Is That Right?

Our faith is our strength
--motto of Tristan da Cunha 

I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the
Heart's affections and the truth of the Imagination
--John Keats 

Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice
V.I. Lenin 
__________________  

"Truth", "Freedom", "Rights", "liberties", endowments ... these terms occur in our foundational documents, but have never been definitively explained. That is why a person like Edward Snowden is either deified or demonized -- we are not sure what we are allowed to do.

The most famous line from the Declaration of Independence (1776) states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But in a society based upon laws, definition is important. How can these be "self evident" when at the time of the Declaration's writing, all men (= people) were not treated as though they had been "created equal[ly]"? If they are "truths", then they would have trumped behavior to the contrary.

It would take the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteen Amendments to confer freedom, full citizenship and the right to vote upon black males. It would not be until the 19th Amendment (ratified in 1920) that women would gain the right of suffrage.

Perhaps one may believe in universal equality of the construction of man, yet still believe that some few ubermensch retain the right to overmaster them. However, that is not societal equality, of the sort that a government document may confer. Further, how can it be "true" and "self-evident" that all are created equally when the observed evidence is so contrary. 

If rights are inalienable, they why need they be conferred by a "Creator"? If one were a citizen atheist, one still maintains his rights even though he denies they have been conferred upon him by a Creator. If rights are inalienable to my existence, then they need not be conferred, and are just a fact. 

If rights are "inalienable", then they are indwelling in the human, and may not be divorced by fiat or behavior. The Existentialists argued for man's radical freedom, even in cases of incarceration or death sentence, but that is a philosophical argument arguing for freedom in one's head space, a domain on which the government has not yet intruded. 

Justice Brandeis sought to protect that intangible freedom in his dissent in Olmstead (1934), when he foresaw a time when governments might develop and enlist technology to invade even that private sphere -- a "thought police", of sorts. However, one's actual physical condition may indeed be constricted, either by one's violation of his contract with the State or bad faith behavior of the State itself. So one's essential "liberty" is not a truth.

Liberty is not so much a right as a very tenuous condition. While an enlightened individual may eke out a mental zone of free thought when physical freedom may be denied to him, liberty is only the result of an agreement between the free man and his government, and only exists in the zone when both are performing their responsibilities correctly. Slavery and servitude is more generally man's state. 

"Life" is the one given among the "truths", but even it is not a "Right" -- life is simply a biological imperative. It is the seed seeking rich soil, the egg seeking fertilization, and then implantation. The impetus to life is a dumb fact if one is existing on this planet, much as when life has been extinguished, death and the absence of life will be a fact.

The Articles of Confederation also alludes to the “Great Governor of the World.” Were these references to a Big Guy just sops to simple people fleeing religious persecution? Many of the Founders were Deists, but they also believed in an "unmoved mover", a disinterested creator of all that is.

In Jefferson’s view, the rising generation, once sustained by complete liberty of conscience, would abandon religions based on biblical revelation in favor of those founded on reason. “There is not a young man now living in the United States,” he predicted in 1822, “who will not die a Unitarian.” (Separation of Church and State.) But reason had its day with The Enlightenment.

In fact, there are NO inalienable rights; ask Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. There are "rights" conferred by government, rights which may be abridged, abrogated or annulled, either judicially or extralegally.

We must be honest about who we are and what we want if we are to understand our present condition, yet who can do this even on a personal level? Our founders were brilliant and brave, their rhetoric soaring, but the words belie terrific contradictions and outright misstatements.

We are a riven society because men are riven, and men have created these concepts called rights.

[cross-posted @ milpub]

Truth or Consequences

Private Vices by the dextrous Management
of a skilful Politician may be turned into Publick Benefits
--fr. Fable of the Bees (1714), Bernard Mandeville
______________

The FBI is adding 850 new agents to the bureau, and so far they have over 20,000 applicants (Wanted: 850 New FBI Agents). Of those, historically 30% will fail the lie detector portion of the hiring process.

This prompted a few thought questions:

Why aren't our elected official required to take lie detector tests prior to running for or assuming office? Would Blago or Bush have been in that number?

Further, why or how can a lie detector test be used to eliminate an FBI candidate when these tests are so unreliable they cannot be used as evidence in a court of law?

We would like to ask future elected civil servants:

• Will you uphold the Constitution?
• Will you oppose U.S. participation in preemptive wars?
• Will you consider the welfare of Detroit above that of Baghdad or Kabul?

We suffer layer upon layer of hypocrisy in our democratic principles. The integrity and truthfulness of our leaders is never put on the Black Box, yet the worker bees are always suspect. More important that the President be put on the black box than an entry-level GS-5 agent.

What kind of democracy is this?

