Missing the Message

          Upon completion of man's first powered flight, the Wright Brothers dashed off to share their joy with their sister Catherine. Wilbur and Orville sent the telegram "We have successfully flown 120 feet. We will be home for Christmas." Catherine immediately rushed off to show the telegram to the editor of their city newspaper. The editor gave it a quick glance and remarked "So the boys are coming home for Christmas."

          It is easy to filter out an important message. As another holiday season winds down, clerics and Jimmy Stewart once again attempt to remind us to consider what is important. I would encourage our gentle readers to reflect on what is valuable and meaningful in our own daily lives. These things are so easy to filter out. Are we simply hauling stones, or are we building a cathedral?

          It may be self-evident that I am a student of history. While we should be informed by history, we also should be aware that our collective choices are shaping the course of our nation and are producing a legacy for future generations.

          Amidst the statuary of the original House chamber, Clio, the Muse of History, writes in the Book of History as her chariot inexorably surges forward. In the 1830s, someone placed a clock at the base of the elevated form. It still keeps accurate time. Legislators were meant to glance up to see the present time and for a moment consider what was being written into the Book of History.

          We too are part of history, and we too will be judged by history. How will this time look in times to come? Please pause for a moment during this holiday season to reflect on what is important, what has been built, what we have built, and what we would want to build, now and for future generations of Americans. Their future is in our present hands.

New Look at Newt

          Over the last few weeks, I have carefully listened to both Newt & Mitt (odd noun names). I was pleased that these guys have moved beyond the staged b.s. called debates and subsequent sound bytes and are doing 60 & 90 minute town halls. I have always thought Newt to be "eccentric" but creative. Like a songwriter, most of what you create is crap, but sometimes you get a real gem. I have always thought Newt was erratic but entertaining. I've been told he's difficult to work with. However, he valued history and solutions, both passions I share. I thought Newt was a better thinker internationally than domestically. Then I listened to these two candidates at length.

          While there are directions and policies that concern me, I am increasingly impressed with Newt. Not so much with Mitt. This is not an endorsement, but rather a self-discovery. I slammed Newt in recent posts and need to retract/ clarify some assumptions.

Things that impressed me about Newt:

1.     Well grounded in history and the foundational beliefs of the Founding Fathers

2.     Has a respectable grasp of foreign policy. I watched a 90 debate between Newt and Huntsman and was very impressed with the cogent, adult conversation that was held.

3.     Has some interesting and novel solutions to domestic issues. Newt seems to listen to the other side and adopt what he believe will work, then gives credit where its due. He has very specific and clear solutions to address economic growth, job creation, energy & infrastructure renewal.

4.     He's VERY specific about his policies and course of action, often talking them out day by day concerning steps he would take. His thinking is more specific than any other politician I have ever seen.

5.     He's a big picture thinker. Most of our national problems are higher order and connected to one another. Newt expresses these connections and states solutions addressing multiple issues.

6.     He has a very aggressive, decisive leadership style. This is particularly refreshing after the last few guys we've had at the helm. Newt comes on a bit strong, kind of a "here's where I'm going...get on board or get out of my way" style of leadership. I'm concerned that he may try to aggregate more power and expand the Executive branch and diminish other branches. Not a very Founding Father value if that's the case. We could then call him High Lord Newt. I think I will copyright the phrase.

          Lest one think I now have a bromance going with the Newtster, I find him intriguing but am cautious of him as well. I am unclear as to his authenticity or personal agenda. Since he is a self-proclaimed hawk, I am concerned about him involving us in more costly foreign adventures. At this point, I'll keep my ears and mind open (and probably snag a few of his solutions).   

          Whoever is next at the Presidential helm, it is crucial to open new channels of access and communication with the American People. People also need to be steered away from the bitching/ whining which passes for discourse. Bitching and whining reflect a frustrated, powerless populace. People need to be moved into solution space. People need to create and own national solutions.

