Free speech…it is one of the hallmarks of the American way of life. The ability to freely express oneself without fear of government reprisal is so fundamental that it is enshrined in the first amendment to our national Constitution. Yet despite this protection, there have always been restrictions on how free our speech really is, and in some cases, this is how it should be. We are not free to speak falsehoods that cause harm to others. Libel and slander laws address that issue. We are not free to speak in ways that incite fear or riots without cause. The oft used “yelling fire in a crowded movie house” illustrates that point quite well and we have laws against that too. Like any freedom, the freedom to speak requires a sense of responsibility by the speaker.

The issue of free speech has been all over the media in recent weeks, arising from the outrage of the Muslim world in protest to some caricatures of their religious prophet. It has also been talked about in the wake of the NSA wiretapping scandals and the possible effects that those actions may have on the U.S. government’s critics to express their views free of government eavesdropping and without fear of possible sanctions against them. In both of these cases, the ability to exercise the freedom of speech has been called into question, but in different ways. In one case, the ability to exercise free speech is being questioned by religious fundamentalists who don’t offer such freedoms to their own people. In the other, the use of free speech is being chilled by abusive governmental policies that increasingly seem to be targeted at political opponents. However, despite the serious implications of both of these matters, the topic of this essay is not to address those matters. Instead, I would like to discuss the efforts of American corporations to abridge the newest form of free speech in the world…namely, the use of the internet to get and share information and opinions in a way never before possible.

The internet has historically been an open medium, allowing innovation to improve the availability of information and the communication of people everywhere. This factor has led to the rise of many new businesses, including online shopping, online advertising, and of course, the sharing of news, information, and opinion. The internet has created a huge financial opportunity for businesses and individuals alike, but now it seems that some of the biggest providers of internet access want to change the rules and corner all those profits for themselves. The effects of this effort will not only consolidate the money making possibilities of the internet into the hands of a few giant and wealthy corporations, it will also have a chilling effect on the newest form of free speech, blogging.

With the internet today, all someone has to do is open an online account with a service provider and the entire world wide web is available with a few keystrokes and mouse clicks. You simply pay your $10 or $20 or $40 each month, depending on the speed of your service, and you can get literally all the information on any subject that you want. The explosive growth of the new electronic medium has enabled people to find out the time of the latest movie, download coupons, pay their bills, file their taxes, and organize political positions, to name just a few. You pay your provider fee and the content is free. And it has worked wonderfully. The biggest service providers get a lot of money in monthly user fees. The biggest content providers get a lot of money from online advertisers. And all the users get whatever it is they need or want from the experience. But what has been great for consumers, writers, and the curious citizen hasn’t been great enough for the biggest service providers in the game. Now they want you to pay not just for the ability to access the net, but also for the content you receive.

In recent statements to both the press and the U.S. Congress, the biggest telecom companies in the country think they deserve even more money, and they are actively seeking to restrict internet usage by trying to impose usage fees to content providers for using the infrastructure of the internet to disseminate information. By arguing that they own the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the network, they say that they should be able charge anyone who uses the network a user fee.

Bellsouth’s William L. Smith told reporters that he would like the Internet to be turned into a “pay-for-performance marketplace” where his company would be allowed, for example, to charge Yahoo for the right to have its site load faster than Google. (Washington Post, December 1, 2005)

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg says that web applications (like search engines, online video, VoIP telephone) need to “share the cost” of broadband – broadband that’s already been paid for by the consumer. “We have to make sure that they [application providers] don’t sit on our network and chew up bandwidth. We need to pay for the pipe.” (TechWeb News, January 5, 2006)

AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre said: “What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain’t going to let them do that….Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?” (Business Week, November 7, 2005)

and

“I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network…. Now they might pass it on to their customers who are looking at a movie, for example. But that ought to be a cost of doing business for them. They shouldn’t get on [the network] and expect a free ride.” (Financial Times, January 30, 2006)

What these men are really saying is that the more money you have to give to them and their companies, the more your right will remain to use and access the internet as you do today. Want to access 100 hundred sites a day with a high-speed connection? No problem, so long as you have the cash to pay for each site you visit, each page you view, and the faster you want to look the more expensive it will be. Effectively, they are trying to shut the door on the average person to utilize the great tool of information and commerce that is the internet. And for those who are willing to shell out a few more bucks, they are even trying to kick your personal websites into the slow lane by restricting high-speed infrastructure to their own content companies or affiliates.

But it’s not just the service providers that are trying to change the way we use the net.

America Online and Yahoo, two of the nations largest e-mail providers are taking a shot at getting an “e-mail tax” enacted in an effort to squeeze more money out of people who seek to communicate and share information via e-mail.

From the New York Times:

America Online and Yahoo, two of the world’s largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely. The Internet companies say that this will help them identify legitimate mail and cut down on junk e-mail, identity-theft scams and other scourges that plague users of their services. They also stand to earn millions of dollars a year from the system if it is widely adopted.

One wonders how soon it will be before they start d
emanding non-commercial e-mails be charged fees as well.

The successful effects of these efforts will ultimately spell the end of internet usage as we know it, and will shut the door on the freedom of speech that an affordable, open, and largely free internet offers us all today. These are issues that don’t just affect political bloggers either, though those of us who fall into that category will probably be the first to feel the loss. Ultimately, everyone who uses the internet for anything will feel the squeeze from these greedy, and already incredibly wealthy corporations. And while they don’t yet realize it, these measures will also kill off the revenue streams that these businesses already enjoy. When average citizens can’t afford both access and content fees, they will use the internet less and less. Advertisers will move away because their audience will have dried up. When the advertisers go, so too do all the profits. In what is often the case with unbridled greed, these guys are loading the gun they will be shooting their foot with.

Fortunately, it hasn’t happened yet. And it is possible for you to make it known that you want this nonsense to end. This is not a partisan or political problem. It will affect everyone of us who uses the internet.

To let the Telecom service providers know how much you oppose their actions, sign this petition.

To tell AOL that they need to keep their sticky fingers off of our e-mail, sign this one.

Some readers may remember this essay from it’s original posting on February 17, 2005. I apologize for the repeat, but this topic is one that doesn’t seem to go away and needs to be addressed with some regularity. The plight of homosexuals in this and other countries is one of the last great battles for true equality among people and is one that is consistently brought up by religious pundits as a smokescreen to deflect attention from more pressing issues in the world today. Homosexuality is not an agenda being pushed upon heterosexuals, it is a way of life for millions of people who only want the be treated as human beings. I hope you will find some words of wisdom here. I will return with a new essay in my next post.

