than most illicit drug operations. With Libby’s complicity, an undercover CIA agent was exposed, the investigator discredited who was sent to Niger to check out allegations of Iraq’s efforts to acquire WMD, and a preemptive war started based on those allegations. More than 3,000 American soldiers have been killed along with unknown, much greater numbers of Iraqis.
We may have to live, for the time being, with Libby’s four convictions standing in for greater accountability of the administration. Still, I can feel bad for Scooter when considering one man’s life, just as I feel bad for the guy caught with an illegal stash. I just don’t see that Scooter’s freedom is worth more than the next man’s.
Sphere ItHow Environmental Are You? Take the Quiz.
Posted on March 4, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
As regular visitors know, I try to lighten up a bit on Sundays. I put a lot of energy into talking about remarks made by Ann Coulter yesterday, because I think our language choices are really important, and the language choices of public figures seeking to influence others even more important.
After all the talking about ways to be civil, responsible, inclusive, and any number of shared values, sometimes we just have to DO something. The following may provide a call to action to try just a little harder on the environmental front. Warning; unless you’re very, very good, this quiz may shock you with it’s assessment. Don’t worry needlessly. You may not feel cut out for “going off the grid,” a vegan diet, or cycling everywhere you need to go. Still, we can all do just a little bit more.
Take the Ecological Footprint Quiz.
It’s amazing to me the figures for world-wide or even community-wide energy savings for simple things like changing light bulbs for compact fluorescents. The great news is these are becoming very reasonably priced, but you have to shop for them. My community of Hyattsville, MD has a community wide “compact fluorescent cooperative” run essentially by one man. Through him I can get 60-watt or 75-watt equivalent bulbs for $1.50 or $1.75 ea. That’s about a fourth of the cost at the local grocery store. Also, I have bought multi-packs at Home Depot and Lowes for as little as $1.00 per replacement bulb.
If you want to save the planet with your wallet, consider donating to Earth Day Network or the National Resources Defense Council.
My environmental footprint? 16 acres. Ouch. My modest house seems to be my greatest extravagance. I should share it with more people. Additionally, I could do more to eat local, unprocessed foods, cycle or walk more, and use public transportation or share rides whenever possible.
Sphere It« go back — keep looking »
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
- Pages displayed : 77405
- Unique visitors : 49787
- Pages displayed in last 24 hours : 230
- Unique visitors in last 24 hours : 84
Powered by FireStats