          While Government can establish a policy framework/climate and advocate a direction, actual innovation and implementation comes from the "private sector", i.e. the American People. Renewal must simultaneously occur from both top down and bottom up. If the People don't help create and own the change, the change won't occur. Our former/ current solutions are too siloed and inadequate. We need breakthrough thinking to produce breakthrough solutions.
Fortune cookie say: Think differently and create a new destiny.

Assault on our Liberties

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." --Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4,1777

          Our current Congress is truly gifted at expending great energy and effort to defend why they're not reaching a compromise. The media machines ensure that partisan supporters fight and defend these guys not doing their jobs. Our nation is built on compromise. The first (of two) major objections to NOT signing and producing the Constitution was that it didn't protect individual liberties. It had no Bill of Rights. No portection of civil liberties, no signature, no Constitutional government formed. A gentleman named Ben Franklin suggested that if everyone signed now, a Bill of Rights would be added by a specific date. The first nation created by the rule of law was born. That's why Ben Franklin is on money.

          The signing of the Constitution was an act of faith and trust. We currently have little of those qualities in Washington. This first major compromise was a big one compared to our current procedural and ideological squabbles. I point out this first major compromise concerned the protection of civil liberties. This blog concerns the current and historical context for the ongoing erosion of our civil liberties. 

          Following the death of the North Korean dictator, we saw North Korean people weeping in the streets. A CIA analyst pointed out that if they didn't weep in the streets, that would be considered a crime against the State. Who determines who is an enemy of the State? Congress? The Courts? The President? Dick Cheney? The State determines if you are an enemy of the State.

          We don't think of America as a county where its citizens can be arrested, detained or killed on the whim of the Government. Sounds like North Korea. However, two weeks ago, President Obama again affirmed that any "terrorist" or enemy of the State could be killed by the US Government, whether they were a US citizen or not or living in the US or not. Killing Americans without due process is a recent Justice Department position but reflects the ongoing erosion of our civil liberties. Their legal reasoning and internal memos have not yet been released for public scrutiny. For more on this policy, see the Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

          Some gentle readers have expressed dismay concerning the Defense Authorization Act (S.1867). If signed into law, any American citizen branded as a suspected "terrorist" could be arrested and detained indefinitely without charge or trial. The hapless political prisoners would not be covered by Constitutional protection or due process, and be placed into the hands of the military to mete out justice. It's a Rumsfeld wet dream. Here's the version of S1867 that passed the Senate (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112VMFIo1::). Note section 1031 & 1032.

          Sounds very Orwellian? It is. Why are we moving in this direction? What will we do to stop this assault on our liberty?

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

          Our nation was once an exceptional shining example of privacy rights and the rule of law. That was before torture and secret prisons were deemed necessary for our safety. Over the last few decades, our Constitutional protections have eroded alarmingly. We might exemplify the assault on our liberties in terms of eroding personal privacy. Why do we permit our privacy protection to erode? We are changing as a people. Our expectation of security and privacy are diminishing each generation. We are under increasingly surveillance throughout our day as we spend our time in our cars, at the bank or convenience store, in restaurants, bars, and corporate cubicles. We have come to expect and are even comforted by such surveillance. This change in our society has come quickly. Are we aware of these changes or their implications to our society?

          Children going to school are run through metal detectors and monitored in their classrooms and even on the bus. What is the effect of continual surveillance on our children?

          Surveillance changes behavior and speech. Surveillance has a tremendous psychological impact. On the school bus, only one camera in the fleet is actually recording, but behavior is changed on all the buses. How would your speech and behavior change if you knew you were being monitored and recorded? What  if you knew (or thought) you were being recorded when you went out with your friends, had a fight at home, or made a phone call? Set a recorder down at a table with your buddies and watch them change (you don't even need tape in it).

          If you defend surveillance practices, recognize that your standard of privacy and liberty is vastly different from Americans a few decades ago. Recognize that a monitored society was not the intention of our Founding Fathers. When we live in a society where we are complacent with monitoring, what society is produced? When we are reassured and want to be under surveillance, will we be even aware of the erosion of our liberties, much less mourn their passing?

So who is trying to erode our liberties? Obama? Congress (both Parties)? The Courts? All the above. We will examine how this came to be.

