I’ve voted at the same location for over five years. In those five years, I can not ever remember seeing more than about ten people at the poll at the same time as I was there. This morning I showed up at 6:57 AM and was greeted by a line of at least 60 people waiting to vote. As I got into the line, I couldn’t help but think to myself that this election was indeed something special. Oh sure, the media has portrayed this as an election like no other, and this is certainly true, if only because of the historic nature of the candidates. But it dawned on me that it was more than that.

The poll worker told me this morning that our small precinct usually was lucky to have about 23% voter turnout at any election. Today is going to be a record breaker.

As I waited in the line to get my ballot, I had a pleasant conversation with a man who originally comes from Arkansas. We wiled the time away with small talk and stories of our experiences. He was there with a relative, a first time voter who was excited to cast her first ballot. People in front and in back of me were smiling, actually happy to see a line at the poll, and no one was grumbling about the wait-a wait they have never experienced at this polling location before. To top it off, it’s raining buckets here today in Southern California, something that always makes the “beautiful people” a bit frumpy. Even the rain couldn’t dampen the spirits of an electorate ready to make history.

As we neared the table where we got our ballots, my line companion said something to me that made me think about how far we’ve come in this country. He told me that back where he came from, a small town in Arkansas, when he was a kid, people like him and me would never be seen laughing and smiling and shooting the breeze together. I said that maybe we would, but there probably wouldn’t be a bunch of smiling faces around us. At that he smiled and agreed. He was black; I am white.

It’s an historic election to be sure. The fate of our country is literally at stake after eight years of destructive policies and malevolent stewardship. The people of America know this and are coming out in droves to make their voices heard.

I remember when I first voted in a presidential election. I felt proud to mark my ballot for Bill Clinton. Back then it felt like I was helping to “change the guard” by putting a younger man in the highest office in the land. I was pretty happy with Clinton as president, but his was no groundbreaking administration, his challenges not so daunting compared to ours today. In retrospect, I think that my feelings in that election were more about me, about finally being able to be part of “adult America.” Today I felt different. Today, this election, and my part in it, was not about writing a page in my personal history. Today’s election is all about us. This will be the election to remember. This is the one that counts.

If you haven’t voted yet, go vote. If you’ve already voted, thank you. See you on the other side.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The first pieces of the puzzle came from the president’s speech last week when the president announced that he was sending (more) Patriot missle batteries to the Middle East. In itself, this is a curious thing to do, since the only militaries over there with missle capabilities to worry about are in Israel and Iran. I doubted that Bush was planning to defend Arab countries from Israeli missle attacks, so the conclusion would be that we needed protection from Iranian missles. Why though when we are not militarily engaged with Iran and neither are any other countries directly engaged in war with Iran? What reason would we need to build up missle defenses other than to bolster up areas that Iran could attack if a war occurred? The president also said in that speech that

“We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”

and

“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

In my response to the presidents speech, I noted that “these words, when combined with his calls for an increase in the military in general, seem clearly to point out where the tanks and planes are headed next. Make no mistake—Bush has every desire to extend the Iraqi War into these countries. He has been simply waiting for an opportunity. His rhetoric about Iranian nuclear intentions and capability have been consistently rebuffed by experts who say that Iraq is at least seven years or more away froma viable nuclear weapon. If he goes forth as intended, expect to see border incursions and firefights at both the Syrian-Iraq and Iran-Iraq borders, with an eventual crossing of one or both by U.S. troops. Such an escalation would only make matters far worse as nations divide and join sides.”

These were the first real pieces to the emerging puzzle. The next came yesterday in a post here which quoted a Raw Story report that a major investment bank was warning against an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The report claims that Israel, backed by the US, may well be planning an attack while Bush is still in office, since they could rely on US support (at least US administation support) for such an attack. It further notes that Bush’s reshuffling of generals in the Middle East from those who advised against such an escalation with Iran with those more pliable to the Decider’s terrible decisions. With this news, it became more plausible that an attack on Iran, either by the US directly or through the Israeli proxy, may well be forthcoming.

Today, two new reports come forth to reveal even more US military affairs in the region.

