10.20.06

Working Title… OF DOOM!

Posted in Theory, Politics, Governance at 1:00 pm by diantus

            A recent study of attitudes in Europe and America concerning privacy rights was just released (link).  Additionally, the FBI recently stated that someone tied to the Colorado republican candidate in the Colorado gubernatorial race is being investigated for illegally accessed their database and used that information in an attack add.  What makes this entertaining to me is that the substance of the study claims that Europeans apparently trust their governments considerably more than Americans.  According to the findings, Europeans have a great deal more control over what corporate entities might do with their information.  In fact, no company can transfer information about you (including email addresses) without your express consent.  However, their governments are subject to few restrictions and can access citizens’ data in surprising ways.

            What this suggests is that Europeans seems to trust their governments considerably more than their companies, whereas Americans are in the reverse.  As much as I might like to argue with these findings, and claim that Americans really don’t trust anyone these days (and they probably shouldn’t), there is no disputing the fact that our piecemeal regulation of economic entities pales in comparison to the broad restrictions that we place on government.  Seeing as the need for oversight into economic affairs cannot be understated, I am forced to wonder why we apparently trust Ford to do the right thing, but not congress – at least we get to occasionally vote for congress.

            I wonder if it isn’t somehow tied to national origin and the development of democracies in Europe and America that accounts for this seeming difference in the social relation to government.  While the United States was formed earlier than our European counterparts, our polity had a long history of relative independence.  The earliest days of our republic was home to a population which – by and large – consisted of private farmsteads, and a not especially omnipresent government.  The advantage to farming is that you depend on no one else for your needs.  By contrast, Europe was highly urbanized with a complex class structure already well under development.  When American government was in its infancy, it is generally well understood that the system of democracy was designed cautiously, but also with an easy eye to cooption.  Europe’s revolution was violent and intense.  It was a genuine attack on the status quo instead of a break from it.

            What does this mean?  It means that Americans stayed remote from their government until the 19^th century wherein they discover in the most dramatic and painful fashion possible that the democracy they lived in was not designed to respond to popular demand.  The time from founding to need established the boundaries and restrictions that continue to plague the citizens’ access to power to this day.  The 19^th century released this knowledge by unleashing a storm of labor movements that occupied that century immediately following the Civil War.  These twin events scarred America’s social consciousness and left us without reason or inclination to really trust our government or feel that it is any but an entity apart from our wills.  Democracy in America is dependent upon the benevolence of the men in charge, particularly because we have no means of opposing them in a legal fashion.  As our president has suggested on many occasions, he doesn’t need to concern himself with popularity.

            Europe’s democracy evolved under close public scrutiny.  There was no way for it to happen otherwise.  They didn’t have the space to run off and hide in open prairie.  Instead, the European electorate had to demand land reform and economic redistribution.  To make matters worse, the densities and relative sophistication of urban centers forced even political elites to watch the actions of the under classes.  In the end, the generated governmental forms that were more responsive to popular pressure, and on the surface at least, more trustworthy.  In America, the government never really had to deal with “the people,” nor did they really want it to.  By the time they needed their government, it was too late.

This could lead one to the conclusion that democracy and pastoralism are inherently incompatible.  Perhaps they are.  A functional democracy may very much depend upon having people in one another’s face from the outset.  It forces a certain respect for boundaries and personal space.  This helps account for the relatively dramatic shift in political fortunes that swept the advanced world after several millennia of agricultural dictatorships (Marx has a respectable set of theories about this phenomenon, but there’s no need to get into it here).  Of course, the US also has the grim advantage of being the first to really try democracy, which means that they were unable to learn from historical mistakes.  Pride prevents America from making changes now.

This is not to suggest that American should trust their government.  After all, the system is propped up mostly by a massive lobbying industry, cronyism, and wide ranging corruption.  Government is something of an elitist club, and the only thing that prevents it from becoming totally unbearable is the fact that it is relatively remote.  The American fixation on privacy from government is the only thing that makes our peculiar form of democracy sustainable.  In fact, I’d dare say that in any nation that actually has expectations from its governmental institutions would find the American pluralist system completely unworkable – which may help explain our troubles with nation building in the Middle East.

