When I was last employed, I worked as a campaign staffer for Kevin Van De Wege. Those of us employed and dedicated to his cause met frequently in Clallam County’s Democratic Club office, which was convenient for me in a race that took up two and a half counties, since the office was the closest thing to my home and field work. An interesting county, split Republican, Democrat, and other, Clallam County is full of retirees from California and Democrats who long for the good old days of FDR and Kennedy (and, although I’ve never asked, I would guess that the Republicans dwell on the good old days of Nixon and Reagan). The Old Boys Club, I call these Democrats, who reminisce on fond memories of politics in the old days.
Since that campaign, and job, ended in November, I’ve been back to the Democratic Club office only a few times, and only at hours I guessed no one would be there. I’d slip in with the combination, drop off some stray yard signs I’d found, and leave an office looking very much as I’d seen it in November.
Now, why would I, a Democrat with enough pride to volunteer, and then be employed by, a Democratic state legislator, not return to that office to spend time with other Democrats? First, you’ll notice that I didn’t refer to the other Democrats – with the exception of the campaign manager for Kevin, who was from a different county – as dedicated to the work it takes to win an election; I saw little of such dedication from the Old Boys Club. Second, I saw that the Old Boys Club spent a lot of time sitting around discussing how things were in past elections (and, although I would like to say that they didn’t spend time contributing to the current election, they did; they contributed money and office space and letters; what they did not do, and I should not fault them for it, is canvass or make phone calls). I fear that if I return to that group of men whose median age is about forty-five years my senior, that I will spend my time thinking of days gone by.
Indeed, since I am, through no fault of my own, of this generation without opportunity of employment or social mobility, I already find myself wondering if the best days of my life have not already gone by (do not answer that please, but consider its applicability to your own life). The best days of life would be college, everyone says. Except, of course, unless you went to Webb; at Webb they tell you – and it is true – that Webb would be better than college. So, I am finished with college, which was to be that best time of my life but-not-for-those-of-us-who-went-to-Webb.
Already, I reminisce about college, which was to be that best time of life. I have rarely kept in touch, for the same reason as my discontinued affiliation with the Old Boys Club. I am afraid, perhaps wrongly so, of dwelling on the past. If I am always looking backward, as the Boys Club does, I will always be thinking the best time I had happened long ago. I would rather hope for the future than the past.
Once again I wade into the deepest and most complicated of political topics; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all-consuming. Often I criticize Israel, but I do not feel that is undeserved; Israel has made countless mistakes (which, in and of itself, is somewhat understandable and acceptable, but I feel that rarely does Israel own up to – that is, admit to – the mistakes, and that is the source of the criticism). Perhaps, then, I should not criticize [yet] for the news is recent. And it is Palestine of which I am critical.
Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s Foreign Minister, announced plans for a provisional Palestine. Other than the fact that this sounds a little bit too similar to the Palestinian Authority, and that the announcement was made by Lieberman (who has acted as a catalyst for Israel’s international decline), this is not bad in itself. Then why am I disapproving of this plan? “The Palestinians rejected the notion of a provisional state as a ‘publicity stunt’ and urged Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to work instead to achieve a final peace deal.”
A Palestinian official, Saeb Erekat, said “the option of provisional borders or an, interim agreement is no longer on the table. I urge Lieberman not to fight the emergence of a Palestinian state, because it’s coming.” The proposal is “a publication relations stunt, to throw the ball in our court,” Erekat added.
Palestine (all factions of it), Israel just “threw the ball in your court.” Take the ball and run with it, as the saying goes, because then Israel will be forced to make a choice. It will either grant you the state you have been asking for, or it will cause more death and destruction of your people – which is nothing new, and is happening – or none of the above. Don’t tell Israel that a partial deal in which you get 50% of the land you desire and claim isn’t good enough for you.
As I sat waiting for the ferry to Seattle I observed the car next to me. A youngish middle aged woman in an SUV sat drinking out of a pink coffee mug. Was there a kid in the back seat?
It doesn’t matter where you are. You will see a woman much like this.
Or you will see what I saw when cars began to load. A prius with a personalized licence plate and an obama/biden sticker. Either you will see this or a person equally as proud of a pickup and a (pick your conservative) bumper sticker.
This is the American life.
I write here and bombard you, my reader with news and thoughts. I don’t imagine that’s a bad thing, but I write from my point of view, which is different than, and influences, your view. I do not think that these news and thoughts are a bad thing, and I attempt to recognize my own biases and approach my writings in a universal sense – that is, that they apply to more than just me.
Clearly, I want to write here about something that applies to you as well as to me. However, I frequently write of politics, and politics is naturally divisive, because we do not get what we want. I make an effort not to be impulsive, or to write of news without studying some history, and hopefully the ramifications as well; writing of events and viewpoints increases awareness of interconnectedness and collective consciousness, which makes it clear that it is important to understand and appreciate multiple views.