In the first, according to a former Russian Fleet Admiral, US submarines currently located in the Persian Gulf are positioning themselves to block the Gulf of Oman, the persian Gulf and parts of the Arabian Sea. Such moves would have the effect of blockading the Iranian coast as well as moving these subs into position for missle strikes against Iranian nuclear and oil targets within Iran. Since the US submarines are not vital in any of the efforts in Iraq, except perhaps for some kinds of intelligence monitoring, their existence in the region brings cause for alarm.

And the second report, filtered through a Kuwaiti news source, says that the US may be preparing an attack against Iran as soon as April. This report is perhaps the least reliable, to me anyhow, because it claims to get its information from an unnamed source who are privy to details of a secret White House meeting between Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gates.

Taken together, even unsubstiantiated, these reports, coming in from all over the place, lead to conclusions one doesn’t particularly like to make. Add to this the recent extensions of US forces in Iraq (perhaps a pre-staging for an Iran attack instead of an effort to quell violence in Baghdad?) and a call to increase military strength permanently, and the emerging puzzle looks even more bleak.

There may well be nothing that can be done to stop this escalation if it does in fact materialize. Even with an opposition Congress to content with, Bush has already proven that he values no other judgement than his own, presumably because that is what God has instructed of him. And history is filled with many monsters who believed they had a red phone to God and look at the damage they have wrought on humanity.

The issue is bigger than just attacking Iran or increasing the level of Middle East disaster. An attack against Iran will be much more polarizing than Iraq has been. Nations that heretofore have only condemned our actions may well take steps to marginalize us. The US may be the worlds biggest economy; we may have the most technologically advanced military; we may be vital to nations increasing wealth creation. None of that will matter. Most of the emerging nations that rely on US buyers to increase their own wealth and standing have a history of repression against their people. The can clamp down on economic reforms and advancements to stymie the US if they think we are out of control. After all, their people are used to harsh conditions and repressive economies. The US is not.

China and Russia both have many dealings with Iran, and they have pretty big militaries too. And the Muslim world would likely not take kindly to an invasion of Iran.

But in fact, I would be surprised if US forces weren’t already operating in Iran, ala Cambodia years ago.

Not content with being merely the worst president in US history, Bush seems determined to be the last as well.
Can anyone say WWIII?

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

233 years ago, our predecessors through off the chains of an oppressive, authoritarian, anti-freedom government. Their success was the first step towards our free and democratic way of life.

233 years later, another George is trying to shackle the freedom and democracy of this great country through an authoritarian and oppressive force of will.

Today you have the chance to rescue that which our forefathers fought and died for. Today you have the chance to stand for freedom.

Today it is time to change the direction. Vote for Freedom.

(cross posted at Bring It On! and Blogtemps)

California’s 50th District primary election is being touted as a victory by both the Republican Party (their candidate won) and the Democratic Party (their candidate didn’t lose by as much as usual), but the truth is that this election was nothing less than a loss for all things democratic. Why would I say this?

Here are the facts: less than 50% of eligible citizens in the district are registered to vote. Of those who are registered, only 33% turned out to cast a ballot. That represents a whopping 16.5% of eligible citizens who voted in this race. Sixteen and a frigging half per cent! How can this possibly be called “the will of the people” when half of the people who could vote didn’t even bother to register? And of those who did, only a third even bothered? This is hardly what a healthy democracy looks like.

This is why any claims of mandates are ridiculous. This is why any claims of majority rule are laughable. Hell, at this rate, the vast majority are saying they want nothing to do with what our political system has become. Clearly, the parties have succeeded if their goal has been to reduce voters to the slimmest segments of society.

It is obvious to me that a society that does not invoke their rights of self-determination by the simple act of showing up to cast a vote, or better yet, by voting absentee (which creates no hardship on anyone who wants to vote) deserves the corrupted, cynical government they have. For the few of us who actually care and want to exercise our voices, this is grim indeed.

What About the Canadian Border?

News of a foiled terrorist cell in Canada this week begs the question, “What are we doing to secure the northern border?” Well, aside from the stalled RealID bill in Congress, the answer is, “about as much as we’ve done to secure the southern border.”