________________

You have one hour left to vote Ranger for your
favorite Topical Interest Blog in the 2009 Webbies:

Our Truth

Minds are not conquered by arms, but by greatness of spirit
--Baruch Spinoza

The wave of the future is not the conquest of
the world by a single dogmatic creed but the
liberation of the diverse energies of free nations
--John F. Kennedy

I don't care how little your country is, you got a right to run it like you want to.
When the big nations quit meddling then the world will have peace
--Will Rogers

Welcome to Peoria, Illinois, home of middle America
Ice-cream and apple pie, guns and the Wild West
--Americana, The Kinks
____________

There is much talk about homeland and security since GWB has been our self-annointed and appointed leader of wartime proportions.

It strikes me rather bluntly that there is no homeland. America is not a geographical entity--it is a concept. That thought turned into action is the U.S. Constitution. Wherever the constitution goes, there is America. Our constitution is so valuable that anything done contrary to its principles is the greatest threat to our geographical homeland.

The constitution is not defined by invasions, preemptive wars and forced democratizations, but by the simple everyday beauty that it conveys to the social life of America. America is defined by the mundane, not the extraordinary. This ethos cannot be forced upon unwilling participants. The Constitution was written for America, and unlike the Bible, it is not a universal document.

The power of the Constitution and the U.S. military are different realities. The latter is purchased with blood and money; the other is purchased with integrity. There is no bayonet stud or selector switch on the Constitution. You should not beat people with it, and it is defended with ideals and ideas, not necessarily firepower.

This concept is lost on the likes of GWB for whom, if he had two good ideas in his head, they'd be like BB's in a septic tank.

The present philosophy of American leadership is to supposedly export American democracy without the benefit of the U.S. Constitution. This will never work, for these are not mutually exclusive concepts. While American democracy is a portable concept that is not tied to flags and partisanship, it was an upwelling unique to this nation.

The shortcomings of Afghanistan and Iraq or any other nation do not compel America to proselytize. America is not contingent upon any other nation joining in our unique project. The constitution is the center of American social and political life. Folks like the religious right have attempted to coopt it and bundle into their ritual worship, but this should be seen for the partisanship it is. The constitution falls under no creed's rubric.

The constitution and the flag and GWB are separate entities. The constitution stands alone and for all that is the best of America. U.S. efforts will never be successful in Iraq, Afghanistan, Columbia, the Philippines, or anywhere unless that truth is examined. The truth now is that our present policies are based upon lies that are contradictory to our constitutional principles.

Our leaders can lie, dissemble and dominate other countries with the force of arms. But when the day ends, the truth is evident even to our elected liars. The truth is that we are lying to ourselves, and that is the basis of our failures and diminishment. If your reasons are lies, than so are your policies.

In the past when American soldiers died, it was not for a piece of real estate but for a piece of irrevocable parchment.

One-Love, Constitution

Let's get together to fight this Holy Armagiddyon
(One Love!)
So when the Man comes there will be no, no doom
(One Song!)
--One Love, Bob Marley
__________

I wasn't thinking Marley when I wrote the title--just the score in tennis. Thank you Judge Taylor. But you know, Marley's in on this, too. What Holy Armageddon is he talking about? If you buy into it, then this really is a holy war, rather than something we've engineered.

A biblically-sanctioned war, an inevitibility. Apocalyptic horseman and all of it, like the Cavalry riding in at the end of a Western. And I am told by my Baptist friends that folks who ascend after the rapture will be given "glorified bodies," and surely, with the current glut of gluttony which has descended upon the land, we shall verily need those. (As an aside, I asked, and these bodies will not allow us to partake of the sexual act, so we shall become more like our partners in the Coalition [No Sex, Please, We're British].

I tell you, when I hear Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stressing that we are at war, and especially, we are at war with Al Qaida, and that today's ruling by Federal Judge Taylor against the legality of the NSA wiretapping program is not legal, I can't help thinking about Mel Brook's prophetic lyrics from "The Inquisition" in his History of the world. A sample:

The Inquisition, what a show.
The Inquisition, here we go.
We know you're wishin' that we'd go away!
So all you Muslims and you Jews
We got big news for all of yous:
You'd better change your point of views TODAY!
'Cause the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!

The decision to disallow the secret wiretaps is now being appealed by the government.

My conservative friends defiantly say, "What have I to fear? I'm not plotting to bomb anyone? Let them tune in to my calls." But if you don't preserve everyone's rights, then no one is truly free. They would do well to listen to Pastor Niemoeller who famously said after WW II,

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

The same old argument is voiced by Gonzales and company, namely, that the President has unlimited wartime powers. It is upon this (mis)conception that his assertion hinges.

Perhaps we should be posing different questions. Perhaps the president's assumed powers are phony because the war itself is phony. I mean, are we at war because the president says so? It plays well when Star Trek's Captain Jean Luc Picard declares, "Make it so". But that's Hollywood, and besides, he's French, and we know what a flair for the self-important and the dramatic they possess. In the real world, even the president can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Isn't Congress invested with the Constitutional authority to declare war? This has not been done, as the hostilities that we are engaged in do not qualify for that title. Where is the war? Yes, soldiers are dying, people are dying, but where is this said war? I suggest that the military carte blanche issued by Congress to Bush is overdrawn, and should be canceled. The account should be closed.

