Behind 45's latest messing with the Constitution is his firm belief that Americans are better than everyone else: That we are somehow specially blessed by heaven in a unique way (bringing back Manifest Destiny, which debuted in the 1840s), and anyone else who wants to come in--and doesn't look like us--has to climb a bunch of major steps, and good luck with that.
If heaven's scratching its head, I wouldn't be surprised. There's nothing superior about anyone living within the borders of the United States of America. Yes, Jefferson was right: We have natural-born rights. But go back and look at our Declaration: He meant that statement for all humankind, everywhere. He just felt he needed to point out to the British, in 1776, that it also applied to their colonists. Without guarantees of those rights being allowed to flourish, it was time to part ways, thank you very much.
What makes America unique? For one thing: Nothing more, and nothing less, than geography. It's allowed us to utilize our enormous natural resources to thrive economically and create a juggernaut without much threat of being invaded. Those two big oceans are still out there, and--Pearl Harbor and 9/11 not withstanding--it's been pretty tough to mount an invasion force that would make much difference--never mind the weaponless group of refugees that he's sending 5200 National Guardspeople to thwart, a baldly political gesture (at the 11th hour of a mid-term campaign) that makes many of us want to vomit.
The other thing that makes it unique is its founding: on an idea, not a plot of land. That idea was, again, liberty in law. Our Constitution, imperfect though it may be, still serves as a beacon to other democracies in the world.
Until now.
Now, the president wants to circumvent the whole thing by claiming that by simply writing his words on a piece of paper, the process of amending the Constitution--a cumbersome, difficult, time-consuming process that just won't do for such a busy man--is inadequate to accomplish what he wants for the country that he imagines it to be.
Which is nothing close to what it really is.
The amendment process is what makes the very concept of a constitution, instead of passing mere legislation (never mind how difficult that now is as well), an exercise in establishing a legal bulwark. Making it difficult to amend gives it a foundation that has lasted us most of the 231 years of its existence.
The process is also unique in that it is purely legislative in nature. The president doesn't need to sign amendments or even to like them, and the Supreme Court can't touch them. They need to be approved by first, a two-thirds majority of each house of Congress, and three-fourths of the state legislatures (within a time frame that Congress may or may not attach; the latest amendment, the 27th, for instance, was initially passed in 1791, but the failed Equal Rights Amendment had a seven-year sunset).
Good luck with that. But that's the idea. If something needs to be attached to our fundamental document of law, it should be very difficult to do and not be a function of quickly-passing political winds. Or, if they do, those winds need to be very strong (as with, for instance, the Civil War Amendments (13, 14, 15); filling a vacancy in the vice-presidency (25); or voting at age 18 (26)). Support for the rest have evolved over time, as the Constitution fills a need for an ever-changing nation.
But it's one of those Civil War Amendments, the Fourteenth, that 45 is planning to subvert. He wants to stop natural-born people of non-citizens from being automatic citizens. We're being sandbagged, he thinks, by people fleeing to the U.S.--somehow getting past border guards, which will happen whether refugees risk and sometimes lose their lives or not, whether actual walls are built or not--and giving birth to children within our borders. Then, he whines, we have to take care of them by giving them (gasp) health care and education. Good golly, they don't even have to know English!
And they aren't white. Our purity is at stake! Are refugees actually having sex within American borders so the women can get pregnant and create an assembly line of citizens that don't look like what is a diminishing majority of the rest of us? What's next--an attempt to reinstitute a ban on cross-racial marriages?
What makes an American? That this must be said, here and elsewhere, is a tragic reflection of our times, but--first of all, it has nothing to do with skin color; it has nothing to do with religion; it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Nothing. Outside of actually being born on this soil, or born of an already American parent (looking at you, Ted Cruz), it means that people have had to go through a process we call naturalization--also mentioned specifically in the original Constitution. See Article I, Section 8.
But that power is the one to make rules regarding naturalization, which belong to Congress, and specifically stated as such. (Please pay attention, Justice Kavanaugh, oh ye of the Federalist Society, which prides itself on the original intent of the Founders.) That issue has also been limited by the Fourteenth Amendment's automatic granting of citizenship on newborns.
So 45, not that he minds much, is way out of line here. He's not so special that he can make up any rules or processes he wants and literally paper them over with executive orders. And the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment (Think that was meant to be put there?) says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But 45 says: No, that's not fair to the rest of us real Americans, who somehow materialized here all by ourselves without forebears who couldn't possibly have come from somewhere else or, if they did (Who in the world didn't, including Natives?), it's too long ago to be relevant. They're getting away with something. (A good hospital? A good school? Food stamps? Cubic inches of space? And eventually, jobs nobody else wants?)
I'm guessing that official, state-based institutions will quickly sue him (Because of the phrase "and the state in which they reside") and the Supreme Court will rule. I'm also guessing that he thinks that, with the Court being newly stocked with conservatives, he will hold sway. His lawyers will say, probably, that the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to guarantee rights for the newly-freed slaves, rights that are now moot. They will argue that the expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment's key phrases: "privileges and immunities," and "equal protection," need not cover those merely born on our soil without the previously established citizenship of one or both parents. So now we can eliminate their citizenship--and send them away if we want. (Instead of keeping them in internment camps, way too messy, right?)
Except: The circumvention of the Constitution by a sitting president has been attempted elsewhere and been thwarted before--as with Obama's attempts to make recess appointments to the federal bench (the politically nasty resistance to which, it must be said, began with Senate Democrats against George W. Bush). That was a process issue (decided unanimously), so 45's attempt to begin a new process that satisfies him can be successfully challenged on that basis, as well.
One more time: Who does he think he is, beyond an ego so massive it defies description? We'll find out.
But he isn't that special. There are rules for him, too. We'll see if this constitutional anarchist can be reined in.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Monday, October 29, 2018
When Everything's Just A Joke
Mockery is his middle name.