Who will safeguard and defend our liberties? Obama? Congress? The Courts? Nope. We shall examine why.  

"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power." -- John Adams, 1788

          Some readers might immediately remind us that we have Fourth Amendment protection and the Courts protect our liberties. Let's be clear that the Founding Fathers never imagined our current State responses to existential threats such as Communism and "terrorism". Does the Constitution protect personal liberties and privacy? Yes, to a limited extent. Historically, our liberties and privacy have remained intact because the Government didn't have the technological capability to physically monitor us. This has changed.

          Over the years, the Supreme Court decoupled two key phrases in the Fourth Amendment which sent us on a forty year cycle of erosion of our liberties. The principle of "warrant" was decoupled from "reasonable", creating a very low standard for issuing warrants and the notion of "reasonable probable cause" which enables surveillance without a warrant. Because of this decoupling, most current surveillance is conducted without a warrant.

          How did this decoupling play out in our history? For most of our American experience, most citizens had lower expectation of privacy. Until WWII, one could drive right up to the White House door. Most people didn't experience invasion of privacy and just wanted the Government to stay away from them. The Government needed a warrant to do otherwise. In 1928, Olmstead vs. US led to the Trespass policy, which defined privacy relative to a location. So the Government needed a warrant only if they physically wanted to enter your house. The Court's interpretation of privacy drove technological advances in non-invasive surveillance, such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, laser reflection, and parabolic microphones, Much surveillance abuse frolic ensued.

          In 1967, the Supreme Court rendered the Katz verdict, which stated that it was the person, not the property, that was safeguarded by the Constitution. This was well and good, except the courts defined privacy as a person's expectation of privacy. One expects to be private at home and in one's car. However, as surveillance increases, individual expectation of privacy diminishes, which expands the Government ability to monitor, which diminishes expectations of privacy....and so forth. Collective passivity is the byproduct of privacy erosion, making reclaiming our rights that much harder. Expect a collective yawn from this blog.

          Both Congress and Obama are expending on decades of policies eroding civil liberties and privacy. This is converged with an increasing technological capability to carry out society wide surveillance and erode society wide privacy expectations. For instance, the Obama Justice Department contended before the Supreme Court that American citizens have no expectations of privacy when they are traveling or in public. The Court upheld their argument. So GPS trackers can be placed on vehicles without a warrant. See how easy it is to lose your liberties?  

Future Trends

          Look for the rise of anonymity. As genuine privacy vanishes under fish tank scrutiny, people's illusory comfort will lie in becoming a different fish. 

          Look for the continued accumulation of power by the Executive Branch and an assault on an independent judiciary. This week I observe Presidential candidates who wish to abolish courts and send Federal marshals after judges because they don't like how they ruled. I refer these people to Madison and the judiciary he created. After the first Congress, Franklin was stopped on the street by an old lady and asked what they have created. Franklin replied "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

          As we run out of foreign wars to fight, we will soon bring the technology to the home front and have a war on privacy. Expect drones, micro-RFID tags and other spy tech stuff to become an everyday part of life. The Chicago District Attorney is fighting the State for the right of private citizens to film police officers actions, while Chicago has over 10,000 cameras monitoring its citizens. In addition, all the practices that the US routinely unpleasantly uses on foreign shores to deprive life and liberty will come home to roost.

          Just as we did with the military, national surveillance will be contracted to private companies. People who are comforted that the Government is watching over them (why?) may well not realize that a contractor is tracking their daily activities. The private surveillance industry has grown exponentially over the last decade, working under the auspices of Government. This is dangerous, because while the Government needs a warrant to invade your privacy, private industry does not. Another issue is what is done with the accumulated information . Government certainly has access to this surrogate information and marketers probably will as well. All of this will take a toll on us as a nation. Psychologically, we will become a more repressed, inhibited, diminished people.