The relationship of the two sectors of privacy trust follows naturally, and will have to be the subject of a later piece, but I would like to conclude with a reflection on corporate oversight.  The danger with America’s limited approach to curbing corporate invasions of privacy has to do with the symbiotic relationship between the halls of power and the towers of industry.  If corporations begin supplanting the government as engines of information retrieval, Americans may lose their hard-held right to ignore the state.  After all, are we so naïve as to believe that private industry is not already servicing our government’s need for information?  Regardless, this breakdown can only serve to make Americans keenly aware of the government’s role in their lives.  If that happens, they will no choice but to succumb to dictatorship or begin modeling after the Europeans, who feel that they can actually trust their governments not to abuse them.

Permalink Comments

10.18.06

A Deflector Dish Against War

Posted in Politics, Current Events at 7:22 pm by diantus

            International affairs are cool, and I’ll tell you why.  More so than any other avenue for human communication, do people refuse to actually specify what they actually mean than in international affairs.  If you think that domestic politics are bad, try wrapping your mind around the volumes of literature that gets produced when some unfortunate dummy say that something another country does is “unacceptable,” as Bush did in the case of the recent North Korean nuclear test.  See, “unacceptable” is a very literal term in international affairs.  Bush is saying that we cannot accept this kind of behavior.  Here’s the problem: how much will the United States really do to not accept it?  Are we prepared to go to war about it?  Are we prepared to encourage the Japanese to invest more heavily in their own military defense?

            As I’ve already asserted, there really isn’t anything that the United States can do to North Korea.  Sanctions depend completely upon the country’s two primary supporters, China and South Korea.  Especially China.  The trouble with not being engaged with a country is that when things begin to spiral out of control, you have already sacrificed all of your leverage.  This is why North Korea is less than intimidated by our demands.  Really, what are we going to do, suspend trade and station troops in nearby territory?  We’re already up against the wall, and have no room left to bristle without giving something in return.

            The same is true of the situation in Iran.  We are neutral at best with most of her allies, and have already taken away everything we reasonably can.  There is nothing we can threaten them with.  Like North Korea, the only option left open to us is engagement and negotiation, which flies in the face of our antagonistic policies of unacceptability.  In fact, the US has unacceptabled itself into a corner, and there is little left for us on the table that IS acceptable anymore.

            Which is why, bearing in mind the nuances of nation-to-nation dialogue, I found this so interesting.  According to the latest space policy/budget, the president has decided to make space(as in outer space) a new priority for national defense.  Admittedly, space is both cool and important.  Personally, I love space.  I love movies about space.  I think that having a fleet of interstellar warships would be about the neatest thing ever.  I even liked that stupid TV show, Space: Above and Beyond.  What I fail to see is how militarizing space is the answer to any of our problems right now.

            That was until I put it into context.

            The problem is not that the government is worried that the North Koreans or Iranians will start launching snub fighters to destroy our commercial satellites; it’s about finding new “unacceptables.”  What a lot of people don’t know about Iran is that they have a burgeoning space industry of their own.  They’ve been building rockets and launching satellites for a little while now.  Indeed, North Korea has even made some pitiful attempts at a rocket program of its own – with almost as much success as their sub-kiloton nuclear program.  So what this new defense budget is doing is making an effort to create a whole new level of international debate.  Since we cannot introduce new sanctions without pushing things to unacceptable levels, we can threaten those things that are yet to be.