When someone believes in nothing but himself and how he feels at any given moment without logic or consistency, hasn't had an original thought in thirty years, and thinks that anything that someone disagrees with constitutes a personal insult, this is what you get--someone who is devoted only to undoing institutions, doesn't see the need to know anything else about them, and cares only about hearing cheers and adulation and certainly not the truth about anything.
Instead, he mocks, ridicules, and tells crude jokes about whatever he doesn't care for. It's for the entertainment factor, not in service of the truth, justice, or certainly not propriety.
He thinks of himself as a part-time comedian. If people laugh at his mockery, it's because he's brilliant (just ask him). If people chant with him, it's because they, and he, have nothing better to say. Nobody there cares about how the country is served by his presence; they only care about having had a good time.
It's all just a joke. The UN? What a joke. NATO? A bigger joke. Body-slamming a journalist? Sure. It's funny. Just a joke. He doesn't really mean it, but he doesn't really mean anything.
Public education? What a joke that is. So much so that a portion of an inaugural address was devoted to attacking it as part of the "carnage." He left a woman in charge of it who has proven to be quite the joke herself. The Capitol Steps, which appeared here in Milwaukee a few weeks ago, parodied her quite sharply as a nice lady who smiles a lot but knows nothing, who will surely pay the deconstructionists to take her very position apart, though--and anything that it means, which, too, is slowly morphing to nothing.
Public education is, after all, an extension of government, and government is a joke: It takes your taxes and gives you--nothing good. Does it? Everybody went to school. What good did it do?
Political correctness--that is, choosing one's words to keep focus on the issue and not on personal degradation--that's a joke, too. Nobody understands all those big words, so he'll use the same, simple words again and again: Never mind that they constitute, together and separately, big and small lies, buried in the minds of those who will never take the country seriously, only their own backyards.
So easy to cling to bromides that keep us from thinking: the left-wing conspiracy, led by George Soros (as repeated by his Supreme Court nominee). Lock up Hillary Clinton (also mentioned by him). Obama, the worst president ever. Anybody he doesn't like? He'll make up a derogatory name for them. The mockeries are the non-facts masquerading as facts that disguise, ignore, and divert from the facts.
So one of his devotees gets on Bill Maher's show and says that his lies are different--they are said to gain effect. Hello? What lie isn't told to gain effect? "But," he adds, "It works."
So the mockery of the American public can be justified. So the vagaries of politics allows constant lying to gain effect. Don't all politicians lie, after all? Does any of this matter if he can get away with it--get and keep the pulpit, spread the lies and mockery and degradation and ad hominem attacks, bringing all to his level of disgust?
Because if it doesn't, then we are all at risk. When nothing matters, nothing as an idea then matters, too--no values, no history, just the here and now and never mind the results or consequences or the possibly rational reasons that anything has ever taken place. We go down that rabbit hole and we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to return. Things that cannot possibly be justifiable will quickly become not only justifiable, but popular.
The mainstream will disappear, as it has been doing for some time now--indeed, for all of this century so far. When that happens, no government can hold back the disastrous effects because the ideas and values by which it has been created will not matter. If the economy goes bad, and millions go back on the unemployment rolls (which I have done, and that struggle for the maintenance of self-esteem was enormous), we will see the awful results: everyone for themselves.
Even if the election results are more positive next week, even if we manage to provide something of a check on the abuses of power and the descent into meaninglessness, even if we structurally push back against the idea that government is a joke, that alone won't do it. The leader of this nonsense is still there and he will feel threatened, so he will continue and even accelerate the assault on decency.
It's possible that we might establish a new foothold and hopefully so. But under new threat, the forces of nihilism will rebound. We should know by now that that's not a joke. Either.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
When someone believes in nothing but himself and how he feels at any given moment without logic or consistency, hasn't had an original thought in thirty years, and thinks that anything that someone disagrees with constitutes a personal insult, this is what you get--someone who is devoted only to undoing institutions, doesn't see the need to know anything else about them, and cares only about hearing cheers and adulation and certainly not the truth about anything.
Instead, he mocks, ridicules, and tells crude jokes about whatever he doesn't care for. It's for the entertainment factor, not in service of the truth, justice, or certainly not propriety.
He thinks of himself as a part-time comedian. If people laugh at his mockery, it's because he's brilliant (just ask him). If people chant with him, it's because they, and he, have nothing better to say. Nobody there cares about how the country is served by his presence; they only care about having had a good time.
It's all just a joke. The UN? What a joke. NATO? A bigger joke. Body-slamming a journalist? Sure. It's funny. Just a joke. He doesn't really mean it, but he doesn't really mean anything.
Public education? What a joke that is. So much so that a portion of an inaugural address was devoted to attacking it as part of the "carnage." He left a woman in charge of it who has proven to be quite the joke herself. The Capitol Steps, which appeared here in Milwaukee a few weeks ago, parodied her quite sharply as a nice lady who smiles a lot but knows nothing, who will surely pay the deconstructionists to take her very position apart, though--and anything that it means, which, too, is slowly morphing to nothing.
Public education is, after all, an extension of government, and government is a joke: It takes your taxes and gives you--nothing good. Does it? Everybody went to school. What good did it do?
Political correctness--that is, choosing one's words to keep focus on the issue and not on personal degradation--that's a joke, too. Nobody understands all those big words, so he'll use the same, simple words again and again: Never mind that they constitute, together and separately, big and small lies, buried in the minds of those who will never take the country seriously, only their own backyards.
So easy to cling to bromides that keep us from thinking: the left-wing conspiracy, led by George Soros (as repeated by his Supreme Court nominee). Lock up Hillary Clinton (also mentioned by him). Obama, the worst president ever. Anybody he doesn't like? He'll make up a derogatory name for them. The mockeries are the non-facts masquerading as facts that disguise, ignore, and divert from the facts.