The courts speak, and Bush ignores the rulings. Hamdan is still in limbo, and NSA is continuing to abuse the Constitution. Why doesn't Congress speak with their funding controls? Yeah, I know...we're at war with a tactic (i.e., terrorism).

The administration says that the wiretapping program is effective and makes us safer. But that is not the question. The question is, is it legal and constitutional, for these are the touchstones of all that we undertake in this country. To use a very blunt and gross oversimplification, if we were to simply bring a wrecking ball into the troublesome areas of Iraq and Afghanistan and flatten them, there would be no more trouble. But, we would have overstepped our bounds. Those may be "Hama rules," to borrow from Thomas Friedman, but Hama rules are no rules at all.

If we are not for upholding and abiding by our constitutional tenets, then we are lost.

The test for procedural legality lies with the court system. If Constitutional review has become merely a token gesture, then we have betrayed our founding principles. And principles do matter in this war of ideals. Last I looked, we were hoping to export a little democracy. You can't excise it at home, and think to seed it elsewhere, and on fallow soil, at that.

Let's leave emotionalism and partisanship behind and become a nation of law once again. The only hope for correction here is a strong and united judiciary, as the legislative seems to be out gathering brush with the executive. And they're doing one heckuva job of it.

One-Love, Constitution

Let's get together to fight this Holy Armagiddyon
(One Love!),
So when the Man comes there will be no, no doom
(One Song!)
--One Love, Bob Marley
__________

I wasn't thinking Marley when I wrote the title--just the score in tennis. Thank you Judge Taylor. But you know, Marley's in on this, too. What Holy Armageddon is he talking about? If you're Christian and buy into it, then this really is a prophesied war, rather than something we've engineered.

A biblically-sanctioned war, an inevitability. Apocalyptic horseman and all of it, like the Cavalry riding in at the end of a Western. And I am told by my Baptist friends that folks who ascend after the rapture will be given "glorified bodies," and surely, with the current glut of gluttony which has descended upon the land, we shall verily need those. (I asked, and these bodies will not allow us to partake of the sexual act, so we shall become more like our partners in the Coalition [No Sex, Please, We're British] in that respect after the jig's up.

When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stresses that we are at war, and especially, we are at war with Al Qaida, and that today's ruling by Federal Judge Taylor against the legality of the NSA wiretapping program is not legal, I can't help hear Mel Brook's prophetic lyrics from "The Inquisition" in his History of the World. A sample:

The Inquisition, what a show.
The Inquisition, here we go.
We know you're wishin' that we'd go away!
So all you Muslims and you Jews
We got big news for all of yous:
You'd better change your point of views TODAY!
'Cause the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!

The decision to disallow the secret wiretaps is now being appealed by the government.

Conservatives say, "What have I to fear? I'm not plotting to bomb anyone? Let them tune in to my calls." But if someone's rights are abrogated, all are not free. They would do well to listen to Pastor Niemoeller who said famously after WW II,

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

The same old argument is voiced by Gonzales and company, namely, that the President has unlimited wartime powers. It is upon this (mis)conception that his assertion hinges.

Perhaps we should be posing different questions. Perhaps the president's assumed powers are phony because the war itself is phony. I mean, are we at war because the president says so? It plays well when Star Trek's Captain Jean Luc Picard declares, "Make it so". But that's Hollywood, and besides, he's French, and we know what a flair for the self-important and the dramatic they possess. In the real world, even the president can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Isn't Congress invested with the Constitutional authority to declare war? This has not been done, as the hostilities that we are engaged in do not qualify for that title. Where is the war? Yes, soldiers are dying, people are dying, but where is this said war? The military carte blanche issued by Congress to Bush is overdrawn, and should be canceled. The account should be closed.

The courts speak, and Bush ignores the rulings. Hamdan is still in limbo, and NSA is continuing to abuse the Constitution. Why doesn't Congress speak with their funding controls? Yeah, I know. . .we're at war with a tactic (i.e., terrorism).

The administration says that the wiretapping program is effective and makes us safer. But that is not the question. The question is, is it legal and constitutional, for these are the touchstones of all that we undertake in this country.

If we were to simply bring a wrecking ball into the troublesome areas of Iraq and Afghanistan and flatten them, there would be no more trouble. But, we would have overstepped our bounds. Those may be "Hama rules," to borrow from Thomas Friedman, but Hama rules are no rules at all.

If we are not for upholding and abiding by our constitutional tenets, then we are lost.

The test for procedural legality lies with the court system. If Constitutional review has become merely a token gesture, then we have betrayed our founding principles. And principles do matter in this war of ideals. Last I looked, we were hoping to export a little democracy. You can't excise it at home, and think to seed it elsewhere, and on fallow soil, at that.

Let's leave emotionalism and partisanship behind and become a nation of law once again. The only hope for correction here is a strong and united judiciary, as the legislative seems to be out gathering brush with the executive. And they're doing one heckuva job.