While this coup for Canadian law enforcement is a victory for all of us, the responses from the White House is less than encouraging.

“We’re vulnerable at all our points of entry,” said Frances Townsend, homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush.

Gee, thanks Frances, for stating the obvious. And while this break-up in Canada means one less band of lunies are running around, stockpiling fertilizer to make bombs, the presence of this Canadian terror cell is likely to fuel the fire under Team Bush and their never-ending campaign of fearmongering. “See, they’re right next door, waiting to strike us again. This is why we need to continue to tap all of your communications, secretly break into your homes, and indefinitely incarcerate people we don’t like.”

Clearly America must protect our borders and ports of entry. But far greater progress can be made in the “War on Terror” by stopping policies that fuel hatred and by unshackling ourselves from the need for foreign oil.

We all know that danger is lurks in the shadows. But the right response is not to clamp down on civil liberties in free nations. The right response lies in ending the double standards in our foreign policies. The right response lies in ending a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare against third world countries. The right response is to marginalize these lunatics through the proliferation of good deeds, real friendship, and honest dialogue with the average citizens in the Muslim world.

China’s Growing Deserts

And they say that man has no major effects on nature. Tell that to China. Environmental experts in that country are searching for ways to halt the expansion of two major desert regions in its northern districts, deserts whose expansion of 1500 square miles a year (about the size of Rhode Island) is threatening villages and towns as it makes its way closer to the Chinese capitol of Beijing.

While China has always had desert regions within its borders, the current expansion can be tied to the 1950’s and the Maoist government’s Great Leap Forward program that attempted to increase the amount of arable land by diverting rivers in the region and forming reservoirs. Also included in the program was the intentional deforestation and over cultivation of lands in that area.

Now with over one billion people, it is easy to understand why China needed to increase food production, but the solution, while briefly successful, has now created a situation where food production is being hampered and all efforts to stave the growing sand dunes have proved ineffective. Sometimes, you can’t turn back the clock no matter how hard you try.

“We must find ways to live with nature in some kind of balance,” said Chai Erhong, an environmentalist and writer who lives in Minqin. “The government mainly wants to control nature, which is what did all the harm in the first place.”

Indeed. Every time man tries to harness nature to serve his needs, the results tend to create an opposite result. Maybe not immediately, but certainly eventually. And when man seeks to reverse the effects of his meddling, we find that you can’t always put the puzzle back together like it was before.

Wang Tao, who heads the 937 Project, said the only viable strategy to save arid land in Gansu, Inner Mongolia and Ningxia is to move people out, reduce production, form conservation parks and let nature heal itself.

“Minqin is not going to get more water,” he said in a telephone interview from his base in Lanzhou. “It needs fewer people.”

Easier said than done I’m afraid. Even with China’s one child policy, their population is still growing. As China, which has one of the world largest populations, moves to become more modernized, we feel the squeeze in oil availability. Will we soon be feeling the squeeze on water availability too? Or will China seek to expand their own borders in order to find the resources it needs to assure a minimum supply of water and land for its people? I’ve said before that our economic imbalance with China is going to cause us problems at some point. I still believe that is the case. But perhaps China’s water problems, and loss of livable land, will become a bigger problem, one that will create instability to all of Asia as their need for land and water increases. What then?

my·o·pi·a (n.)
Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning.

Is it just me or have the American people fallen into a kind of stupor that allows them to accept the myopic worldview force fed to them on a daily basis by an incompetent and corrupt government and a complicit media establishment?

I mean really, what gives? When did our great experiment in Democracy, so cleverly envisioned by our founding forefathers, become little more than an exercise in futility disguised as representational government? At what point did people decide that the only thing that mattered was the here and now? When did we decide that our responsibility ended at the edge of our yard? And how did we get to this point?