So one of his devotees gets on Bill Maher's show and says that his lies are different--they are said to gain effect. Hello? What lie isn't told to gain effect? "But," he adds, "It works."
So the mockery of the American public can be justified. So the vagaries of politics allows constant lying to gain effect. Don't all politicians lie, after all? Does any of this matter if he can get away with it--get and keep the pulpit, spread the lies and mockery and degradation and ad hominem attacks, bringing all to his level of disgust?
Because if it doesn't, then we are all at risk. When nothing matters, nothing as an idea then matters, too--no values, no history, just the here and now and never mind the results or consequences or the possibly rational reasons that anything has ever taken place. We go down that rabbit hole and we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to return. Things that cannot possibly be justifiable will quickly become not only justifiable, but popular.
The mainstream will disappear, as it has been doing for some time now--indeed, for all of this century so far. When that happens, no government can hold back the disastrous effects because the ideas and values by which it has been created will not matter. If the economy goes bad, and millions go back on the unemployment rolls (which I have done, and that struggle for the maintenance of self-esteem was enormous), we will see the awful results: everyone for themselves.
Even if the election results are more positive next week, even if we manage to provide something of a check on the abuses of power and the descent into meaninglessness, even if we structurally push back against the idea that government is a joke, that alone won't do it. The leader of this nonsense is still there and he will feel threatened, so he will continue and even accelerate the assault on decency.
It's possible that we might establish a new foothold and hopefully so. But under new threat, the forces of nihilism will rebound. We should know by now that that's not a joke. Either.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Why I Won't Look Away
I had never been to a synagogue until Friday.
Rebecca Dallet, the latest addition to the Wisconsin state Supreme Court, spoke at Shalom Synagogue. She, her husband and three daughters, are members there. I attended because I'd never heard her speak before. After all, I voted for her. I wanted to know what I was getting.
It's quite a bit. She graduated summa cum laude from both Ohio State and law school at Case Western Reserve. She still (How does she find the time?) does religious teaching to the synagogue's youth. We did well when we put her on the state's highest court.
Dallet spoke on the enormous racial inequities in the Wisconsin criminal justice system. She should know. She dealt with 12,000 cases, civil and criminal, in the eight years she was on the Milwaukee County Court (and is the only member of the Supreme Court with Milwaukee roots, so that's another excellent reason she's there). She quoted statistics that are staggering, one of which is that black people stand ten times the chance that they will be incarcerated over whites. Think about that. The speech was entitled "Serving Justice Justly," which doesn't look to me like it's anywhere near happening right now.
That, and so many other pressing concerns, is being lost in the present cacophony that is our political and social discourse. One of those concerns was driven home again Saturday, when another radically-afflicted wildman shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing 11 people. Some of them had these ages: 97, 88, 86 and 84.
These, he said on his social media entries, were the ones underwriting the "invasion" (Note that word: both he and 45 used it) of some 5,000 political refugees from Latin America, seeking a little justly-served justice themselves, who would be crossing the border some 1500 miles away, on foot. Some national threat.
Meanwhile, Friday evening, Dallet's speech was preceded by a genuine Sabbath celebration in the synagogue. It represented a new frontier for me, a humbling but exciting one.
A former teaching colleague at Cedarburg, Jim Ross, is a member at Shalom. By sheer chance, without noticing, he and his wife had plunked themselves down in my very row. I got up and said hello, and they invited me to join them. I picked up the book of celebration--I'm not sure what it's called--and joined in when the prayers were said in English.
As I did so, I discovered three pretty interesting things:
Rebecca Dallet, the latest addition to the Wisconsin state Supreme Court, spoke at Shalom Synagogue. She, her husband and three daughters, are members there. I attended because I'd never heard her speak before. After all, I voted for her. I wanted to know what I was getting.
It's quite a bit. She graduated summa cum laude from both Ohio State and law school at Case Western Reserve. She still (How does she find the time?) does religious teaching to the synagogue's youth. We did well when we put her on the state's highest court.
Dallet spoke on the enormous racial inequities in the Wisconsin criminal justice system. She should know. She dealt with 12,000 cases, civil and criminal, in the eight years she was on the Milwaukee County Court (and is the only member of the Supreme Court with Milwaukee roots, so that's another excellent reason she's there). She quoted statistics that are staggering, one of which is that black people stand ten times the chance that they will be incarcerated over whites. Think about that. The speech was entitled "Serving Justice Justly," which doesn't look to me like it's anywhere near happening right now.
That, and so many other pressing concerns, is being lost in the present cacophony that is our political and social discourse. One of those concerns was driven home again Saturday, when another radically-afflicted wildman shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing 11 people. Some of them had these ages: 97, 88, 86 and 84.
These, he said on his social media entries, were the ones underwriting the "invasion" (Note that word: both he and 45 used it) of some 5,000 political refugees from Latin America, seeking a little justly-served justice themselves, who would be crossing the border some 1500 miles away, on foot. Some national threat.
Meanwhile, Friday evening, Dallet's speech was preceded by a genuine Sabbath celebration in the synagogue. It represented a new frontier for me, a humbling but exciting one.
A former teaching colleague at Cedarburg, Jim Ross, is a member at Shalom. By sheer chance, without noticing, he and his wife had plunked themselves down in my very row. I got up and said hello, and they invited me to join them. I picked up the book of celebration--I'm not sure what it's called--and joined in when the prayers were said in English.
As I did so, I discovered three pretty interesting things:
- The book's pages are displayed from right to left;
- Many of the songs are sung in Hebrew, and many members know them by heart (Do you know one Christian hymn by heart? Even a single verse?); and
- The one, constant theme throughout the prayers is that of peace--being the one, most essential thing that God can deliver.
The celebration that begins Friday evening extends into Saturday morning. That would begin at 10 a.m., it was announced.
I wonder if that same time was the time that the Tree of Life Synagogue began its continuation of Sabbath services, too. We do know that the gunman walked in and opened fire at about 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time on Saturday.
