12 posts tagged “politics”
Today is the day that many bloggers who do not usually spend their time writing about human rights issues make the choice to do so. The idea is that by spending this one day writing about human rights, they will reach many people with the issues who don't normally read about them. I only heard about it this morning, but having heard about it, I think it's an amazing idea.
There are many issues I could choose to write about. Ever met a blogger from China on Vox, for instance? My understanding is that Vox is banned there. Freedom of speech is an important issue for me, and it's one of the areas where my country excels. Yes, we do have a strong tradition of protecting free speech.
Then again, I could be more topical. The fact that the government of Myanmar isn't allowing international aid through to its own people is certainly a travesty that is drawing a lot of attention. That fact, however, means that other human rights violations are slipping from our attention while we focus our outrage at the junta in Myanmar.
But I also feel uncomfortable attacking another country's human rights abuses while my own country's recent record is so poor. And yet, there is a perfect topic that combines the two, and that is the exporting of human rights abuses.
Our current administration's stated foreign policy is that they wish to spread freedom and democracy around the world. It's called the Freedom Agenda, and the White House is very proud of it. It's also a complete and total lie that anyone who is familiar at all with the human rights abuses of this administration cannot help but to be insulted by.
We cannot hold people in the U.S. indefinitely without charging them, so we set up a special prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, so we could do so and claim that it's not being done in the U.S. Of course it is U.S. soil, as it is being done on a U.S. military base. Irony is indeed dead if most people don't even blink at the fact that our government criticizes Cuba for its human rights abuses while sending our own war prisoners to an unwelcome base on their own soil so that we can violate their rights more conveniently.
But while the stated foreign policy agenda of the Bush administration is to export democracy and freedom, the actual agenda, as is clear from their actions, is to export human rights abuses. While the White House doesn't have a problem with violating U.S. law on our own soil, such as conducting illegal wiretaps on its own citizens, it's often just inconvenient to do so. They seem to know just how far they can push the line, and having torture camps set up on U.S. soil would be far enough that the Supreme Court would actually do their job and shut them down. So, instead, we let other countries do our dirty work for us.
Secret prisons established in foreign countries to allow the U.S. government to hold terror suspects indefinitely and treat them how they wish without having to deal with any of those pesky human rights laws we have back home. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's well documented, making it a conspiracy fact, and not a well-kept conspiracy at that.
Our government admits to using torture techniques, won't rule out using them in the future, and still has the unmitigated gall to take the moral high ground in criticizing other country's human rights abuses, claiming that we are spreading democracy and freedom around the world. The insanity of it is maddening. Make no mistake, waterboarding is torture, and is by no means the only torture technique that we know has been used.
Every time our government commits one of these acts, it gives up more of the moral high ground that it so self-righteously thinks it has. We are becoming not the saviors of the world, but its most prominent hypocrites.
What can you do? The administration has made it extremely clear that it doesn't care in the slightest what the American people think.
It's obvious that sending letter won't do a whole lot. Donate to Amnesty International, by all means. And yet, the most effective thing an American citizen can do is elect a new President who doesn't believe in torture. And our current choices?
John McCain supports allowing the President the power to authorize torture.
Hillary Clinton used to support the use of torture, and now doesn't, similar in a way to how she used to support the war, and now doesn't.
Barack Obama has stated unequivocally that he does not support either the use of torture or sending suspects abroad so that other countries can do our torturing for us.
Make your choice accordingly!
Someone told me today that I don't have all the answers, which was interesting even though I already knew that. It was interesting, because I don't think I give off that know-it-all vibe to most people. This was in the context of a political discussion, though, so I can understand why he would get that idea.
Still, it got me thinking about something one of my professors told me during my graduate work at Missouri State in the political science department. (I was studying public administration, not political science proper, and I made sure to avoid the poltical science grad students as much as possible, because they really did think they knew all the answers.) He said, "This program won't teach you all the answers, but when you leave here at least you'll know what some of the questions are."
When I graduated, I realized he was right. I had realized what questions to consider when going into my own organization a couple of years later and determining the best course of action, as well as what questions to consider when thinking of other, more generalized systems.
But that doesn't mean that I am completely without answers. Sometimes, you have several answers already, and could pick the right one if only you knew the right question, and that is something I'm fairly good at. Often, what appears to be the problem on the surface, isn't really the problem at all. Unfortunately, most of the big issues of the day are too complex to have answers so straightforward, though many people try to pretend they aren't.
Just as an example: illegal immigration in America. How many sides are there to this issue? Probably as many sides as there are people who have a stake in the outcome, which is damn near everyone in the world. Business owners, farmers, consumers, taxpayers, the children of the immigrants born in this country, the families remaining behind, everyone effected by the economies that both thrive and suffer because of illegal immigration, and of course the immigrants themselves - they all have a stake in what policy or policies are chosen, and every possible policy combination will have unintended consequences and side effects.