These are the kinds of questions that fill my mind so often these days, especially as I attempt to enter the arena of politics. As I sit and listen to all the madness coming from the halls of power, I have a hard time reconciling the widespread lack of concern from average people with the seemingly obvious demise of our way of life, and by extension, the lives of our future descendants. It has been said that when Native American elders faced an important decision, they projected their decisions ahead seven generations. Clearly, even if this is an exaggeration, the people who first settled, then tamed this country, wanted their culture to persevere throughout time, and the decisions they made with regards to land and resource usage and inter-tribal relations were designed to mitigate future strife among themselves and their offspring. Sure, they were decimated by European colonialists. But that failure to endure in the face of superior weaponry and a completely different worldview does not diminish their contemplative ways or the success they had for thousands of years. Their way of life and of living offered them satisfaction and prosperity on their terms without destroying that opportunity for future generations. Had we not wiped them out and forced the remainder onto reservations, we could have learned a lot from their way of thinking. But perhaps I digress…

In truth, I already know the answers to some of the questions I posed earlier. I understand that for most people, simply staying ahead of the monthly bills and keeping the kids in school, fed, and on the straight and narrow takes up most of the available emotional and intellectual energy we have. I understand that in an increasingly complex world, the number of things happening make it impossible to focus too much on any specific governmental action or societal shift. I understand that before we can worry about what takes place outside our own personal borders, we must take care of ourselves. But at some point in our individual lives, we should be able to come to an understanding of sorts that the world extends beyond our own doorstep, and that what happens out in that world will eventually reach up to our own steps and change the way we live our own lives. It is the disconnect between that reality and our own actions that makes me scratch my head in wonder.

The dangers of narrow-mindedness are not as apparent as the symptoms of it: massive fiscal debt and the looming day of reckoning; population growth and resource exploitation; diminished standing among the nations of the world; diminished ability of the people to advance the social ladder; a turn away from knowledge towards mythology. These are the symptoms of a society looking down the tunnel and seeing only a sliver of light. We assume that the answer lies in a straight, predetermined path, when the fact is we are determining the path based on the symptoms. We are trying to solve new problems with old and tired solutions that solve little while elongating the problems. We are pushing off the effects of our troubles on to future generations to contend with. It is not something to be proud of.

This is especially true of our leadership, who seem almost completely to focus on the here and now, the me and mine of situations, with a specific goal of benefiting themselves or pursuing an agenda out of line with the average citizen. And we, the people, allow this to continue by perpetuating the myopia they project onto us with their sound bites and their hot button issues. We magnify their ineffectiveness by returning them to power time and time again. We buy into the stereotypes and labeling offered to us as discourse, and all the while, the liberties that have been given to us in the blood of our predecessors are slowly stripped away. And still, aside from a little bit of complaining or small-scale activism, we let it continue unabated and unchallenged, and we continue to enable them with our own lack of action.

Humanity rolls on through it all. The question of how much longer or in what state of being is unknown, but the projections of our current paths and mindsets are not. Any amount of reason and critical thinking will ascertain that our system is broken, is breaking more each day, and will soon be a mere shadow of its original self if we continue to stand down. Indeed, it is not just our social and governmental constructs that face serious upheaval, but our very planet itself is changing, and with it, so too will the plight of humanity change.

American ideals of freedom, equality, respect and the rule of law have proved themselves to be a sound and sustainable form of government, so long as the governed remain involved and so long as those charged with governing remember whom they stand for. But if our tendency to close our eyes to the wrongs around us continues we will soon find ourselves under another form of government, one not sought by our founders, but instead more like the one they fled from.

We have the power to end our myopia. We have the ability to change our course. We have the duty to our children to leave them with a world of hope and opportunity. But we can only do so if we step out of our cocoons once in a while and fight for what is ours. The Declaration of Independence says that what is ours is nothing more than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But to attain these things, we must work together, and we must work for the betterment of our shared future.

The lines are being drawn in the sand. On one side stands greed and self-interest. On the other stands cooperation and opportunity for all. Where will you choose to stand?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

According to an article in The Tennessean, Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R) engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits.

In language tucked into a Defense Department appropriations bill, AT THE LAST MINUTE and WITHOUT APPROVAL OF A HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, Frist and Hastert proposed giving immunity to companies that develop vaccines in the event there is a declared public health emergency. Basically, what they are asking is that their big pharmaceutical donors be immune from any repercussions arising from their producing, marketing, and dispensing vaccines or other health “countermeasures” that result in serious harm or death to users of said product.