In all likelihood, then, they were saying those same kinds of prayers, too--prayers for peace within one's soul, prayers for peace in the world, prayers for peace for those a little short on it right now--when the gunman entered and delivered a very different message.
That brought an especially deep chill when I learned of the murders Saturday, the reports of which I watched for hours. The radio went off this morning at 8 a.m., and I heard the authorities hold their first actual news conference on the shooting. My first reaction was to turn it off. Yet another senseless, deranged person had gone off and taken out his fantastically paranoid attitudes on others. Same old, same old.
This time, though, I'm not just shaking my head and going on with my life. I got up and watched the news conference and absorbed the terrible facts of it all.
This isn't going to stop anything this very moment. But what I resolve to do is to face all of it, all the time it happens. I will not look away, though it would be easy, even understandable, to do.
I will not ignore for a moment the enormity of this barbarism. To do so is to first of all, diminish the lives and deaths of the victims, to condemn them to a kind of assembly line of the helpless, along with the children of Sandy Hook and the animals shot by people needing trophies to display.
It is to dodge the debate that's been raging on automatic weapons, which are completely unnecessary in our society. The gunman had an AR-15 as well as three pistols with him. He was ready for battle, and shot four police officers before being taken down.
Would he have shot fewer people with just those three pistols? That's not the point. Here's my question: Why would anybody want to make it that much easier to kill others?
Do you have a constitutional issue, too, those who kneel at the altar of the supposedly sacred Second Amendment? I have news: Each one of our freedoms and constitutional guarantees have limitations on them--you can't just say or print anything you want, you can't justify any action based on religion, you can't hold any kind of trial anywhere you wish, you can't interfere with a woman's body just because you don't like the decision she has made about it, you can't punish anyone in any fashion that feels okay to you--to note just a few examples of liberty under law that most of us still observe.
All of these freedoms have limitations depending upon circumstances and depending upon how we as a people wish to draw lines regarding their practice. Where abuses are committed, there needs to be new discussions.
I hereby bring back an old one: There is no functional reason why anyone who is not a member of our armed forces or police to have an automatic weapon in America. None. Define the term "automatic weapons" as you wish: You know what we're talking about here. We're talking about those which wiped out kids in Columbine and Sandy Hook; the ones which picked off literally hundreds in Las Vegas. Those.
Take them away, and you do not end ridiculous, outrageous, destructive barbarism. But you slow it down while we do the real repairs of alienation, loneliness and intellectual isolation that plague our daily interactions; while we work on the real meaning of justice that Rebecca Dallet addressed last Friday night--the lack of which erodes trust and faith in each other that we so dearly need right now.
I'm sure I will have to write this many more times until we kick-start the debate again. But I will. I will say so here, there, elsewhere, anywhere and everywhere, until someone listens.
And I will not look away.
Be well. See you down the road.
Mister Mark
Saturday, October 27, 2018
The Tiger of Intolerance
Three examples of homosexuality leading to violence arose within a week.
One was the case of Aaron Hernandez, whose sad story was written in the Boston Globe recently. Hernandez, it was revealed, was bisexual. He had had love relationships with several males but also had a child with his fiancee' before being sent to prison on murder charges.
His home background was awful. Hernandez gave off effeminate actions and mannerisms, which infuriated his hot-tempered father, who administered terrible, angry beatings. Anyone who has read about home-centered violence knows that the victims are inclined to take it out on others in bullying and other self-destructive actions. That it caught up to him was no surprise. Hernandez then committed the ultimate act of selfishness and self-destruction by hanging himself in his jail cell.
Another was Matthew Shepard, whose ashes were interred this week, finally and permanently, in Washington National Cathedral, more than a thousand miles from his home in Wyoming. In 1998, Shepard was robbed, pistol-whipped, and left for dead, hanging from a fence. He later died in a hospital. His two killers now serve life sentences.
Shepard was gay. His murder was a hate crime. His parents have always feared that his remains would be desecrated. A young, peaceful man, he attracted violence because of his innate nature--only that. Diminutive at 5-2, he was no doubt considered an easy mark, so he was lured to travel with two men who made him believe they were gay, too. They actually couldn't even abide having a gay person among them, though he meant them no harm.
His funeral became an international cause celebre, in no small part because it was picketed by the homophobic Westboro Baptist Church, whose signs said, in addition to other things, "God Hates Fags."
His funeral became an international cause celebre, in no small part because it was picketed by the homophobic Westboro Baptist Church, whose signs said, in addition to other things, "God Hates Fags."
That his parents felt they needed to solicit a national monument to be sure of the safety of their son's remains, across the continent, is a sorry comment on the lack of tolerance that has always existed.
The person accused yesterday of allegedly sending pipe bombs to several Democratic critics of 45 was known to make critical comments of gays and transsexuals. That President Obama and Vice-President Biden, who began the momentum toward accepting gay marriage in the U.S., were two of his targets (Did he not know Anthony Kennedy's home address?) spoke to his potential motivations (Though we have not heard from him yet and, considering his other targets, there were in all likelihood a host of other twisted reasons. This is assuming, of course, that his identity is accurate).
It is an albatross of this society that it cannot settle upon the inevitable fact of homosexuality within it. It is an albatross of this educational system that teachers cannot reasonably discuss it--including the possible hereditary explanations and its long history, including important world figures who were homosexual.
It is also an albatross of religiosity that clerics of some religions, Christian or otherwise, consider homosexuality sinful, to be reviled and hated, instead of a condition of the human race that, while not pervasive, is a consistent phenomenon--and, with acceptance, might be reduced in its effects instead of having them accentuated. At least it has nothing to do with being a bad person.
I have been approached by good, decent gay men a few times (each time quite surprising) over the years, inquiring in their ways whether I was one of them. But that has nothing to do with my consideration of their equality under the law and the basic acceptance of their humanity. I do not diminish them for asking, and I seriously doubt that they diminish me. As much of the Bill of Rights implies, we live and let live. But my attitudes, too, had to evolve, and my deep connection with the National Education Association had a great deal to do with it. I'm glad for that.