If you ever watched Seinfeld, the title of this essay will immediately reveal the nature of the topic. For those of you who haven’t, this essay is about homosexuality and its quest for equal recognition under the law. As previously inferred in the essay Sex, Morality, and the Law, the practice of homosexuality in and of itself should not be, and is not, of any legal importance to the well being of society and as such, has no business being legislated. Homosexuals are no different from anyone else, except for their sexual preferences. They eat, breathe, work, sleep, think, feel, and love just as any other human being does. They look just like other people. They sound like other people. They are our friends and neighbors and family members. Yet for some reason, they are set apart from the heterosexual majority, as if they deserve less from this country and less from our laws.

What arguments exist that makes this segregation seem reasonable? Those who condemn the gay lifestyle typically use one of several justifications for discriminating against homosexuals: religion, nature, or family values. One of the oldest, yet still quite popular, justifications used is that of religion. Early religious doctrines outlawed homosexual behavior as abominations in the eyes of god, a concept based in part on the assertions that sex is bad, and though sex is bad, it’s okay if it makes more babies who will grow up and worship god. The corollary being that god only allows sex to make babies, and since homosexual activity will never result in offspring it is wrong. But more than just wrong, it is an affront to god to abuse his method for perpetual glorification by using the gift of life for mere pleasure. From this logic comes the dictum that homosexual behavior is a sin and should be outlawed.

The obvious flaw with this argument lays not so much in the description of how babies are made, but the idea that sex equals babies is universally held and therefore deserves legal status. But this is often the mistake with arguments based solely on theological reasoning, because the nature of our religious institutions prevent them from admitting any fault with their religious doctrine, keeping them from recognizing the contradictions within their own holy texts regarding the treatment of people as free individuals while insisting that their actions are free only if god doesn’t object, which he pretty much always does. Since the religious argument’s only justification is to please god, which is highly subjective, this argument is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

In a similar vein, those who would argue that homosexuality “just isn’t natural” have a hard time making that claim stick. Their main premise is identical to the religious premise, only without the god part. Basically, the argument relies on the notion that sex is basically a procreative behavior, and that sexual encounters that can’t possibly produce offspring are therefore against the natural design that clearly gave male/female opposites the complimentary parts for achieving this end. Though less judgmental regarding the pleasurable effects of sex, this only applies to heterosexual behavior, being fringe benefits for helping nature run her course.

The problem with this argument is that when it is examined further along the lines of “natural design,” it could be argued that homosexuality in itself is of natural design too. After all, if humans are creatures of nature, then our variations are natural as well. If among these variations one results in homosexual behavior, then isn’t that by natural design also? As it must be so, then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or bisexuality or even asexuality. The mere fact that homosexuality constitutes a minority of the population is irrelevant in this context, since the percentages are also set by natural design. If we know anything about the natural world, it is that in all species, variation abounds. This argument actually proves itself wrong when allowed to run a logical course, so it is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

That leaves us with the last ditch effort to find a reason for justifying the segregation of homosexuals and equal recognition under the law. The “family values” argument. This argument begins with the premise that for children to be raised to become productive citizens, the family unit should contain a man and a woman. This is the most important facet of the family values argument. As long as there is a man and a woman together as parents, the family values requirement has been satisfied. Since homosexual couples can’t meet this requirement, the can’t become a “real family.” Since a “real family” is the only way to properly raise children, for the good of society, all legally recognized families must be of this basic design.

The family values argument pretends to preserve the family unit, but makes no other real efforts towards solving the actual problems in today’s families. What is more harmful to the cohesion of family units: divorce or two parents who love each other and want to stay together, but happen to be the same sex? Which is more damaging: the lack of parental participation or having two moms’ at the mother/daughter tea? Which is more debilitating for a child: an abusive natural parent or seeing his two dads’s kissing? The family values argument makes no real effort to encourage heterosexual families to create and maintain secure, stable, emotionally supportive families for children, which would better reflect the concept of valuing the family. Instead, they only seek to prevent homosexuals from participating in one of life’s great joys and endeavors, the task of parenthood. Because the real truth about the family values argument, the dirty little secret, is that this argument is based on plain old bigotry, dressed up in its finest clothes. It’s discrimination in its purest form and when it’s hypocrisy is revealed, it proves to be the least sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

As this leaves us with no other arguments that can justify the unequal legal status homosexuals currently endure, it is the duty of this government to remove any barriers that prevent homosexual couples from enjoying the same legal status heterosexuals have with regards to marriage, adoption, taxes, work benefits, and on and on. Science seems to support the assertion that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, something hardwired into a person’ genetic code. Religion and bigotry (not always the same, mind you) insist that it is simply a behavioral issue that can easily be repressed or reformed or outlawed into extinction. The scientific view has more going for it, in terms of common sense, and it has the added benefit of not legislating religious morality by proxy.

Removing the barriers for homosexual couples has no effect on individual couples’ relationships. How many people do you know that would throw away their hetero relationships the minute gays could get married because now their own marriage was worthless? Allowing gay people the chance to share thei
r life with someone they love does not weaken the bonds of monogamy and child rearing. It only adds to the number of people finding individual happiness together and passing that happiness to future generations. And it strengthens the bonds of society through the continued affirmation in the belief for freedom and equality for all citizens.

In the late 18th century, citizens of the American colonies rebelled against the autocratic rule of England’s King George III and established a country that was to be ruled by a representative government subject to the rule of law. In what became the first democratic experiment since the ancient Greeks and Romans, the United States of America was born and the concept of autocracy was discarded by our forefathers.

Autocracy is defined as government by a single person having unlimited power. While it is not unheard of for autocratic rule to be somewhat benign, often the head of an autocratic government creates a cult of personality, turning the state of governmental affairs into a state of despotism. Under an autocracy, the average citizen has no say in the rules of the land, no recourse against injustice, and no chance to change the course of social or political life. Citizens under the thumb of an autocratic ruler are subject to the whims of the head of state, which creates an environment of uncertainty, suspicion, and fear. Occasionally, an autocratic ruler perpetuates an aura of fairness by establishing a group of citizen legislators who ostensibly have some say in the course of government, but in reality have little or no power to affect the decisions of the autocrat. The Roman government reverted to this form under Julius Caesar and continued in this manner until its downfall.

Democracy, on the other hand, embraces the concept of citizen rule and through its adherence to established laws, created in concert with the will and ideals of the citizenry, offers the average citizen an opportunity for recourse against governmental excesses. True democracy recognizes the need not only for compromise in creating public policy, but also establishes that no single person has a consolidated grip on the reins of power. In a democracy, there is no lifelong ruler, but a temporary head of state whose main task is to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld and that the ship of state maintains a course in tune with the will of the citizens. Unlike an autocracy, the democratically elected ruler must work with all the other elected legislators to ensure that social and political policies are benefiting the whole of the citizenry, regardless of their own personal preferences for particular courses of action. Whereas in an autocracy the ruler is subject to no laws or penalties at all, in a democracy the nominal head is bound by the same laws as all other citizens and subject to the same penalties if those laws are broken.