"Those who have been once intoxicated with power and have derived any kind of emolument from it can never willingly abandon it." -- Edmund Burke

          Will Government change the laws to restore our freedoms? If we believe our friend Burke, no. Congress (both Parties) are historically a threat to civil liberties rather than their defenders. Congress just passed a law enabling military imprisonment of any American suspected (not convicted or who actually did a terrorist act) of being a terrorist. A terrorist is anyone the Government says is a terrorist. The Blue/Red divide framing our political system is a sham when it comes to civil liberties. Leaders of both Parties knew about our torture policy and secret prisons and lied that they did not. The Congressional track record of both Parties has created a right-eroding trend. Having a competitive and adversarial framework is just good for business as people "get behind" their side. Incumbents may have the approval rating of the flu but they know they will be elected again. We're chumps if we think the Parties are different. Third Party anyone?  

          Our current President is a pawn to the trend of militarization of our national security and the un-accountable Homeland Security machine. This bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, will continue to perpetuate and empower itself. All future Presidents are likely to be pawns of such trends. That said, there is no excuse for Obama as there is no excuse for Congress. When Obama signs a law, whatever it's attached to or however it's framed, which allows American citizens to be arrested without due process, that is an incredibly bad decision. Obama is particularly culpable in destroying civil liberties. He has expended the trend of the security state he inherited from Bush. He promised to veto bills that would erode civil liberties but did not. People assume he is a protector of civil liberties because he is a liberal, a black man, and a Constitutional scholar. The cult of personality associated with the Presidency has split and diluted civil liberty action in this nation. The far Right has long accused Obama of taking away their liberties. God knows why. What the Right never understood was that when the trend coupling technology, "national security" and privacy erosion began after 9/11, the destruction of our civil liberties was an inevitability, regardless of who was (or will be) in the Oval Office.

          The Supreme Court has the power to reverse the trends, but appointments are based on being liberal or conservative, not libertarian. So the Court sides with the Government against individual liberties. Can this downward spiral of freedom and privacy erosion be reversed?


"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jeffferson, 1799

          Yes. The power to reverse the downward spiral is held by the Supreme Court and by the lawmakers, aka Congress (there's a comforting thought). But these guys aren't likely to change themselves. Ultimately, the ability to reverse this trend is in the hands of the People, in your hands, and in my hands. America is exceptional not just because we have rule of law or a Constitution. America is founded that certain liberties are accorded by God, not by Government. The power to govern is given to the People by God. The People loan this power to the Government, and the Government must be held accountable for this, as Mr. Jefferson eloquently advocates. This is why Americans are called citizens, and in other countries, they were called subjects. So let's be clear that the Power is from God, to the People, to the State. If any gentle reader is offended by God in the mix, take it up with the Founding Fathers in the afterlife, where I presume you will encounter both.

          There are a few immutable laws concerning civil liberties. Freedoms are easy to lose and those who took them are not inclined to give them back. Secondly, most people are not aware they have lost their liberties or how valuable those liberties were until after they are gone. Thirdly, a solution is found based on an immutable law of politics. Politicians want to keep their jobs. If millions of people adopt one issue, say oh, privacy, and make this a line Congress cannot violate, the message will be sent loud and clear.  The Government will only change when they believe they have to and I fully expect them in the alternative to try to enrich themselves and steal Power from the People.

          When we feel helpless or apathetic, as we withdraw from civil life a power vacuum is created. This vacuum will be filled by the opportunistic and self-serving. They increase as we decrease. This isn't how it is supposed to be. Our Government is built on faith. If you don't have faith in the Government, have faith in one another. Stop listening to politicians. Stop listening to 24-hour "news". Get mad as hell. Demand repeal of laws like the Defense Authorization Act. Find out who voted for it and campaign against them. Find out what is being voted on. Get off your ass and take action. Pick up the phone or write a letter to your legislator. Know your State laws as well. Use your social media. Make some noise. Get your neighbor involved. Have a revolution. Tell the Government how it should work. Pretend you're Egypt. If Presidents or Congressfolk vote to erode your rights, fire them.

          Bottom line: Our civil liberties are being stolen. This has occurred very recently due to a convergence of technology and a security state. People can stop it. People have to be awake, aware, and determined to stop it. People will stop it by forcing law makers to change how the game is played. If the People don't change the game, they will lose the ability to do so.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Wrong Course?