Aside from the obvious pandering to high money donors at the expense of the ‘real American’ citizens, there is another issue at stake here, namely the fashion in which this language was slipped into the bill itself.

From the article: “some say going around the longstanding practice of bipartisan House-Senate conference committees’ working out compromises on legislation is a dangerous power grab by Republican congressional leaders that subverts democracy.”

While apparently not illegal, it is highly unusual for tactics such as these to be used as they ameliorate the entire reason for compromise committees to meet in the first place.

And the text of the inserted bill was reportedly written by representatives for the pharmaceutical industry and given to the lawmakers for insertion. It is somewhat germane to remind readers that Frist has received over $270,000 in campaign donations from the pharmaceutical industry since 1989.

Several problems are presented here: (a) lawmakers apparently are not writing laws themselves, but letting donors and staffers do this work, a total shirk of their actual job. They seem to have come to the conclusion that we vote them into office to collect donations that will keep them there instead of working out legislation that protects and promotes the average American’s concerns; (b) lawmakers are routinely tricked by their own leadership when it comes to working out legislation. According to the report, members of the bi-cameral committee were told that this bit of legislation was NOT in the final bill. They left the meeting only to return to the floor to vote on the bill that then included the language in question; (c) large corporations are buying off elected officials to create situations for themselves that no average citizen could get away with, such as blanket immunity for creating faulty products or services; (d) omnibus bills that contain legislation that is not even remotely related to the main thrust of the bills are common place these days and dilute the oversight power of individual members or watchdog groups until it is too late to change things.

This law was signed by the president on December 30th, 2005. So if by chance you get a bad batch of vaccine for any reason, too bad for you. You have no recourse against the makers of the vaccine for your or your loved ones ill effects.

And all this in the name of protecting America and of government for the people.

Oh yes…this piece of information came to light because of complaints by a Republican staffer, so sorry GOPers, can’t blame this on the ‘liberal media bias.”

(cross posted at Bring It On)

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.

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.

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.

Most people view war with disdain. The average human being does not relish the thought of armed conflict or widespread destruction for the simple reason that they do not want to be killed, nor do they want to see their families, friends, and neighbors killed either. Conversely, most people do not long to be killers, especially not to advance a cause that in itself furthers the aims of a corrupt government. The number of armed conflicts, seemingly teeming with faithful warriors, may seem to invalidate the idea of man as peaceful, but the truth could possibly be different than the picture that is presented by a world at war.

To defend the concept of armed conflict is to accept the notion that humanity is incapable of solving its differences through compromise and honesty. Indeed, there are times when rational discussion cannot occur, simply because the intransigence of one or more of the arguing parties forbids them from even coming to the bargaining table. Sometimes this reluctance is based on humanitarian principals, such as the Allies refusal to accept anything less than unconditional surrender from the Axis powers at the conclusion of WWII. Sometimes religion is the catalyst for fighting to the last man, such as the Crusades of the Middle Ages and their quest to eradicate “infidels” from traditional sacred lands. Whatever the reason, the failure to avoid armed conflict always marks the beginning of dark times for all parties involved. At best, the only defense for armed conflict between nations is that of the nation (or by treaty, another nation or group of nations who are sworn to each others mutual defense) who is defending herself from the aggression of another, that aggression itself being of a military nature. So while it takes two to argue, the real blame for armed conflict lies with the one who strikes first.

It is easy to justify to a general public the validity of fighting an enemy who has attacked you first. Not only is the average person angered by an offensive assault on their country and countrymen, they are often eager to exact retribution to those who attacked them. What is less easy to do is justify an armed conflict that began not as defensive actions, but rather as an offensive or preventive action. To satisfy a reticent public about the need to fight, government must paint a picture that illustrates the cause of the tensions between nations as well as providing details of the efforts taken to mitigate the problems. They must then establish that the conflict is one of national importance, with our very way of life at stake in the outcome. They must demonstrate that the government has bent over backwards to reach some kind of equitable solution, and that the only way to protect ourselves now is through a first strike military action. And then they must back up their claims with irrefutable evidence of their veracity.