Autocracies are maintained by force of will, force of power, and a blind acceptance of the people that there is no other way available. Democracies are perpetuated by the acceptance of all people, including the elected leaders, that to revert to autocratic rule is harmful to everyone. Above all things, democracy is a state of mind, backed by the rule of law that endures so long as the people remain involved through the selection of their leaders and through vigilance that those leaders are held responsible to the laws of the land.

American democracy incorporates a third element to maintain our democracy, and that is the independent judiciary. Because the founding fathers of this country understood that power to rule others has a corrupting influence on human nature, they built in to our system of governing a system of courts that was independent of the legislative body so that those charged with creating the laws would be mindful of the penalties of breaking those laws. The courts of America were designed to be outside the legislative functions of government so that they could impartially decide when a law was broken, or had gone to far from the protections guaranteed in the Constitution. The courts were the tool that held the legislators in check.

In all aspects, the American democratic experiment is not a perfect way to govern, but it has been the fairest devised by humanity to date. Our tri-partite form of government has endured civil strife and foreign aggression for over 230 years without collapse not just because of the independence bred into the hearts and minds of the citizens, but also because of the acceptance of our elected leaders and appointed judges to adhere to the rule of law as it applies to all people. We have outlasted internal attacks on the system by rogue politicians because the majority of politicians and judges have ruled with reason and respect of the foundations of our government- foundations that place the well being and will of the people above that of those who sit in the chair of power. We have understood, almost inherently, that the average man will continue to thrive long after those temporarily in power have come and gone, and that the ideals of American freedom are greater than the whims of any ruler.

All that we hold dear and righteous regarding the rule of law and the limits of governmental power has come under assault with the advent and advancement of the Unitary Executive Theory.

Originally a concept for business structure, the Unitary Executive Theory holds that a single person has total authority over the course of action that will be followed. Any policy decisions are directed by that one person, as well as the right to interpret what a rule means or does not mean. Under Unitary Executive Theory, there are no checks to the power wielded by the one at the top of the ladder, no recourse for those underneath the executive, no decision that cannot be overridden or discarded or ignored. In short, the Unitary Executive is an autocrat in their domain. Any lesser policymakers, while given authority by the executive to create rules for people under them to abide by, can not force the executive towards any particular course of action. While this may be acceptable, and sometimes even necessary for the success of a business or corporation, it is antithetical to the democratic form of government. Yet it is being embraced by our president today, and upheld by acquiescence by the ruling majority party in Congress. And while the minority party and the citizens themselves deride such an abuse of power, the Unitary Executive Theory is embraced by several of the justices of the highest court of the land and a push is on to increase their numbers in an effort to solidify this usurpation of democracy.

Through an unprecedented use of so-called signing statements where the president interprets the laws of congress any way he sees fit, the rule of law is being subverted by an executive who seeks to consolidate power for himself and his potential successors. What results is an autocracy by default. It is an attempt to recreate an autocratic form of government where the head of state can choose which laws apply to him and which do not. It is ironic that the last autocrat to rule this country was also named George.

On the plus side, this attempt to destroy the ideals of democracy has not been firmly implanted just yet. But the time is coming when it may be too late to revert course without major internal upheaval. When a majority party controls both branches of legislation and is pushing the balance of the judiciary towards their side ideologically, and that ideology is to consolidate power under a Unitary Executive Theory, the American experiment is in grave danger of taking a turn back in time. The table is being set before us and an apathetical citizenry is being served a sour meal. But we can still reject this course of action.

In the coming election year, we have the power to change the face of the Congress and rebalance the state of our political class. We have the duty to revoke the power that is currently consolidated by a single party. It is up to you and me to make sure that America does not become an autocracy in democratic clothing.

First there was the push for campaign finance reform. Senators McCain and Feingold patched together some legislation that would “clean up” the effects of corporate and special interest donors and eliminate their effect on politicians being bought into office. Not surprisingly, the spirit of the law was sidestepped by the proliferation of PAC’s and 527 organizations that still managed to funnel money to campaigns, either directly or through issue advertising. What was supposed to level the playing field for all candidates and theoretically open the door for more political competition became little more than a toothless tiger. It may look good on paper, but the practical effects have been negligible at best.

Now, in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, we are seeing both parties scramble to out-do each other and reform ethics rules in the House and Senate. The biggest problem is the access of lobbyists to lawmakers, and the perks they toss around for getting favorable legislation passed. Early indications show that this will have little or no effect as the proposals don’t really cut off access, they merely attach new rules, like the Republicans demanding campaign contributions in addition to the other perks they already receive and the Democrats saying that they have the ability to “just say no.” Make no mistake, both parties are skirting the real issues and simply trying to look good in the eyes of voters in an election year. Reform measures are pointless so long as those entrusted to follow them are only concerned about getting and keeping their seats of power.

Still, reforms are vital to the future health of our nation and efforts to make needed reforms should not be taken so lightly. Instead of vilifying each other in the press while quietly seeking ways to make the fewest changes necessary, politicians need to step up and show some real integrity. Among the most vital areas ripe for reform are the rules that govern how business is done in the halls of government.

Specifically at issue are the matters of adding amendments to bills and the fact that most lawmakers don’t even know what it is they are actually voting on.

First things first. If you’ve ever read an actual bill that is headed to the floor for a vote, the first thing to stand out is the extraordinary length and legalese that makes legislation nearly impossible to digest. A primary reason for this is the policy that allows legislators to delegate the actual writing of bill language to their staff, which in turn team up with whomever is advocating for the bill in the first place. Believe it or not, the act of crafting actual legislation is the prime reason we have representatives. This task, above all else, is their primary job. But in our world of influence buying and constant campaigning, our elected officials turn over the task of writing legislation to their unelected aids, many of whom are more than happy to add a little here and add a little there depending on what their own goals and interests may be. Sometimes this is a conscious effort to subvert the original intentions of a bills sponsor (supposedly the legislator themselves, but often a corporate or special interest hack). Other times it is not. In either case, what comes out is something far more complex than is needed and often too long and confusing for the legislator to understand, even though they may think the bill is what they originally asked for. What could easily be a couple of paragraphs turns into a 40-page document, leaving elected lawmakers to shake their heads and hope for the best. This problem is especially rampant in appropriations bills and a major reason why so much pork is thrown into our budgets.

To rectify this problem, and to ensure that bills that make it to the committee’s or to the floor are what they were intended to be, we must pressure the Congress to adopt rules banning this practice. Any legislation to come up for consideration should be written by an elected official, and be limited in scope to address a specific, concise issue. It’s fine to use staff members to conduct research and flesh out grammatical errors, but actual legislation should come from the hands of the elected people and not their staffs.