There is too little of that nowadays. The specter of intolerance has been unleashed again, rambling like a tiger escaping from its cage. It is there, stalking. If you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, well--too bad for you. When it pounces, it is already too late. The proliferation of weapons only makes it easier to fulfill.
Intolerance of sexual preferences provides much of the base of what motivates people to hate--in addition to religiously-based incitement and locked-in definitions of what it is to be a man. When those religions, or clergy, give their implicit permission, it gives permission to preclude additional thought and consideration, leads to grossly inaccurate generalizations about the deterioration of society as we know it, and raises frustration and anger to irrational impulses.
That was at the base of the three examples above. To overcome this is a heavy lift. But we must try.
A transsexual was standing right behind me at the Obama speech at North Division High School yesterday. Seemed like a nice lady. The gymnasium was plenty big for both of us.
Be well. See you down the road.
Mister Mark
Be well. See you down the road.
Mister Mark
Thursday, October 11, 2018
It Will Stick To 45, Too
When you're a superpower, your interests never end. They are a poiuyt of never-endings, never-beginnings. They appear to be simple but the closer you look, the more complex they appear.
But the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi journalist living in the U.S., exposes our dependence upon forces beyond our control--and makes us look bad regardless of intent or global strategy.
It's clear that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salmon wanted Khashoggi to be at least detained, captured and, well, leaned on a bit. Khashoggi has written critically about his country's policies--though he has also said good things, too--and dictators (which crown princes are) don't like that. As they can in authoritarian states (which the U.S. has become), they take all criticism personally because they can't or won't look beyond it to find root causes.
Here, the press is gleefully called "the enemy of the people." It's clearly that in Saudi Arabia, too, when it does not fit the regime's definition of loyalty. But here, journalists can't be detained merely for being critical here, and they can't be sued successfully for criticism of the administration--at least, not yet. Over there, though, they have different ways to deal with dissent, however far away it's based.
Which is to say: Rendition, the fancy synonym for torture. Remember that word? It was popular during the Iraq War era, in which supposed terrorists were subjected to, uh, persuasion that they should tell U.S. captors what they knew. Those persuasion techniques included being chained to walls, wearing no more than loincloths (if that) in freezing cold cells, robbing them of sleep, and the ultimate tool--waterboarding.
When exposed at Abu Ghraib, those treatments stopped. But it took a while. We acted the same way Saudi Arabia acts normally; to a perceived enemy of the state, we made up "legal" reasons (See: John Yoo and David Carrington) to extort information from people we thought were out to get us (disguised as presidential power expanded due to an "emergency," except it has a funny way of remaining expanded).
We also connected ourselves to allies who were willing to offer "dark cells" to us to keep the general public from discovering our excesses until it was too late to stop them. One of them was Poland, which, too, is experiencing a resurgence of authoritarianism. Strange how that happens.
But the Saudis just keep on keeping on. They tried to lure Khashoggi back into Saudi Arabia through a succession of friendly persuasions (or so says the Washington Post in an article today), but Khashoggi wouldn't bite. Instead, he surrendered himself due to love. He entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul to receive permission to get married to his Turkish fiancee'.
He is filmed going in. He is not filmed coming out.
Saudi operatives apparently utilized that opportunity to hold Khashoggi captive inside the Consulate. There they reportedly killed him. Not only that, but they filmed both the torture and the murder itself. They brought in a chain saw to carve up his body into parts.
We know about the detainment because the Post reported that U.S. intelligence intercepted orders from bin Salmon to do so. Turkish officials say that Khashoggi was captured by a Saudi security team.
What 45 can't say about this, then, is that it's 'fake news.' His own people gathered it.
People died at the hands of Americans, too. We know that in their zeal, Americans went over the line in their information gathering. I'll bet that's just exactly what happened to Khashoggi, whose fiancee' eagerly awaited his return to be married.
She waited a lifetime. His.
All of which leaves 45 and friends in a ticklish spot. To come right out and accuse the Saudi regime with murder completely compromises the U.S. relationship with it. And that relationship has another linchpin that is sacrosanct, and has been for some time now: Israel.
Saudi Arabia is supposed to be the balancing act between Israel and its enemies, especially Iran. Iran and Saudi Arabia have populations that worship two different types of Islam. The U.S. has supplied Saudi Arabia with jets and weapons that would, if necessary, counterbalance whatever dangerous influence Iran might supply to the Middle East region--such as an attack upon Israel, which Saudi Arabia cannot stand but which ensures its military hardware from us. All of this is there to ensure that the U.S. gets oil from both countries, which together comprise nearly half of the foreign oil we import from the rest of the world.
All that is tied up in sustaining U.S. corporations. And you know how fond 45 is of sustaining corporations. It is his religion. It overwhelms all other considerations. Yesterday, he was quoted as saying that he's not going to get in the way of anything that employs that many Americans.
Oh, I see. Saving jobs takes priority over saving lives. Explain that to Ford employees who will be laid off because of the ridiculous set of tariffs against China.
You also know how fond 45 is of praise and being made to look great. Saudi officials went out of their ways to do so when 45 visited their country last year. They literally rolled out the red carpet for him.
Which is to say: They played him the way Russians have. They are buying him. He knows that. He loves it.
But now he's trapped and he knows that, too. When that happens and someone in the press asks about that, as happened just yesterday, he makes up generalizations, pretends that he cares, and says he'll look into it. But he said a single word that was revelatory because he can't help himself, a single word that cut off that line of inquiry: "Okay?"
"Okay?", from him, means "get off my back. I have now said that I care about this, and I'll take no more questions about it." If you can, go and replay the response. Listen for the tone of voice. It's quick. It's dismissive. It's obvious.