As South Sudan goes to the polls on this day, January 9th, to decide in a democratic manner whether to secede and form a new country we must wish them peace, and should consider what this referendum means. Sudan has reached a point of democracy, which in this case I use to refer to one man, one vote, at least at a nominal level. This, of course, won’t solve all of Sudan’s problems. Even democratic Belgium hasn’t “managed to form a government since federal elections were held in June,” so I’m sure that Sudan can only use the elections as a stepping stone to the next issue that needs resolving.
What will that issue be? Will it be Darfur, a part of Sudan about the size of Spain? Will it be oil reserves, which are mostly in the South (but not refined there)?
Whatever happens in Sudan, it will not stay in Sudan, or happen with without outside influence (hopefully the election is an exception). Darfur acquired worldwide attention – long after it was needed – because of genocide that peaked in 2005. People, organizations, and countries, are still watching. Separatist movements in other countries will be watching to see what South Sudan does right and wrong.
How will these issues be resolved? Will it be through democracy, as defined above?
I have a very different view of the world than the Tea Party does, and therefore that worldview is very similar. As I have shown before, the Tea Party is made up of disparate factions, is comprised at some level like a multi-marketing pyramid scheme, and thinks that its view is the correct worldview. I too contain disparate factions, interested in pursuing different means to the same end; the same end the Tea Party desires, which is to create a better world.
I think that my worldview is the correct view, and that society should pursue peace and social justice and economic redistribution. It is mostly comforting to think that I have the correct worldview, and the discomfort arises out of a learned trait to believe my interests are not mine alone. Does the Tea Party question, on occasion, that their worldview is the right view?
I am inexpert regarding many parts of the world, including Egypt. I have no great knowledge of Egypt beyond what grade school teaches. However, I desire to learn about people, places, and things – nouns – beyond borders that have been drawn up. Does the Tea Party? I am both like and unlike them. Some concepts are universal, and at the same time, bipolar concepts. Some concepts are both like and unlike; justice and injustice, wealth and poverty, respect and disrespect.
This week the 112th House of Representatives begins, and Republicans and Tea Party Representatives (akin very much like Death Eaters and the Ministry are one and the same in the final Harry Potter book) maintain or enter office to “shake things up” and “take their country back.” My views are both like and unlike theirs. How will they represent the views that they do not agree with. Will it be like Egypt?
I accuse the host of MPs and government officials who cannot help but take their own personal bigotries along to the parliament, or to the multitude of government bodies, national and local, from which they exercise unchecked, brutal yet at the same time hopelessly inept authority.
…
And finally, I accuse the liberal intellectuals, both Muslim and Christian who, whether complicit, afraid, or simply unwilling to do or say anything that may displease “the masses”, have stood aside, finding it sufficient to join in one futile chorus of denunciation following another, even as the massacres spread wider, and grow more horrifying.
We have reached the point where elected representatives take their own bigotries to the halls of congress. We have reached the point of hopelessly inept authority. We, elected and not elected, have become complicit, afraid, and unwilling to say anything that may displease the masses. We have not become violently disagreeable. Our world is both very similar and very different.
It is a federal crime to act on behalf of any organization the United States has declared a terrorist organization, including advocating for peace. However, to my knowledge, it is not illegal to write about, or inform people of, past decisions of the Supreme Court, nor could it ever be under the stare decisis notion of ex post facto. From the lawyer David Cole,
I believe Mr. Mukasey and his compatriots had every right to say what they did. Indeed, I argued just that in the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Los Angeles-based Humanitarian Law Project, which fought for more than a decade in American courts for its right to teach the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey how to bring human rights claims before the United Nations, and to assist them in peace overtures to the Turkish government.
But in June, the Supreme Court ruled against us, stating that all such speech could be prohibited, because it might indirectly support the group’s terrorist activity. Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that a terrorist group might use human rights advocacy training to file harassing claims, that it might use peacemaking assistance as a cover while re-arming itself, and that such speech could contribute to the group’s “legitimacy,” and thus increase its ability to obtain support elsewhere that could be turned to terrorist ends. Under the court’s decision, former President Jimmy Carter’s election monitoring team could be prosecuted for meeting with and advising Hezbollah during the 2009 Lebanese elections.
….
Yet The Times recently reported that the Treasury Department, under a provision ostensibly intended for humanitarian aid, was secretly granting licenses to American businesses to sell billions of dollars worth of food and goods to the very countries we have blockaded for their support of terrorism. Some of the “humanitarian aid” exempted? Cigarettes, popcorn and chewing gum.Under current law, it seems, the right to make profits is more sacrosanct than the right to petition for peace, and the need to placate American businesses more compelling than the need to provide food and shelter to earthquake victims and war refugees.