Secondly, due to the nature of bills being so incredibly complex, most lawmakers do not actually take the time to read the bills they are offering before they submit them for consideration. This has the unfortunate consequence of lawmakers voting for something without really knowing what they are voting for. For this reason, we need to insist that Congress adopt rules that make it mandatory for all legislators to read and understand the contents of any bill they present or intend to vote on. An immediate effect of such a rule would be that bills would be much less complicated and even ordinary people would be able to understand what laws are being made. It would mean an end to the nuanced interpretations of specious segments of legislation, especially if lawmakers were held accountable for their votes by a public who could understand what the verbiage of the bill was. It would make eliminate the whole “flip-flopping” issue as an excuse for voting for bad legislation.

Another much needed reform is the process that allows for unrelated amendments to be added to bills in the effort to gain passage. Too often, laws are made not because they can stand the test of necessity or common sense, but because legislators engage in a kind of back scratching affair. Politicians who are trying to get less than necessary legislation on the books are able to trade votes by tacking on things they want to another piece of legislation. Such actions do not serve the best interest of the tax paying public in any way. If indeed a bill is valuable enough and necessary enough to be passed into federal law, it should have the ability to stand on its own merit. If it can’t do that, the chances are that it is not a good bill for the country, even thought it may be good for a particular district, or more likely, for a particular political benefactor. Congress must be pressured to end the act of allowing unrelated amendments to bills in exchange for support during the vote.

Of course, opponents of these ideas will say that I am naive. They will say that the only way to get things done in Washington is through the very kind of horse-trading schemes that have been going on for decades. I reject that line of argument though as little more than an admission that most of what they do is not really necessary for the average American citizen or is so convoluted that any one with common sense would reject it outright. We do not elect politicians to play games with our money and our lives, yet the current way of doing things does just that. Real leadership is about identifying real problems and solving those problems in the most efficient, most fair, and most reasonable way possible without complicating the matter so much that the solution can never be realized in the real world.

Reforming congressional ethics is important, but we already have a lot of good rules for that on the books. Rather, it is the class of politicians we need to change to restore ethical behavior to the halls of government. Reforming campaign financing is valuable too, and the people of this great country can manage a large bulk of that themselves by giving their political donations not to the party coffers or special interest groups, but directly to the candidates committees themselves. The laws forbidding corporate donations are there, they just need to be policed and enforced. (See also some suggestions for campaign reform in Fixing the Vote I & II) But the way that Congress does its business is where real reform is needed if we are ever to break out of the corrupt system we are locked into today. The imbalance of the two party
system can be reduced by reforming the very way that laws are written, read, and passed and that is where real leaders should be forcing changes. Until we get Congress to change the rules of engagement, all other reforms will have little effect on the actual business taking place in the name of American citizens and we will continue to languish under bad law, wasteful spending, and legislative abuse of power.

For those of you out there who still stand in support of your elected federal officials, I have only one question: Why?

This is the America they have brought to reality today:

Education is falling farther behind the rest of the world, including some third world countries. Science and math scores are at all time lows. Education costs are at all time highs. Cuts to student grant and loan programs for higher education leave many out of luck. The average reading comprehension ability among adults is judged to be at a sixth grade level.

Health care has become so expensive that many citizens go without, causing preventive care to be ignored at the peril of national health. Hospitals are overwhelmed with uninsured and illegal immigrants and are closing their doors. Seniors are having to go without vital medicine in the wake of a “new and improved” Medicare prescription benefit. The average bankruptcy is due not to reckless, wanton spending, but to unexpected, catastrophic medical costs.

Energy costs have skyrocketed, but energy providers and others in the energy industry have seen their profits explode. The average person has to choose between filling up the gas tank or buying new clothes for the kids. Home heating bills are even worse. Yet the answer from Congress is not to aggressively explore new energy resources, but to offer tax cuts to the industry as they attempt to gut wilderness areas in the quest for more non-renewable energy sources.

Employment is being sent overseas as companies seek to improve their bottom line at the expense of the people they want to buy their goods. For every middle wage job that leaves, a new Starbucks opens so net job loss is negligible. Net income is going way down though. And as inflation rises along with the federal interest rates, average Americans are being squeezed by the financiers and credit companies. Bankruptcy is also tougher to access for those in real need, but companies can shift their obligations like pensions and health care off on the government while receiving subsidies and bail-outs and tax cuts.

Prisons are expanding in both population and power as more citizens are targeted in the worthless war against pot users. Meanwhile, child rapists and convicted murders are paroled and let loose on an unsuspecting society to make way for the dangerous dopers. We have nicer prison complexes than schoolhouses, which is okay since so many will end up there now that they can’t get a good education or a good job anyhow.

Domestic security is a farce with our unsecured borders, unprotected ports and transportation systems, and concern with taking nail clippers away from the elderly and infants. Regular Americans are kept off of airplanes by a “no-fly” list while we look the other way as violent gang members sneak across the border. But at least the president is spying on average citizens to make sure they aren’t calling terrorists abroad. After all, better to monitor the phones than stop them at the border.

Our environment is being assaulted by corporations who continue to ignore regulations and get away with it. Reducing greenhouse gases is just too darn expensive. Ensuring that water is clean takes too much time, and besides, we soon won’t have any scientists to monitor this stuff anyhow.

On the foreign front, we’ve managed to piss off most of our former allies and made some new, duplicitous ones in the process. The “War on Terror” has been turned into a war on innocent foreign citizens while the real dangerous people are left to plan another battle for another day. And let’s not forget about the fact that we’ve hocked the future of the next two or three generations to foreign countries to pay for all of our misdeeds. The mortgage on America is held by everyone but us, and when the bill comes due, it will be our future generations who are left holding an empty purse.

Throw in an assault on the Constitution by a power hungry president and administration, fueled by a religious ideology and sense of American superiority that does not exist and the very tenets of freedom are on the block.

And what has your congressperson or senator done to prevent any of this? The Republican party in congress has created many of these program policies and championed them through couched as family values or moral certitudes. The Democrats have sat idly by and let it happen. Both want only to remain in power and get richer while the average citizen withers away. They are paper tigers and corrupt pawns of corporate hegemony and religious zealotry and neither will help us regain what used to be a given- namely, American freedom, prosperity, integrity, and pride.

Sure, some politicians are trying to do what is right for America and Americans, and by extension, the other people in this world. But the majority are careerist hacks, bent only on their ability to get power and keep power. They’ve made politics a game of partisan bickering without benefiting the taxpayers who keep them in office. They’ve turned us off on politics by their own ineptitude. They’ve made the job of governing so meaningless that we’ve stopped participating. And now they can do as they will, not to make life in this country better, but to keep the people out of the way.