What that means, as it has about so many other things that have corrupted him and this awful presidency, is that he wants to buy time to sweep this under the rug for a while, to let other things emerge that, due to their own immediacy (and exposing the unrelenting incompetence of this horrible band of operatives), dwarf two things he cares nothing about: journalists who don't write what he wants and foreigners who cause him headaches, meaning they aren't grateful enough to be here and remain submissive.
Oh, he'll respond, all right, but weeks later, when he has more information and lets us believe that he either knew it all along, or he was statesmanlike in waiting to determine the real motives or the real events. In any event, we will be inclined to throw up our hands again and move on--and the U.S. will be complicit in a genuine murder, whether it might have had the "duty to warn" Khashoggi or not if it knew that he was in danger. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not commented yet.
Senator Lindsay Graham, he of the temper tantrum of the Kavanaugh nomination fight, says that Saudi Arabia will be in big trouble with the U.S., and the White House is discussing ways to 'punish' the Saudis for this horrible crime. Will such 'punishment' fit the offense?
Why do I doubt this? Because 45 has blown up the nuclear agreement with Iran. That will no doubt cause Iran to react (if it already hasn't) in a way hostile to American interests. Recall that Iran's terrorist friends, Hezbollah, have conducted attacks upon U.S. allies in Europe. It isn't too great a stretch to suppose that it is planning something right here, right now, in revenge.
In just a few years, too, Iran will have nuclear capabilities to hold a sword of Damocles over Israel's head because it no longer has a treaty with the U.S. that it needs to observe, however imperfectly it had done so. Enter the Saudis. Or not, because we will have made them look bad for their little act of rendition gone wrong.
We can't afford to have that happen without fomenting a ferocious war in the Middle East. Remember: We will never abandon Israel. No administration has since 1947.
So this has to go away for 45. But it won't. Along with the Mueller report, this will have a very sticky way of returning--kind of like that little hunk of toilet paper that stuck to his shoe while boarding Air Force One the other day.
It's disposable, like he thinks of journalists. But it will also smell bad. Very bad.
But the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi journalist living in the U.S., exposes our dependence upon forces beyond our control--and makes us look bad regardless of intent or global strategy.
It's clear that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salmon wanted Khashoggi to be at least detained, captured and, well, leaned on a bit. Khashoggi has written critically about his country's policies--though he has also said good things, too--and dictators (which crown princes are) don't like that. As they can in authoritarian states (which the U.S. has become), they take all criticism personally because they can't or won't look beyond it to find root causes.
Here, the press is gleefully called "the enemy of the people." It's clearly that in Saudi Arabia, too, when it does not fit the regime's definition of loyalty. But here, journalists can't be detained merely for being critical here, and they can't be sued successfully for criticism of the administration--at least, not yet. Over there, though, they have different ways to deal with dissent, however far away it's based.
Which is to say: Rendition, the fancy synonym for torture. Remember that word? It was popular during the Iraq War era, in which supposed terrorists were subjected to, uh, persuasion that they should tell U.S. captors what they knew. Those persuasion techniques included being chained to walls, wearing no more than loincloths (if that) in freezing cold cells, robbing them of sleep, and the ultimate tool--waterboarding.
When exposed at Abu Ghraib, those treatments stopped. But it took a while. We acted the same way Saudi Arabia acts normally; to a perceived enemy of the state, we made up "legal" reasons (See: John Yoo and David Carrington) to extort information from people we thought were out to get us (disguised as presidential power expanded due to an "emergency," except it has a funny way of remaining expanded).
We also connected ourselves to allies who were willing to offer "dark cells" to us to keep the general public from discovering our excesses until it was too late to stop them. One of them was Poland, which, too, is experiencing a resurgence of authoritarianism. Strange how that happens.
But the Saudis just keep on keeping on. They tried to lure Khashoggi back into Saudi Arabia through a succession of friendly persuasions (or so says the Washington Post in an article today), but Khashoggi wouldn't bite. Instead, he surrendered himself due to love. He entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul to receive permission to get married to his Turkish fiancee'.
He is filmed going in. He is not filmed coming out.
Saudi operatives apparently utilized that opportunity to hold Khashoggi captive inside the Consulate. There they reportedly killed him. Not only that, but they filmed both the torture and the murder itself. They brought in a chain saw to carve up his body into parts.
We know about the detainment because the Post reported that U.S. intelligence intercepted orders from bin Salmon to do so. Turkish officials say that Khashoggi was captured by a Saudi security team.
What 45 can't say about this, then, is that it's 'fake news.' His own people gathered it.
People died at the hands of Americans, too. We know that in their zeal, Americans went over the line in their information gathering. I'll bet that's just exactly what happened to Khashoggi, whose fiancee' eagerly awaited his return to be married.
She waited a lifetime. His.
All of which leaves 45 and friends in a ticklish spot. To come right out and accuse the Saudi regime with murder completely compromises the U.S. relationship with it. And that relationship has another linchpin that is sacrosanct, and has been for some time now: Israel.
Saudi Arabia is supposed to be the balancing act between Israel and its enemies, especially Iran. Iran and Saudi Arabia have populations that worship two different types of Islam. The U.S. has supplied Saudi Arabia with jets and weapons that would, if necessary, counterbalance whatever dangerous influence Iran might supply to the Middle East region--such as an attack upon Israel, which Saudi Arabia cannot stand but which ensures its military hardware from us. All of this is there to ensure that the U.S. gets oil from both countries, which together comprise nearly half of the foreign oil we import from the rest of the world.
All that is tied up in sustaining U.S. corporations. And you know how fond 45 is of sustaining corporations. It is his religion. It overwhelms all other considerations. Yesterday, he was quoted as saying that he's not going to get in the way of anything that employs that many Americans.
Oh, I see. Saving jobs takes priority over saving lives. Explain that to Ford employees who will be laid off because of the ridiculous set of tariffs against China.