Unfortunately, the information government’s offer for war justification (other than clear cut defensive reasons) is anything but clear and reasoned and often inconsistent with other governmental claims or policies. Shifting reasoning for military action is a sure sign that something is amiss, for if the fight is indeed a just and right cause, there should never be a change in the rationale for the war. Any change in rationale belies the fact that either the public was not told the truth initially, or that the real reasons for the war are in no way acceptable to the public. People may be willing to die for their freedom. They may be willing to die for someone else’s right to freedom. But how many are willing to die over a political sleight, or to enrich multinational corporations who always maximize their profits during wartime? How many are willing to die for half-truths or outright lies?

The onus of telling the truth is on the government, but to get honest information, we first need leaders with integrity and who trust the American people to support whatever action is needed. The burden of making sure the public learns the truth lies with the media. They exist for one thing, and despite their insistence that they are just here to make a profit, media has a responsibility to find the truth and share the truth with the public. Sadly, the ability to separate truth from propaganda has become difficult at best.

If defending war with another nation is an arduous task, justifying a war against an ideology is even more difficult to do, especially without reverting to baseless racial or religious claims as moral authority for conflict. The fact that an army of ideologues could be scattered around the world is itself an impediment to warfare as usual, meaning a near infinite front, a constantly shifting battlefield, and a continually targeted civilian population. Ideological warfare tends to create an arena where surrender is impossible, simply because to do so would be to admit that ones beliefs were less viable than another cultures beliefs. But success is often impossible too, for the exact same reason.

Clearly, there are a few valid reasons for engaging in military conflict, among them the defense of ones own national lands, resources, and people from an armed invasion force; as part of a coalition of national militaries mutually bound to defend another under attack or invasion for no cause; or, in a limited attempt to quell genocidal conflicts and restore civil order. Outside of these reasons, precipitous armed actions should be avoided at all times. The cost of committing ones troops to armed conflict is too high to pay.

The War on Terror began with some semblance of clarity, at least among the general public. We had a good idea who attacked us, where they were, and we went after them. With near unanimous support among the citizenry and around the world, our act of war in Afghanistan was as justified as war ever can be. Sadly, this conflict came at a time when the leadership in place had not the temerity to finish the initial task and end the conflict. Instead, the current crop of political leaders chose to deflect the momentum and turn their sights towards another foe, one that was despicable, but at best only tangentially connected with the other, ongoing war. Iraq presented a diplomatic problem, a humanitarian problem, and a political problem that threatened the reputation of the mighty U.S. of A. For reasons best described as greed, revenge, and control of resources, Iraq was portrayed as a player in the attack on the U.S. They were portrayed as an imminent military threat, not only eager but capable of sending heinous weapons to our shores. We now know that these rationales are false, were false, and will always be false. That Iraq was in need of a new form of government, for the benefit of its citizens and its neighbors, is of no real dispute. Tyrannies are never acceptable to those who love freedom and long for peace. But just as war in Afghanistan was fought for a declared purpose, and almost achieved its stated goal before ramping down efforts, the war in Iraq is just the opposite. The goal is ever changing, the reasons ever morphing, the evidence increasingly underwhelming and even fabricated. The truth is starting to show through, and the reasons offered aren’t holding up so well anymore.

Fighting a foe that subscribes to a fanatical worldview is indeed a life and death struggle, especially when those doing the killing are elusive, eager, and relentless. It requires a level of honest assessment when developing a plan of action and a clear enunciation of what the aims are, what the measure of success will be, and how the conflict will end if your side is the victor. It requires a leadership that is more concerned with ending the menace of terrorism and extremism than it is with lining the pockets of favored national corporations. It requires a stronger vision than that of the religious ideologues who fight against us, a vision that comes not from an opposing version of God but rather from a human wisdom of compromise or disengagement. And it requires an acknowledgment that the act of war is itself a horrible thing, not an end in itself, not even a means to an end, just a continuation of humanity’s inability to live with itself in peace.