Anyone who says they have the answer to the immigration issue is going to meet with my skepticism. Usually, people think a complex issue is simple because they boil it down to two choices, rather than the myriad that really exist, and then they downplay or ignore the negative consequences of the choice they prefered from the start. But the real world just isn't that simple. The best we can do is come up with the best combination of policies we can, then try to clean up the side effects as they creep up. To even come close to doing that, we first have to determine what the real issues are driving the controversies. In other words, we have to ask the right questions.
Thinking about this, though, I realized that we aren't all doomed to ignorance. Even on issues where it is impossible to know the answer, it is at least possible to know what the answer isn't. With illegal immigration, for instance. I may not be able to answer questions about whether all current illegal immigrants should be deported, or whether businesses should be fined, and if so how much, without studying in great detail all of the socio-economic ramifications of our options. I can, however, tell you that the answer to illegal immigration is not to give each illegal immigrant coming into the country a stuffed teddy bear... just as an example.
What is the square root of 288, times the number of teabags in China, divided by the number of hairs on my cat? I don't know, but the answer isn't "blue."
So, even on the most complex of issues, while only a fool would say they know the solution, it is not impossible at all to point out the absurdity of answers that some people toss around.
And then, answers can be absurd on the face of them, like saying the solution to high prices at the gas pump is for everyone to start driving more, or they can be absurd because they go against our core beliefs. For instance, if someone were to say to me that the solution to our problems in Iraq would be to pull our troops out and just nuke the place (and yes, people have said this to me), I would reject it out of hand as absurd, not for logical reasons but because it goes against my most basic humanist principles.
And so no, my friend, I don't know all the answers, but I'm glad to say that I do know some of the questions, and I am certain that I know what many of the answers aren't.
Good night.
Remember, remember, the Fifth of November
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Set in the not too distant future, V for Vendetta is the story of a masked man who takes on a totalitarian regime which has taken over Britain. It is Guy Fawkes vs. 1984. It's a very powerful story, and the backstory of how the world came to be the way it is unfolds throughout. It isn't often you are brought by a story to root for the terrorist, but V does it.
The language is high, and the story makes you think. It is not a story for those who don't wish to consider that the world we live in is not as we perceive it, or to believe that we can be manipulated by those we trust to lead us in the face of national tragedy.
An Iranian newspaper is doing something that seems unthinkable in Iran. It's criticizing President Ahmadinejad.
That, in itself, is newsworthy, but check out the article on CNN. What's really amazing about this is that they are criticizing him for attacking conservatives. Why is this, the most hard-line of dictators, being criticized for attacking nationalists? Because he's that much more conservative than they are.
That's right - the conservatives in Iran are calling for more moderation in Iran's dealings with the west over its nuclear program, but Ahmadinejad is calling them traitors. When you're more reactionary than your own reactionaries, isn't it time to examine your position?
Yesterday, I posted about how a recent scientific study indicated that many people make their decisions between political candidates based on their first impressions of the person's competency, based solely on their appearance. As this logically leads to a conclusion that many people have already arrived at, namely that democracy is a highly imperfect form of government, I asked people to suggest forms of government that might be better.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill
This isn't to say that I would rather the nations of the world have remained as monarchies, and dictatorships and theocracies certainly are much worse systems to live under than democracies. Direct democracies can be tyrannical for anyone in the minority, and don't work well for governments larger than municipalities, anyway. To fix this the first part, you have a Constitution that guarantees the rights of minorities (and all of the citizens), protecting them from the excesses of transient majorities. To fix the second part, you make it a representative democracy, where the people elect individuals to run the government on their behalf.
So, representative democracy with constitutional protections for minorities is the best, safest system in the world. And yet, it's far from perfect. Leaders in a representative democracy, like what we have in the U.S., are based much more on the first impression, wealth, and connections of the candidates, rather than their abilities or even their stance on the issues, and lend themselves well to the politics of fearmongering and hyperbole.
Just as the Constitution was written with the idea of "checks and balances" incorporated into its structure, it's time we start building in competency and relevance as integral concepts. Here's my solution.
Meritocracy: (noun) [From WordWeb]
1. A form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects.
2. The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
In a meritocracy, individuals are chosen for their ability to do a job, rather than irrelevant factors such as their wealth, connections. The first step toward this would be to include job requirements for political office. Almost seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Every other job in the country requires the applicant to have some sort of pre-qualifying knowledge, skills, or abilities. Why don't we set minimum requirements for political office? Did you know that in most parts of the U.S., a person can run for Sheriff without having any law enforcement background? In some counties, the position of Medical Examiner is elected, and you don't have to have any medical or forensic experience to run. The same thing goes for District Attorneys. There was a time when there wasn't much in the way of specialized knowledge necessary to do these jobs. Now there is; it's times to change it.