You also know how fond 45 is of praise and being made to look great. Saudi officials went out of their ways to do so when 45 visited their country last year. They literally rolled out the red carpet for him.
Which is to say: They played him the way Russians have. They are buying him. He knows that. He loves it.
But now he's trapped and he knows that, too. When that happens and someone in the press asks about that, as happened just yesterday, he makes up generalizations, pretends that he cares, and says he'll look into it. But he said a single word that was revelatory because he can't help himself, a single word that cut off that line of inquiry: "Okay?"
"Okay?", from him, means "get off my back. I have now said that I care about this, and I'll take no more questions about it." If you can, go and replay the response. Listen for the tone of voice. It's quick. It's dismissive. It's obvious.
What that means, as it has about so many other things that have corrupted him and this awful presidency, is that he wants to buy time to sweep this under the rug for a while, to let other things emerge that, due to their own immediacy (and exposing the unrelenting incompetence of this horrible band of operatives), dwarf two things he cares nothing about: journalists who don't write what he wants and foreigners who cause him headaches, meaning they aren't grateful enough to be here and remain submissive.
Oh, he'll respond, all right, but weeks later, when he has more information and lets us believe that he either knew it all along, or he was statesmanlike in waiting to determine the real motives or the real events. In any event, we will be inclined to throw up our hands again and move on--and the U.S. will be complicit in a genuine murder, whether it might have had the "duty to warn" Khashoggi or not if it knew that he was in danger. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not commented yet.
Senator Lindsay Graham, he of the temper tantrum of the Kavanaugh nomination fight, says that Saudi Arabia will be in big trouble with the U.S., and the White House is discussing ways to 'punish' the Saudis for this horrible crime. Will such 'punishment' fit the offense?
Why do I doubt this? Because 45 has blown up the nuclear agreement with Iran. That will no doubt cause Iran to react (if it already hasn't) in a way hostile to American interests. Recall that Iran's terrorist friends, Hezbollah, have conducted attacks upon U.S. allies in Europe. It isn't too great a stretch to suppose that it is planning something right here, right now, in revenge.
In just a few years, too, Iran will have nuclear capabilities to hold a sword of Damocles over Israel's head because it no longer has a treaty with the U.S. that it needs to observe, however imperfectly it had done so. Enter the Saudis. Or not, because we will have made them look bad for their little act of rendition gone wrong.
We can't afford to have that happen without fomenting a ferocious war in the Middle East. Remember: We will never abandon Israel. No administration has since 1947.
So this has to go away for 45. But it won't. Along with the Mueller report, this will have a very sticky way of returning--kind of like that little hunk of toilet paper that stuck to his shoe while boarding Air Force One the other day.
It's disposable, like he thinks of journalists. But it will also smell bad. Very bad.
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
Can Democracy Survive Humanity?
Here's the theory: As people become more intelligent, their judgments become sounder. Thus are they able to govern themselves better. Their choices are reflected in the governments they have.
The smarter people are, then, the better democracy, the ultimate challenge of governing, can work. Look at the USA.
Okay, look. Look carefully. We have a greater percentage of college-educated people among us than ever before. Our politicians, especially those in our nation's capitol, have at least bachelor's degrees if not law school certifications, which are considered equivalent to Ph.Ds. All the members of the Supreme Court are from Yale or Harvard.
And democracy is in deeper trouble here than it has been since the Civil War. If we aren't careful, the abortion issue, soon to come to a head, will result in another one. People are bailing out on democracy, leaving decisions in the hands of one man and one group, and not seeming to mind it at all. Instead of reining in power, too many are passively permitting it to take over.
As a result, more and more, anger and emotionalism have taken over this land. As a greater percentage of people become better educated, reason and rationality are supposed to overcome emotionality as bases of judgment and action.
But they aren't. We're supposed to make better decisions than we've made 50 years ago. We're supposed to adjust better to the world we have made.
Have we? How are we doing with respect to climate change? To evolving roles of women and men? To immigration challenges, which grow greater by the day? To economic challenges, including the lingering aftermath of the recession, now ten years ago? To extending world peace?
The problems of the present day are no more and no less a reflection of our common humanity, and what remains some of its greatest drawbacks: Lack of perspective caused by ignorance or rejection of history. Selfishness. The lust for power. Racial condescension. Inability to adjust to technological changes--stem cell research, social media, and automation, to name a few--which drive social and cultural change whether we like it or not.
The word that defines 'democracy' best is, I believe, together. We can, and I believe must, find solutions together--the ones that an overwhelming number can live with. That word is another one essential to the maintenance of democracy--consensus. That's a word we no longer seem to be reaching for.
Democracies operate by majority rule, but the best of them accept and leave room for the loyal opposition. 45 does none of that. He insults and lies about those who oppose him. He crushes people beneath him, or he believes he does. His party is fine with that.
Brett Kavanaugh was anything but a consensus choice for the Supreme Court. It is a reflection of the wrong person being president at the wrong time (Would there ever be a right or good time for him?), someone who demands his own way at the expense of the general public's peace of mind. It was a naked power grab, which, now completed, will only result in more insults and more anger to follow. But he is also a natural growth of what the Republican Party has become (or has always been, research and extrapolation to follow)--a cutthroat, vicious, power-hungry group bent on domination because their ideas, as they well know but cannot admit to themselves, cannot otherwise survive the scrutiny of time and tide, and cannot and will not bend to changes that are right in front of them.
Democracy is supposed to work this out. It is supposed to weed out this awfulness and replace it with something more palatable--reflecting, as Lincoln said, "the better angels of our nature" (an appeal which, at the edge of the Civil War, fell unaddressed). In 28 days, we will see how well that will work.
The smarter people are, then, the better democracy, the ultimate challenge of governing, can work. Look at the USA.
Okay, look. Look carefully. We have a greater percentage of college-educated people among us than ever before. Our politicians, especially those in our nation's capitol, have at least bachelor's degrees if not law school certifications, which are considered equivalent to Ph.Ds. All the members of the Supreme Court are from Yale or Harvard.