So I ask you again, Why do you support a system and a politician who would sacrifice you and your children’s future freedom and peace? Is it because you believe the rhetoric you read in the paper or the sound bites you see on TV more than you believe what your own experience tells you? If I kick you in the head and tell you it doesn’t really hurt do you believe that too?

There is another way. In America we are allowed, no, we are required, to choose who will govern us. And when those who are in the chair of power do not do their duty, we are supposed to get rid of them. If the Democrats and the Republicans won’t take this country to a place it should be, a place where our tax dollars fund the people who pay them instead of the bureaucracy that has no common sense, then we must find people who will. We must choose to elect people who are like us. People who suffer the inanity that we all endure and want to change it. People who grow weary of the rhetoric and seek to speak the truth. People who will work towards a common goal of returning America to the land of freedom and fiscal sanity and lawful rationality that it was meant to be.

If the two party system has become so corrupt that it cannot right itself, and I fear that it has become just that corrupt, it is time to move away from it to an era of citizen legislators. Don’t be fooled into thinking that we need two parties to move America forward. They obviously have done nothing but move us backwards. We could do better without them, and our very way of life may require that we do just that.

(I originally posted this essay one year ago today. It was important then, but now, in an election year, it is even more relevant. I urge you to consider these thoughts as we begin a year filled with political scandal of epic proportions, an out of control Administration and a Congress unwilling to rein it in, local governments awash in ineptitude, political rhetoric that is deviod of action, and the future of America at a turning point.”)

There is something wrong with our government and the way it is run. I’m not just talking about the federal government, but our state and local governments too. Lacking common sense leadership, beholden to corporate interests and finances, cornered by special interests and threatened lawsuits, and muzzled by political party philosophies, our governments are about as responsive as a sea sponge and accountable to nothing. Overlapping regulations, agencies, and missions create an atmosphere of duplicity and waste while creating barriers between themselves and the people they purport to serve.

To make matters worse, the American public has become so distrustful of government that they distance themselves from it at every opportunity. With smaller percentages going to the polls, and an even smaller number actually knowing much about the candidates or propositions before them, government leaders are often picked according to who has the better sound bites, bigger budgets, and nicer hair. Such actions only serve to ensure that government will become less responsive to a public who largely ignores them, thus causing further estrangement by both parties, and on and on. The cycle perpetuates itself until it spins out of control. Propelled by its own inertia, an unchecked government moves backwards in history, becoming less responsive to the needs of its citizens and less representative of the people as a whole.

So what can we do about it? How can we retake government and make it accountable, efficient, and responsible? The biggest problem in government today stems directly from the political parties themselves. Although nothing in the Constitution requires or advocates it, our government is largely controlled by two main parties- the Republicans and the Democrats. There are numerous other small parties as well, but we’ll deal with “The Big Two.” The Democrat and Republican parties have created a divisive representational system, forcing constituents to choose a side. In an effort to gain members, each party portrays the other side as bad for America, bad for families, bad for you and me. Their messages have become so successful in fact, that the American people believe themselves to be split 50-50, creating gridlock and animosity of epic proportions. The parties’ successful attempt to make government look like a boxing match has the added benefit of distracting Americans from paying attention to what is really happening. While we’re all busy socking away at each other, our political parties have quietly carved up the country into “political safe havens,” where they can be sure of re-election, and thus less responsive. While we’ve been watching our tax dollars disappear, they have been securing fat cat deals for benevolent corporate donors and lining up lucrative post-public careers. And all the time, we’ve forgotten that government isn’t supposed to be a sport. Government is a public service, a public duty, and a public privilege.

Republicans and Democrats alike proclaim to have differences big enough to drive a truck through. Big Business vs. Pro-Labor. Tax and Spend vs. Fiscal Prudence. Law and Order vs. Nanny State. In truth though, the two parties have much more in common than they would have you believe. Their real goal is to consolidate power, not for the benefit of providing the public with better service, but for personal gain for their benefactors and themselves. They are both beholden to large corporate donors and labor unions, which, due to the bizarre nature of our campaign regulations, bankroll their ambitions to public office. These kinds of politicians may start out altruistically enough, but the minute they take their oath of office, there are but indentured servants, paying off a debt through favorable legislation, selective enforcement of regulations, and preferential treatment. They are at the mercy of party leaders, who in turn are being controlled by corporate and industry demands. Neither party has an interest in simplifying our government so that it can better serve the people. Neither party has an interest in fiscal responsibility. Neither party has a respect for the laws of this country, finding every loophole and exploiting every nuance. And neither party has respect for you, the taxpayer, the citizen, the American.

Government was created to provide certain basic needs of society. It provides public security. It regulates and enforces laws. It creates and regulates an economic base for business and labor. It provides some level of infrastructure. It defends the inherent rights of humanity, namely freedom of religion and thought and the chance for a happy life. Everything that our government does should fall into one of those main categories.

I think we all agree that we expect government to protect the integrity of our borders from attack and to defend our interior to its best ability. We expect government to fight for our interests abroad to further our safety as a country. We expect government to enact laws that apply to everyone and to enforce those laws equally. We agree that acts like murder, rape, theft, and assault, in all their many forms, should be illegal and punishable. We value the freedom to worship any religion we choose, to learn what we want to learn, to go where we want to go. And we expect our government to respect those freedoms and nourish them. We all want our children to grow up happy, in safe neighborhoods, and going to good schools. We all want to be able to provide for our families and give them something special now and then. We all want to enjoy good health and access to good health care. We have a lot more in common than the political parties would have you believe.

It is true that in finding our way to a common goal, we often come across many rivers that lead to the lake. The trick is in navigating the best stream at the right time. Unfortunately, our politicians aren’t even in the same boat. By focusing on their task of division, they try to get us to ignore that we have much in common. They want to keep us at odds so they muddy the waters by obscuring the true tasks of government. Instead, they highlight manufactured or sensationalized differences between “them and us.”

The only way to shake the grasp of a stagnant government is to abandon the parties en masse. A successful American government need not be dependant on artificial labels. Americans from both “sides” should re-register as independents, cast aside their party platforms and recognize candidates who use Common Sense. Choose leaders who shun labels and stand for principals we can agree on. We must understand that public service is a duty and an honor and choose leaders who believe that too. Only by denouncing the politics of partisanship can the business of government truly take place.

This would be a start in putting government back into the hands of the people. The very nature of democracy demands compromise before advance, and in this current political split, we need to not only abandon the parties individually, but abandon the politicians too. Doing anything less would prevent any meaningful reform. Look at the candidates, not their political affiliation. Don’t believe that party affiliation truly reflects who they are, or who you are either. Critically evaluate all candidates, especially independents, and find out where they stand on the issues. If no independents are on the ballot, find one and support them. Make politicians stand on their own feet and explain why they deserve the honor of repr
esenting our interests. Don’t let them hide behind boorish party talking points. To ensure that there will be plenty of non-affiliated candidates, encourage and support potential candidacies.