But how about other elected positions? How about starting with requiring high school diplomas or GEDs to be on city council? Seems reasonable to me. Bigger cities, with more candidates, may require a bachelors degree, preferably in something relevant, like political science, business, civil engineering, something to indicate that they know a little more than the average guy off the street about how to run a city.
The same applies to offices at the state or federal level. Members of congress should have at least master's degrees in something relevant to running the government or writing laws about the issues. As it is, Congressmen and Senators get almost all of their information from lobbyists, which is why they are the ones really running the country now.
The President should be one of the smartest people in the country. Doesn't that just make sense? Wouldn't you want the guy running the entire show to be in the top one or two percent? He should have to have a PhD in some relevant field.
Judges should have to have a law degree. "You mean they don't have to now?" you cry. No, they don't. It usually works out they do, but they don't have to, and local judges are often elected without any particular experience or education to get in - just a lot of friends. Obviously, the same should be true of federal judges and the Supreme Court.
The next question is, among the qualified candidates for what are now elected positions, how do we choose? Let's take a lesson from the business world - make them apply for the job. Each candidate should have to fill out an application, listing prior experience, education, and additional qualifications. Then, they should have to write essays on each of a number of major issues, saying what they would do concerning that issue if they get into office. All of this information would be available to all of the voters on line or in paper format, and then the candidates would not be allowed to campaign, at the risk of being disqualified. Since public speaking is obviously part of the job, public debates would be arranged for the final candidates. Without party-based campaigns or fund-raising, political parties would become almost irrelevant.
I also think voters would have to have some sort of minimum qualifications. I'm thinking a High School degree or GED, at least.
Now, to make all of this work, education has to be available to all Americans. It needs to be free, including the post-secondary, graduate, and doctoral levels. Otherwise, the wealthy and well-connected would still have better access to the political system. Besides, if we want to stay competitive with other industrialized countries, this is something we need to do, anyway.
Will we ever make these kinds of reforms? Probably not. I realize they would probably be viewed as elitist, but maybe someday we'll see the necessity of selecting our leaders based on more than first impressions and emotional impact.
Go.
Synopsis of a Scientific American article today, "How to Win an Election: Make a Good First Impression (in Less than 250 Milliseconds)":
A study by Princeton University researchers indicates that most voters make their candidate selections based on first impressions of a candidate's appearance of competence, and that they are forming that impression within the first 1/4th of a second of seeing them.
"All of the action goes on in the first 250 milliseconds of exposure, and then there's not much going on," said one of the researchers.
While the study still doesn't explain how George "I look like a confused monkey" Bush won in 2004 (we know how he won in 2000), it really doesn't bode well for democracy in general. I'm thinking the introduction of a new system is in order.
Looks Competent to Me
I'd sooner vote for this guy.
What would be your ideal system of government?
Hundreds of thousands of people are now homeless in Southern California from the wildfires that continue to ravage that part of the state. This is a disaster of immense proportions, and one is put in mind of the evacuations and the chaos following the destruction of New Orleans by Katrina. So, the question is, has FEMA learned from its recent failures, and will it respond in a fashion that appears to be something other than incompetent? One obvious difference is that the people losing their homes to the wildfires are, by and large, wealthier and have more resources to fall back on than the poor of New Orleans, but there are still incredible logistical conundrums to be decided and phyisical and psychological costs to be assessed and redressed. Is FEMA up to the task? Time will tell.
On a side note, California has 55 electoral votes. Louisiana has 9. Which state do you think the administration will pay more attention to?
The American people, as a whole, have two conflicting values right now concerning access to public records. On the one hand, they tend to agree with news outlets that public records should be highly accessible. In fact, the more accessible the better, even to the point of putting them on the web and making them available to anyone who can type a URL. On the other hand, Americans are scared to death of theft identity and loss of privacy.
The problem is that most citizens don't seem to make the connection between increased access to government records and loss of privacy. A recent local example comes from our city's newspaper taking the city government to court because it refused to turn over copies of the seventy-five applications it received for the then-open City Manager position. The City argued that most people reasonably expect a modicum of privacy when they apply for a job. The newspaper countered that it was their job as the defender of the people's right to know to ensure that the good citizens of our city knew exactly who had applied for the job. Then, they added, the people could decide for themselves if the City Council selected the best candidate for the position.