          There is a good chance for regime change in Washington next fall. Many people feel the Obama boys put our country on the "wrong course". I'm not a fan of Obama's leadership ability or confident in the competence of his Administration. What's the alternative? A stacked deck of Republicans (a two Party system sucks). Harken to the ghost of Christmas future and determine if a stacked Republican government will produce a "right course" for the country.

          Former Speaker Gingrich continues his adamant advocacy of abolishing child labor laws and putting poor children to work to teach them values and thus not seek handouts. I respect Newt on his international views, but domestically, in my opinion, his views are "zany", as Newt put it self-derisively. Newt may be unaware that the Great Society Welfare State was dismantled on his watch and has not existed for two decades. 12.5% of the total US population makes less than $14,000 annually for a family of four. 16% of all seniors over 65 are in poverty. 2011 numbers indicate that one in four US children are faced with hunger. 60% of families in poverty are working, many with more than one job. 40% of households in poverty are single mothers with young children. Many of these work part time. This is at a time when competition for jobs is 5 to 1. What's worse, thousands of "middle class" families trapped in underwater mortgages, credit debt, or job loss slip into poverty every month. Current 50 million Americans live in poverty, up from 37 million three years earlier. Newt may not be aware that most families in poverty are not lolling about on the dole, but are struggling to work and survive. Newt may be unaware that what sustains cycles of poverty, according to research, is lack of mental enrichment before age 5, after which a permanently underdeveloped brain condemns the child to a life of struggle and statistical social immobility. It is through education and mental enrichment that poverty is overcome, not creating a menial labor underclass (just can't get good servants these days). What are the implications if Newt IS aware of these facts and simply advocates cake eating? In my view, the core Republican message appears out of touch with reality and the needs of 99% of Americans (maybe the 1% rich "job creators" who haven't had their taxes raised can hurry up and create some jobs). Does electing out of touch lawmakers without new solutions put us on the right course?

          I try not to comment much about the reality sideshow called the elections. However, I note much bitching and blame by the Republican candidates but my ears are tuned for innovative domestic solutions. I have heard none. We could drill for oil. Thanks Rick. Guys, you can't just be agin' things. You have to be for something. Not having solutions may be the wrong course.

          Some believe that we need Obama gone and Republicans running all the Government. The ghost of Christmas future points to Virginia, where Republicans run the State government. Their first order of business was to propose banning all abortions (HB1). They have successfully eroded access to abortion clinics statewide, and wish to advance their "cause". The link to the intro for HB1 is presented here http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+HB1. 

   
       While I personally advocate the right to life, the operative word is personal, as in abortion is a very personal (and gravely serious) decision. Is working diligently to ban choice the right course?

          This week, the Virginia Board of Social Services changed adoption restrictions. The State may reject adoption based on sexual orientation (gay), income, gender, age, religion (sorry Jews), and political party (can't be a registered Democrat). Sounds like an "us" trying to block an enemy "them". Doesn't sound like America to me. Is such adversarial framing the right course?

          Some would contend that voters get the Government they deserve. By voting in ideological extremists, the good people of Virginia have certainly sowed the wind. Will our nation follow course and do the same?

Rattling Sabers at Tehran

          The latest report issued by the UN IAEA sent sabers rattling around the world. It is clear many believe that Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. This piece examines if acquisition of nuclear weapons is indeed Iran’s goal and what might be the implications if such weapons were acquired.

          The IAEA report states: “The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device.” Let’s presume that the “relevant activities” are working toward building such a device. Let’s ask some questions…

What would Iran gain from possessing a nuclear device?

          Iran would be secure from attack and free to pursue regional mischief/ influence. They have kept their eyes open and noted that wingnut countries like North Korea, who proliferate nuclear secrets and have a few crude devices, are not touched. Regimes that play nice and give up nuclear aspirations, like Libya, have other outcomes.

          They also observe that if you build your facilities above ground, like Syria, they can be taken out from the air. Let’s state this plainly….It is impossible without a ground invasion to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Their hardened underground facilities are built in the heart of population centers and under important mosques. They have built multiple redundancies into their development process. A concerted bombing campaign would simply slow progress for a few years.