We must always remember that we do not owe it to politicians to keep them in office or to agree with their policies. Rather they owe it to us to defend our interests and to ensure that their policies are in line with our needs. We owe it to ourselves to make sure they deliver.

Update for 2006: As the administration continues it’s assault on the rule of law and erases the freedoms of American citizens, Democrats are finally attacking Bush, Cheney, and their administration. I wish them well in this endeavor. But I believe that even if they succeed in their efforts to spurn the administration, America is only safe from the worst abuses of political power. Even if Democrats regain control, American government is awash in corruption, unbridled pork spending, and tailor-made policies that ultimately do not benefit average citizens. Independent politicians could do the job of fighting irrational spending, inane programs, and failure bound policies if given the chance. At the very least, a healthy measure of independents could force the parties back to honest governance.

For over 60 years, U.S. Foreign policy has been predicated upon a doctrine known as “the lesser of two evils.” In essence, this policy was used as rationale for engaging in alliances with foreign dictators whose disdain for democracy held their own countrymen in virtual bondage to their whims. These dictatorships were free to act as they pleased within their own countries without pressure from the U.S. government with regards to human rights and freedoms so long as they sided with the U.S. in international matters or engaged in capitalistic endeavors with our government and corporations. Despite a stated goal of promoting democracy and freedom across the world (the chief rationale for a half century of opposing communism and a worthy ideal to be sure), successive U.S. administrations and Congresses have made pacts with tyrants who abhor individual freedoms and seek power and wealth at the expense of their countrymen.

The Shah of Iran was one. Idi Amin was one. Manuel Noriega was one. Ferdinand Marcos was another. So was Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden was one too. These and many others were at one time or another allied with the government of the United States in our battle against Soviet communism. Yet their tyrannical rule of their own people, with the acquiescence of U.S. governments and in total contradiction to our own stated beliefs of the state of man’s rights to freedom, led to tumultuous political upheavals in those countries and fostered an aura of distrust and outright hostility to the United States. We may have saved the world from the monstrosity of Nazism and Japanese totalitarianism, but we weren’t raising the lives of anyone but ourselves. In fact, we were nothing but hypocrites of the worst sort. We espoused ideas for the whole of humanity while embracing them for ourselves only.

Americans in general understood the concept at play, and recognizing Soviet communism to be a direct threat to freedom and democracy, accepted the rules of the game as the government wrote them. After all, American prosperity exploded. So what if the Arabs and Asians and Africans were being beaten and killed and starved around the world. We were too busy enjoying our access to cheap oil and trinkets to care about anyone else. The policy of the lesser of two evils had done us well, so why rock the boat?

Why indeed?

The simple truth is that the lesser of two evils policy is a fallacy. By choosing this method of foreign relations, the U.S. has not endeared itself to the people of the world. Despite the charity of our individual citizens to poor or ravaged countries around the world, the reputation of America is based on the actions of our government. We tout our freedoms and democratic principals everywhere we go, so the people of the world can only assume that we not only approve of what our government does abroad, we dictate that policy ourselves. They may want to come here and share in that power, but that doesn’t mean they like us. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we’ve shown the world that our means justify any ends, especially if the ends means more money and leisure for us. This approach to foreign policy has made us many false allies and real enemies, and the fruition of this approach is coming home to roost in the form of terror attacks and nuclear proliferation. And while the worst tyrants operate abroad, it is we who let them. Who is worse: the man who kicks the puppy or the one who pays to watch?

The lesser of two evils policy has come to haunt us in others ways too, ways equally as threatening to our way of life as the foreign enemies who are rising against us. So indoctrinated are we in this way of thinking, so convinced that there is always a time and a place to sacrifice our ideals to further our own comfort or success, we have adopted the theory to our own daily lives and politics. We accept throw away consumerism in exchange for cheap prices. We ignore illegal immigration for cheap produce. We vote for political hacks instead of people who really want to help their neighbors.

Well, we reap what we sow, both as a government and as a people. Not only do we have vicious enemies who really want to kill us and our way of life, we have a government who is becoming increasingly more like those dictatorships we propped up in the past. We have a government who espouses the use of torture, secret eavesdropping, indefinite detention, and defamation as a means of securing our freedom. We have a government who meets dissent with a sneer and a slur while telling us that our enemy is evil because they don’t let their people speak freely. We have an administration that will stop at nothing to protect us from our enemies, even if that means destroying the freedoms we hold so dear. We see the evidence mounting, and yet we allow it to continue.

Why?

It is because of the lesser of two evils theory, that foul, false policy that does nothing but decrease the total amount of liberty in this world by promoting fear over freedom; profit over people? Our government is telling us that unless we give them the power to do anything, anywhere, and anytime that they see fit, to stop the enemy from attacking us again, then we will surely lose the war on terror and fall victim to a dictatorial theocracy. They want us to believe that by suspending our own liberties to them at home, we will be averting an even greater decimation of our liberty in the long run. They are presenting themselves as the lesser of two evils.

By accepting the doctrine of the lesser of two evils, we may have driven Soviet aggression into the ground. But the price we are paying for our chosen method is an even more unstable world and a more unpredictable array of enemies. Perhaps had we chosen another path of confrontation, we would have won that battle with some real friends in the world. We can’t change the past, but we can learn from it. And we should start our first lesson here.

Our government still pursues the lesser of two evils doctrine abroad, and now they want to use it at home. We are at a crossroads. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we are giving up on the chance of choosing good. We are giving up on the promise of freedom, equality, and peace. We must oppose those who support the tyranny of others for our own prosperity. We must cast out those who would destroy freedom for the sake of false security. We must choose to follow those who will defend freedom for freedoms sake.

2006 is upon us, and a new year brings opportunities for change. Since 2006 will be a Congressional election year, we know that we can expect a year filled with campaigns and political sparring. We should also expect this mid-term election to be more attended than previous similar elections, as the American people find themselves at a crossroads once again. Serious issues are on the table that will have long-reaching consequences for the state of our country, and the outcome of this election year will either repudiate the policies of the current government or bolster its confidence to continue along the current path.