It should go without saying – and therefore it needs to be said – that we have our values backwards.
The Israeli newspaper describes the shortcomings of the peace process in less than a page:
In view of Netanyahu’s forced recognition of the principle of two states for two peoples, he is proposing to establish the Palestinian state on a portion of the West Bank to remove the burden of Israeli occupation, but without dealing with any of the other issues. However, in this, and similar to the disengagement, Netanyahu is serving the interests of Hamas, seeking to “liberate” more land from “Palestine,” for no return.
Therefore, the prime minister should be reminded that we are interested in bringing the conflict to an end – not only the occupation. Israel and the Palestinians did not begin talks because one side “discovered” the rights of the other, but because they recognized that they had no choice. Israel feared losing its Jewish identity and its democracy, and the Palestinians feared losing territory to the settlement enterprise.
There is nothing wrong with this, nor is there any reason it should have to be otherwise. There is some mutual interest in having, and maintaining, peace. Peace can only come at the end of the conflict, of which the occupation is one part.
Since we have shown that democracy is anti-democratic more compelling information has come to our attention to convince us of this compelling theory. Reads the Espionage Act of 1917:
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
The foregoing provisions of which include everything known to man in 1917: “any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense,” ” intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense,” and so forth.
The Espionage Act is not the first of its kind (nor was it the last, as the PATRIOT act proved). Arguably unlike the current congress, or any congress of the last hundred and fifty years, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, though signed into law, were later repealed, or allowed to expire, by many of the same people who promoted and ratified the Acts. As we have shown before, it is against the interest of even a democracy to act in an open, trusting, manner.
Somewhere between the Espionage Act and the PATRIOT act (the official title of which is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001”) came the Second Red Scare, in which we worried that the Communist idea of 1) doing what you do best, and 2)caring about your neighbor, might destroy us. The Second Red Scare (in case you needed another one) from 1947-1957 included, in its early stages, The Rosenberg Case, whose son Robert Meeropol wrote of the unconstitutionality of the Espionage Act in an article on December 28, 2010, said of recent scare tactics,
just as in my parents’ case, the prosecutors could seek to bully some involved into ratting out others, in return for more favorable treatment. This divide and conquer approach would turn individuals against each other, sow the seeds of distrust within the broader community, and intimidate others into quiescence.
It has previously been argued that caring is essential if progress, and here I would add to that argument, open democracy, is to survive. It is a lot easier not to worry – care- or expend emotional well-being on issues. That, intentionally or inadvertently is what the government desires, because citizens go about the task of providing taxes, unconcerned with the morality of to government to which they pledge allegiance. I have previously maintained that I’m not terribly concerned with ‘leaked secrets’ (that were already known). That’s true, in the nominal sense. What is disconcerting is the human aspect of what the government will do to ensure loyalty.
“Bradley Manning’s detention is not comparable with the horrific measures imposed on Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was accused of plotting to detonate a “dirty bomb” and held as an “enemy combatant” for six years before being convicted on a lesser charge. Padilla’s attorneys alleged that he was subjected to sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and tortured with psychotropic drugs until he lost his mind. But Manning is also a 23-year-old who, whether he is right or wrong, thought he was doing the right thing, and has now run into the maw of a vindictive American security state.”
A government cannot (justly) propose that it teach morality in schools, expect morality of citizens, teach morality to soldiers, and then act immorally. Just as you do not resolve a peace process by lobbing missiles at your enemy – though often tempting – you do not resolve truth with lies, or trust with mistrust.
We quickly forget information we are not reminded of, or do not have a reason to recall. That information either departs from our brain for good, or is shunted into the corner, to be remembered at odd moments of the future. You may have already forgotten – why would you want to remember, when more pressing personal issues such as holidays with the family concern you? – that the newly notorious WikiLeaks is reminding us of already known information, and creating quite a scandal.
That which is democratic is inherently anti-democratic; or to put it another way, that which follows the ideals that democracy espouses (liberty of the press, free speech, personal rights, a governmental system that represents everyone), goes against the grain or flow of democratic (much less non-democratic) governments, and against the nature and interest of authority. Therefore, even those societies and states that claim to have a democratic ideal act to suppress, or utilize to the advantage of the already empowered, both its citizenry and any power that can be wielded beyond its own borders. This means that governments – even those shining, democratic governments – routinely attempt to keep information secret. This is neither shocking nor new. However, it is not always necessary, nor is it damaging to the government to have ‘secrets’ (in this case, and many others, secrets are facts which are already known and reported, but not talked about) revealed.
No one outside of the Washington establishment and the myriad foreign leaders shamed by revelations of their penchant for hatred, hubris and pedestrian peccadillos can seriously argue that the release of these classified documents has done anything but good for the cause of peace and political transparency.
The Dole Blog 