          It is unrealistic and probably quite unwise to assume that Western powers will lather, rinse and repeat whack-a-mole bombing raids into densely populated urban centers every two to three years. An attack should be approached with caution and deliberated with gravity. On the Iranian streets, the approval rating of the United States is the highest in the Middle East. An attack would instantly polarize the populace against us and send an army of embedded Iranian agents into action against Western targets. There would be no painless “precision strikes” here. An attack would revive a diminishing and politically bankrupt regime (imagine if the Taliban and the Kremlin had a baby). It would establish regional narratives for generations.

          What would Iran get from having a Bomb? Security from attack. Analysts suspect the Iranians have wanted security treaties for a few decades, but nobody is talking to Tehran.

          If bragging rights, “respect” and security are their psychological drivers, is it smart for them to build a Bomb? No, it would be smart for the world to know they could quickly build a Bomb. If they produced enough fissile material that they could politically leverage this belief, they could have their security without the Bomb toting baggage, as well as legally adhere to the non-proliferation treaty. The IAEA report does not contradict such a premise.

What if Iran built a Bomb? How would they use it?

          This seems a crucial question to ask before launching a first strike into a sovereign nation. Some saber-rattlers contend they would immediately bomb Israel. This is not likely as the Iranian people are not particularly anti-Semitic. Hating Israel is more an Arab/ Sunni type of thing. The average person on the street ignored Israel before the ascendance of their current colorful President, who bashed Israel to increase Iranian influence on Arab street corners.

          If they used a nuclear weapon, it would be national suicide. The Iranian regime may be homicidal, but it isn’t suicidal. Maybe they would give a nuke to terrorists? Not likely. They are traceable and there’s that whole national suicide thing.

          The major danger from an Iranian Bomb is not the use of the Bomb, but the regional destabilization and nuclear proliferation by Iran’s Arab neighbors. If you don’t want Iran to have a Bomb, you REALLY don’t want Arab countries, whose people ARE suicidal, to have one.

          So if Iran DID build a bomb, they would pretty much get what they want, security from attack. We might actually have to talk with them, like we did with other hostile nuclear powers such as China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union.

          Contrast the frenzy of an impending Iranian Bomb with actual Bombs residing in Pakistan. Pakistan is our “ally”? Pakistan and North Korea are the two rogue proliferators of nuclear technology. The Pakistani people have the lowest support (12%) for the United States of any nation. Intelligence reports indicate that the S Branch of the ISI train, arm, and support the most lethal enemies to United States interests in Southern Asia. The Pakistani military and intelligence field the Taliban while obstructing their civilian government.

          Pakistan is our enemy. Why do we not fear for their nukes? The country has always been run and is currently run by a professional military. The United States pays more than a quarter of the Pakistani military budget. The military has a firm but duplicitous hand on the nukes and we know it. So no worries.

          Obviously, relations with Pakistan are complex. Our thinking towards Iran and their changing factions and power bases should reflect such  complexity as well. We need a mindshift in terms of national security. We have spent the last decade fixating on Islamic terrorism. Lat week, former Speaker Gingrich objected those questioning the linkage between terrorism and Islam. He said that would be like talking about the Soviet Union without talking about Communism. In our cartoon soundbyte mindscapes, terrorism has become the faceless existential enemy. However, the asymmetric tactic of terrorism knows no religious or political affiliation. A recent EU intelligence analysis showed that out of the 245 terrorist attacks committed in the EU in 2010, only 3 were linked to Islamic fundamentalism.

          We’ve talked only once to Iran formally, after the Republican Guard attempted assassination of a Saudi diplomat. It is interesting to note that the Arabs, in particular the Saudis, are the chief advocates of an Iranian military strike. Coincidence?      

          So before we fuel the jets, we might actually want to talk with Iran. We can’t quell the source of our fear by lashing out at it. A preemptive strike based on speculation and sketchy intelligence without a clear and present danger keeps our enemies a mystery while speaking volumes about ourselves.