Most readers of Common Sense already understand that I am no fan of the current administration. My disgust with the Bush presidency stems partly from the basic ideology they operate from and partly from the total incompetence they have shown in their policies and the implementation of them. This administration has eroded our national reputation in the world at large, has sacrificed the future opportunities of the poor and middle classes while helping the rich get richer for the sake of being richer, and distorted the rule of law as suits their whim. The bulk of the Republican members of Congress have marched along with the Bush agenda, abetting this shameless administration while walking hand in hand with their big money donors all the way to the bank. Corruption investigations of prominent Republican lawmakers, aides, and businessmen have exposed this party for what it has become, and rank and file Republicans across the country should be outraged. In 2006, maybe the Republicans can reclaim their party from the greedy and the warmongers and reach back to their roots supporting fiscal sanity, less intrusive federal government policies, and rational foreign policy objectives. And maybe they can restrain the vocal religious minority in their ranks who wish to legislate their theological doctrines, recognizing that religion belongs with the individual, not with the loudest proselytizer.

The Democrats seem energized at times and lackluster at others. So far, they have not been much of an opposition party during the Bush years, and they certainly have not been a party of ideas. Typically, the Democrats have served only as a bulwark against the most extreme positions of the Bush administration, while helping to pass or idly standing by as the face of this country becomes less and less familiar. Belatedly, Democrat lawmakers have begun to pressure the administration as more questionable practices are brought to light, but they are at the very least complicit in the growing degradation of this nation. In 2006, Democrats need to develop a vision that speaks to today’s citizens and problems, relying less on the status quo and more on leadership with the vision and courage to chart a new path for these tricky times. They need to envelop their disparate supporters and unify their agenda for change, while continuing to challenge the current leadership’s king-like tendencies. And they need to shed the perception that they are elitists and embrace core American voters.

Despite the corruption that runs wild in the halls of government, the real work lies with the American people. In all of Congress (435 Representatives, 100 Senators) there are only 2 Independent legislators. They are both from Vermont. With millions of Americans discarding the label of Republican or Democrat, where is their voice in Congress? 2006 should be the beginning of a groundswell of independent candidates and voices in the political process. Independents can espouse the best ideas of both parties without worrying about a “base ideology.” They can use real common sense and work for legislation that benefits all citizens, not just their party faithful. America should not be a country of us versus them. It should be a country of us, with laws created that balance the personal freedom of the individual with the necessary sacrifices of the whole. If we are ever to move forward and make the changes necessary to keep America safe, competitive, and prosperous in the future, we need to hear from more Americans who are not captive to an exclusionary ideology.

The issues that loom on the horizon include real health care reform for all Americans; real education reform that puts students first and adults second; a real energy policy that advances American energy independence; a real immigration policy that is enforced and viable; a focused and well thought out plan to end the war in Iraq and combat real world terrorism; and ending the assault on American citizens by our government, including the decay of civil rights, the inane drug war, and the plight of the poor.

2006 will be more than just a political year. We will surely face new natural disasters that expose our weakness when facing nature’s wrath. We will likely learn about more political and business corruption. We will surely face more terrorism around the world. 2006 will not see an end to these problems. But the current path we are on isn’t making our world a better place for anyone outside the political and business class that always benefits from a small minded, closed government. Let’s see 2006 be the year the people took back their government, their lives, and their future.

America is a nation built on hope. From the earliest settlers to our most recent immigrants, people have come to this land in hope of a brighter future and a better life for their families. They come to share in the freedom that native-born citizens take for granted. They come to have a steady job, of any kind, so they can feed their children. They come so that they can worship their religion without being arrested or beaten or killed. They come so they can learn and speak out and contribute to a society that gives them something back in return. They come to live in a democracy where the rule of law trumps ideology or prejudice or graft. They come to this land of ours because of the hope we offer to the oppressed people of the world, the hope of happiness and health and honor and freedom. The foundation of that hope rests in our democratic form of government and the individual protections afforded citizens by the United States Constitution.

Hope is an emotion that fosters progress, and it is evident that American hope has served us well as we rose from a small, agrarian country to become the most powerful in the world. Powerful not just militarily, but also economically, technologically, and culturally. Throughout our history, we have had ample opportunities to let that spirit of hope die. But instead of falling victim to melancholy, America rallied back after the Civil War and the Great Depression and Pearl Harbor. We rebuilt our nation time and again and became stronger from our suffering, rising from the ashes of despair because throughout it all, we held on to our national spirit of hope. We were able to hold on to our hope because we had leaders who offered us hope in their words and in their actions. Their words of hope became reality as we worked together to achieve a common goal. We vanquished the enemies of freedom and democracy and carried forth a message of hope for all people. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, those words and deeds transformed the 20th century into the greatest time of prosperity in the history of mankind.

Hope is a powerful motivator. With hope, a person can overcome many obstacles. With hope, a person can foresee a better future. With hope, individual growth benefits the entirety of society.

Sadly, as we begin the 21st century, the predominant emotion in America is no longer hope. It is fear. And fear is a powerful motivator too. Fear makes us give up our freedom. Fear makes us forget our values. Fear makes us lose trust in each other. And fear builds on itself.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks against America, many Americans were surprised to learn about a new enemy who not only hated us, but wanted to destroy our way of life, and had the means to do so, at least incrementally. After years of continued prosperity and peace, combined with a growing attitude of entitlement and cultural isolation, average Americans woke up on that day with a new realization of the world outside our own borders. America was attacked at home, and the terror we had heretofore only read about in the papers was in our backyard. Fear reared its ugly head. But even as ordinary citizens tried to put life back together, to put the fear behind them and rise from the destruction and reclaim a sense of normalcy, the Bush Administration, guided by their neo-con warmongers and evangelical Christian base, found in the attacks an opportunity to pursue their agenda of advancing their prophecies and ideology and exploited our fear.

This is not to say that we do not have a legitimate security concern to pay attention to and deal with. Indeed, America and the entire western world are now firmly locked again in the centuries old conflict between religious cultures and ideology. And in a very real sense, the future of our freedom and democracy hang in the balance as this open-ended conflict rages on. Still, in our atmosphere of non-stop fear, we have lost focus of the real battle being waged, getting sidetracked as the administration seeks to find lateral enemies, expanding the conflict and increasing their fear-based reality. But America has faced fierce enemies before, and our success over them did not come from an endless fear of destruction, but instead from our enduring fount of hope.

Religion and it’s promise of a glorious afterlife is supposed to alleviate the fear of dying, and theoretically, the evangelical base of the administration’s supporters look forward to the apocalypse so that they can be with their god. Actions, though, speak louder than words, and many of the most vocal among the evangelicals make every attempt to avoid the possibility of death for their cause. They would rather someone else did the dying for them as they continue to spread their message of doom. Religion uses fear to increase membership, increase their political power, and create a strict Christian society. And though they don’t submit to violent terrorist acts to advance their goals, they have no problem rolling back the individual protections guaranteed in the Constitution if it helps their cause. Because even though the Christian religion is based on the concept of individual choice (i.e. you can choose whether or not to walk a righteous path), the practice of its followers is to condemn those who choose a path other than Christianity. Our president claims to be an evangelical Christian himself, and the use of fear is familiar to his line of reasoning.