And democracy is in deeper trouble here than it has been since the Civil War. If we aren't careful, the abortion issue, soon to come to a head, will result in another one. People are bailing out on democracy, leaving decisions in the hands of one man and one group, and not seeming to mind it at all. Instead of reining in power, too many are passively permitting it to take over.
As a result, more and more, anger and emotionalism have taken over this land. As a greater percentage of people become better educated, reason and rationality are supposed to overcome emotionality as bases of judgment and action.
But they aren't. We're supposed to make better decisions than we've made 50 years ago. We're supposed to adjust better to the world we have made.
Have we? How are we doing with respect to climate change? To evolving roles of women and men? To immigration challenges, which grow greater by the day? To economic challenges, including the lingering aftermath of the recession, now ten years ago? To extending world peace?
The problems of the present day are no more and no less a reflection of our common humanity, and what remains some of its greatest drawbacks: Lack of perspective caused by ignorance or rejection of history. Selfishness. The lust for power. Racial condescension. Inability to adjust to technological changes--stem cell research, social media, and automation, to name a few--which drive social and cultural change whether we like it or not.
The word that defines 'democracy' best is, I believe, together. We can, and I believe must, find solutions together--the ones that an overwhelming number can live with. That word is another one essential to the maintenance of democracy--consensus. That's a word we no longer seem to be reaching for.
Democracies operate by majority rule, but the best of them accept and leave room for the loyal opposition. 45 does none of that. He insults and lies about those who oppose him. He crushes people beneath him, or he believes he does. His party is fine with that.
Brett Kavanaugh was anything but a consensus choice for the Supreme Court. It is a reflection of the wrong person being president at the wrong time (Would there ever be a right or good time for him?), someone who demands his own way at the expense of the general public's peace of mind. It was a naked power grab, which, now completed, will only result in more insults and more anger to follow. But he is also a natural growth of what the Republican Party has become (or has always been, research and extrapolation to follow)--a cutthroat, vicious, power-hungry group bent on domination because their ideas, as they well know but cannot admit to themselves, cannot otherwise survive the scrutiny of time and tide, and cannot and will not bend to changes that are right in front of them.
Democracy is supposed to work this out. It is supposed to weed out this awfulness and replace it with something more palatable--reflecting, as Lincoln said, "the better angels of our nature" (an appeal which, at the edge of the Civil War, fell unaddressed). In 28 days, we will see how well that will work.
Monday, October 8, 2018
What We Must Stop Before Its Momentum Destroys Us All
The final scene in this week's episode of "Madam Secretary" has the Secretary of State commenting upon a nuclear arms agreement between India and Pakistan (okay, it's a TV show) in the wake of an assassination attempt at the White House (ditto). Her comments about the threat of hyper-nationalism should be taken in slowly, and with careful reflection, by all. I believe it was written by someone with his/her finger on the pulse of what's really going on in this nation--and the hair trigger on which someone else's finger is poised. I reproduce the bulk of those comments here:
What is an even greater threat than nuclear weapons? That which makes the use of them possible: Hate. Specifically, the blind hatred one group or nation has for another. And that is why I am convinced that nationalism is the existential threat of our time....
Nationalism is not the same as patriotism. It is a perversion of patriotism....Nationalism promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion represent weakness, that the only way to succeed is to give blind allegiance to one race over all others. Nothing could be less American.
Patriotism, on the other hand, is about building each other up, and embracing our diversity is the source of our nation's strength. "We the people" means all the people.
America's heroes didn't die for a race or region; they died for the ideals enshrined in our Constitution: Above all, freedom from tyranny. It requires, above all, our unwavering support of a free press, freedom of religion--all religions--the right to vote, and making sure nothing infringes on any of those rights, which belong to all.
Look where isolationism has gotten us in the past: Two world wars. Seventy million dead. Never again can we go back to those dark times, when fear and hatred, like a contagion, infected the world....And it is why we must never lose sight of our common humanity, our common values, and our common decency.
I was reminded our our nation's founding motto: E pluribus unum--out of many, one. Thirteen disperate colonies became one country, one people. Today, we call on all Americans and people everywhere to reject the courage of nationalism. Because governments can't legislate tolerance or eradicate hate.
That's why each of us has to find the beauty in our differences instead of the fear, listen instead of reacting, reaching out instead of recoiling. It's up to us--all of us.
Be well. See you down the road.
Mister Mark
What is an even greater threat than nuclear weapons? That which makes the use of them possible: Hate. Specifically, the blind hatred one group or nation has for another. And that is why I am convinced that nationalism is the existential threat of our time....
Nationalism is not the same as patriotism. It is a perversion of patriotism....Nationalism promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion represent weakness, that the only way to succeed is to give blind allegiance to one race over all others. Nothing could be less American.
Patriotism, on the other hand, is about building each other up, and embracing our diversity is the source of our nation's strength. "We the people" means all the people.
America's heroes didn't die for a race or region; they died for the ideals enshrined in our Constitution: Above all, freedom from tyranny. It requires, above all, our unwavering support of a free press, freedom of religion--all religions--the right to vote, and making sure nothing infringes on any of those rights, which belong to all.
Look where isolationism has gotten us in the past: Two world wars. Seventy million dead. Never again can we go back to those dark times, when fear and hatred, like a contagion, infected the world....And it is why we must never lose sight of our common humanity, our common values, and our common decency.
I was reminded our our nation's founding motto: E pluribus unum--out of many, one. Thirteen disperate colonies became one country, one people. Today, we call on all Americans and people everywhere to reject the courage of nationalism. Because governments can't legislate tolerance or eradicate hate.
That's why each of us has to find the beauty in our differences instead of the fear, listen instead of reacting, reaching out instead of recoiling. It's up to us--all of us.
Be well. See you down the road.
Mister Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