But there are deeper privacy issues than inadvertantly getting a job applicant in trouble with their current employer. Job applications have social security numbers on them. If job applications for the City Manager position were open record, then all job applications are. If job applications are open record, then what's to stop someone from ordering copies of all of the applications received by the State of New Mexico in any given month and using it to harvest identities for criminal purposes?
And if job applications are open record, what about transcripts from background checks? What about credit reports?
New Mexico has one of the most liberal open records statutes in the country. Records kept by a government agency, either state or local, can be requested by anyone for any purpose. The only time an agency is allowed to withhold the document is if it is part of an ongoing criminal investigation, if it is a "matter of opinion" in a personnel file, or if it falls into one of a handful of other very obscure categories that cover almost nothing.
That sounds great, doesn't it? If asked if they support such a statute guaranteeing access to public records, most people would probably say "yes."
Now let's say you live in an apartment complex and you hear your neighbor in an argument with her very dangerous, violent boyfriend. You call 9-1-1 and report what you fear could become a life-threatening situation, and the police come. When they arrive, the police find that the argument has not yet turned physical, and both parties promise to stop arguing, so the police leave.
But the dangerous, violent boyfriend lets his anger fester. Who was the busybody who called the police? What business is it of theirs what goes on in his own apartment? Someone ought to teach them a lesson. So the next morning, he drives down to the 9-1-1 center and requests a copy of the call to 9-1-1 that led to his humiliation in front of the police. It's not part of an ongoing investigation, because no charges were filed, and it certainly doesn't fall into any other protected category, so legally, the administrator at the 9-1-1 center has no legal option but to hand the tape over. With that tape in hand, the dangerous, violent boyfriend can listen and hear exactly who turned him in. Refused to give your name to the dispatcher? That's fine, because he can olso request a copy of the information that comes across the system when you call 9-1-1, including the address, name, and telephone number of the caller.
Now he knows who called the police on him. Who do you think he's coming after next?
How about a drug dealer who wants to know who turned him in? What about a stalker that wants his girlfriend's new address? What about someone who's just nosy and wants to know why there was an ambulance at your house last week? Is this really the public's right to know? Is this really in our society's best interest?
I'm not in favor of closed government, but before we open the floodgates of information any further, let's consider being more selective in what we make public and what can stay private. If information is power, I'm not sure we want everyone armed with the informational equivalent of grenade launchers.
Jon Stewart, et al. This is very funny. It's written and designed like a High School social studies textbook, but it's all very irreverant. Here are some random excerpts:
P. 35: [Under a picture of the Presidential Seal] Each incoming president has the above seal branded on his upper right shoulder upon taking office. It is said that those who cry during branding are fated to be one-termers.
P. 122: [Shown on an old-fashioned shirt on a page depicting campaign swag over the years] I endorsed the candidacy of Thomas Jefferson, for which I was inadequately compensated with this tunic of poor qualitie!
P. 82: [About the Snopes trial, 1925] The teacher was found guilty and fined $100. Tennesseans supporting the law celebrated the "defeat of evolution" by grunting happily and hurling feces.
The following was originally posted as a comment on another blogger's post about whether or not global warming is being caused by humans:
There are still serious scientists that deny that global warming is being caused by humans. Damn few, but they do exist. I don't think its necessarily a good idea to wait until we have total agreement before we do anything about what's happening around us. Science is not a democracy. Theories are judged on their adherance to observable data, not their popularity, and certainly not on their universal acceptance. There were serious scientists (and may still be some) that denied Einstein's theory of special relativity even after the most effective demonstrations in science history (i.e., the Manhattan Project).
It used to be that the debate was whether or not global warming was happening. That debate has become impossible to argue based on the evidence, so now the debate is over whether it's caused by industry or by natural processes. Oddly enough, while the few remaining skeptics come up with ways in which natural warming processes could occur, they don't explain how the billions of tons of CO2 released every year by the industrialized countries of the world couldn't have an effect on the climate, based on everything we know about CO2 and greenhouse gasses. It's like peeing in the pool and arguing that you may not really be the reason why the water's turning yellow. Maybe there are other reasons, but continuing to pee in the pool probably isn't helping.
So we continue to argue about who should reduce their emissions first, China and India, or the United States, and in the meantime we are in the midst of the the most rapid mass extinction in the history of the planet. We are Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns. How sad.
China and India aren't the worst polluters, by the way. The U.S. is, by a wide margin, and the gap in CO2 emissions between the U.S. and the other nations of the world is growing, not shrinking. Figure that per capita, and it's even more startling. Let's not kid ourselves - the Kyoto protocol targets the worst offenders, which of course is why the U.S. will never sign on. Our lifestyle is more important to us than the future habitability of our planet.