Government is also exploiting our legitimate fear of enemy attacks into an excuse to abridge freedom and bypass the rule of law. If the enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and democracy, and this administration, under the guise of protecting us from our fears, takes away our freedoms and ignores the rule of law, then the enemy wins a small victory without even having to fight. Indeed, the actions of this administration have given the enemy a victory without even realizing it. As it now stands, we have an actual enemy who wants to kill us, and an enemy in our own government that wants to limit our hard fought freedoms in the name of security.

The politics of fear have not made us any safer in our fight against radical terrorism. The politics of fear have not increased the prosperity of this country. If anything, the increased attention paid to fear has caused this country to regress and divide. Fear did not defeat the Nazi’s or the Japanese. Fear did not fix a shattered economy. Fear did not end slavery.

Under the blanket of perpetual fear, we don’t see what we are losing and what is being taken from us. We only hear the voice of the wise leaders telling us not to worry because they are doing what needs to be done to protect us. But they aren’t really doing anything to make us safer from attacks, especially from rogue nuclear attacks. They aren’t protecting the economic well being of this generation or the next. They aren’t protecting our environment or making any efforts to sustain resources for future Americans. They aren’t protecting us from murderers or child molesters or illegal immigration. The only protection this government is offering is to their corporate donors, their political hacks, and their terrorist allies in the world. As much as I recognize and fear the terrorists who would destroy America, I also fear that the politicians of today will do nothing to make things whole again. But I refuse to be paralyzed by those fears. And I operate from a place of hope. Hope that Americans will wake up and discard the politics of fear. Hope that America will face our troubles head on, with honesty and a rational plan to conquer them.

America can’t discard freedom to defeat our fear. America must defeat fear with hope.

It seems that the American people stand in stark contrast to the Bush Administration when it comes to humane treatment. The evidence of this comes as both the House and Senate resoundingly denied the administration any further leg to stand on when it comes to torture. Bills passing in both houses roundly, and rightly, condemn the use of torture and make it a crime for any military or civilian government employee to engage in interrogation that includes the use of torture as a tool. The Bush administration, after spending much time and making much noise, particularly from VP Cheney, supporting the use of torture as necessary (without really admitting they were pro-torture) did an about face when faced with overwhelming opposition from even its own party and ceded the point. No longer will U.S. interrogation policy allow torture as a means of gaining information.

On the surface, this seems to be a victory for decency and real American values. We have long held ourselves to be a nation of freedom and the rule of law, and this repudiation of such vile behavior in our name shows the world that it is not average Americans they need to be wary of, just the out of control leadership in the White House. Still, this is just one small victory. Indeed, if CIA operatives continue to farm out suspected terrorists to other nations for questioning, the issue becomes one of semantics only. The next step is for legislators to pass laws that forbid us from sending our captives to “ally nations” that would subject them to the same treatment we claim to abhor so much.

In other news, Iraqi citizens are exercising their voices in the first democratic election that country has seen in decades, if ever. In numbers that put our own political processes to shame, nearly 70% of eligible Iraqi voters have turned out to elect their first parliament. Imagine if 70% of American citizens felt so strongly about democracy that they turned out for our own elections. We’d actually have a better chance at a representative government in this country too.

But back to Iraq. The Bush administration will claim that this election validates their most recent justification for pre-emptive war. They will claim that the lack of widespread violence on Election Day is a testament to the fact that their plan is working. If the post election results return and violence continues to abate, many of their supporters will use that as evidence that this was the right war at the right time despite the president’s own admissions that the reasons given for going to war were false. But the truth may not be so cut and dry. And the success of these elections may in fact reflect more of a desire on the part of Iraqi’s for us to leave their country than anything else.

Despite administration claims that insurgents are foreign fighters imported to fuel the flames of the al-Qaeda jihad, many reports show that the insurgency is more home grown and in a large part due to the continued presence of American soldiers on Iraqi soil. Indeed, the president continues to reiterate the message loudly that we will stay until “the job is done.” That job is variously described in terms of having successful elections in Iraq, training Iraqi’s to defend themselves from terrorist and foreign attacks, or rebuilding the Iraqi economy. With this successful election, Iraqi’s are meeting the administration head on to see if they will do as they say.

What remains to be seen now is whether the U.S. will follow through with our end of the deal and begin to return some autonomy to the Iraqi government and their people. If we are to be true to our word, we must now set our own aims firmly behind those of the Iraqi government. We must become their tool, not their master. We must seek to withdraw our own forces as they ramp up their own. We must desist from getting involved with their internal affairs even as we assist them in rooting out the real terrorists in their midst. As Iraqi’s of all stripe engage in the political process and refute their guns in favor of their voices, America must prepare to pull out and let them handle the hard work of building a more free society.

Meanwhile, our own democracy takes more hits from the very people charged with defending it. Announcements today of President Bush authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop on domestic phone calls and e-mails sent abroad in the months following 9-11 have the administration looking for another table to hide under. Such actions, engaged without the necessary court orders, are in clear violation of U.S. law and mark another instance when this administration views itself to be beyond the law of the land. Republicans were quick to denounce any misdeed of the Clinton administration, going so far as to impeach the man for marital infidelities (though they focused on the lie he told about the acts as their basis for impeachment), but so far remain silent at best on the myriad wrongdoings of the Bush bunch. How the conservative citizen can continue to support a man who ran on principals of integrity, honesty, and political compassion is beyond me, especially in light of the absurdity of those claims with each new revelation coming out of Washington. Clearly, this is one of the most verifiably corrupt administrations to appear in some time.

Fortunately, those elected to the Senate and House are beginning to recognize that average citizens are tiring of the bullying nature of the administration, the deliberate obfuscations and rationalizations, and their outright lies. Today also marked the Senate’s refusal to extend many portions of the Patriot Act that most infringed on the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. Unfettered access to the private reading, shopping, and conversation habits of American citizens, and so called “sneak and peak” searches without reasonable cause and court orders are not necessary tools in the war on terror, despite administration claims to the contrary. And the reports issued today about the activities of the NSA, at the president’s own direction, show that this is a government that can’t be trusted to respect freedom and liberty here at home.

Repudiating torture is a good thing. It shows that American’s still believe in humane treatment for even our enemies. This is one thing that separates us from them. Repudiating invasive spying and the trampling of civil rights by our own government against us is a good thing. It shows our government that we aren’t willing to sacrifice our freedoms in the struggle to be safer. This is what separates true patriots from paper tigers. And a high election turn out in Iraq is a good thing. It sets the stage for the U.S. to begin removing ourselves from what will ultimately be an Iraqi issue- the future of their country.