            Iran and North Korea are not exactly major interstellar players, but Iran has made some good strides, and it is a safe bet that North Korea wants to.  With nothing left but saber rattling, the US has decided to claim dominion over the stars.  It’s a way for us to move the line back a couple of steps and keep coming up with new ways for our enemies to be unacceptable.  Given the seriousness of our earth-born challenges, I’d rather hoped that the president could keep his head in the game and stop thinking about furthering the punitive nature of his foreign policy and perhaps try to give himself some real leverage by actually talking to our enemies.  Clinton (by all reports) had a fair amount of success with engagement in North Korea; that is until the Bush administration backed out of that arrangement.  Not wanting to come across as weak in front of Carl Rove though, Bush has opted to completely waste every opportunity he has to do something right.  Instead, we are going to build weapons to shoot down their satellites.  When the time comes, I hope I can get my very own Corellian Corvette and head off to someplace a little more sensible.

Permalink Comments

10.12.06

…and now he’s gay?

Posted in Current Events at 2:32 pm by diantus

As disgusting as I think the pigs in the Republican Party are, I will give them credit for sticking together. This is a party that will latch on to any cause, no matter how distasteful, and hang on until the reality implodes in on them owing to the total absurdity of their claims. For example, the claim continues to be made in certain right wing circles that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and the Iraq and the War on Terror were linked prior to our invasion. Though ironically, our war of choice there has succeeded in making Iraq the new front line, and the crucible from which a whole new batch of anti-American terrorist shall emerge. Maybe belief CAN help create reality.

Anyways, another issue that republicans keep trying to evade the pesky assertions of reality in regards to is the existence homosexuals. Recently, a massive corruption scandal broke concerning a certain conservative leader and his predilection for little boys (link). In a conspiracy-like declaration we learn that the unbelievable character of Mark Foley was not only molested himself, but is apparently gay.

This torrent of “facts” plays directly into the hands of several unkind and untrue stereotypes concerning homosexuals that major republican and evangelical leaders want the world to believe. The attempts by these interests groups to specifically tailor reality to match up with the political needs of the right are not just aggravating, they are insulting and frightening.

The problems with Foley’s alleged homosexuality are twofold. If true, it means that a staunchly anti-gay political party, whose members routinely go on record as declaring those citizens to be sick, unnatural, against god, etc., allows avowed homosexuals into its ranks. While I have no issue seeing gay people in politics, it should tell us something about the integrity of the party in question and those politicians who are willing to sell their own souls to the right in exchange for a piece of the political pie. Personally, I couldn’t accept that degree of self-loathing in myself, and certainly don’t want it in my politicians. In other words, they openly and as a matter of policy ignore their own rhetoric as a matter of policy.

Additionally, it also demonstrates the lengths to which the Republicans will go to avoid scandal. Rather than quietly removing Foley when the uniqueness of his tastes were finally discovered (in 2000 apparently), the party leadership remained complicit and protective of their man in Florida. Such a thing should not be allowed. This singular reason is why the Republican Party is the party of corruption and money. They will allow their members to do anything so long as it serves the party apparatus. They are not interested in such outdated ideas as good government or developing civil society. They want to expand their own authority and ensure that their dominance of the American political dialogue goes unchallenged. If it looks like they might be proven wrong, they will simply lie, or attempt to recreate reality.

In my life and the time that I have been following politics, I have never known a Democrat to undertake such massive and unthinkable levels of corruption. The events that do take place seem to be isolated incidents as opposed to those of an overarching party culture. I can’t say for sure why this is. Perhaps it can be attributed to the whimsy of idealism. As America’s “progressive” party, maybe the dreams and aspirations of many members act as a counterbalance to the corroding effects of national politics. More likely however, the democrats greatest weakness serves them well in avoiding massive and systemic corruption: namely that they are simply too disorganized to actually involve themselves in such high levels of graft which effectively allows the Republicans a virtual monopoly. At this point, the Democrats couldn’t be as twisted and self-serving if they wanted to be. Which is reassuring in a sick and sad sort of way… Maybe if we give them back control of government they’ll get it sorted out.

Nevertheless, I hope that the recent acts of Mr. Foley send a strong message to the gay community: you do not have friends on the right. As a gay American, voting for the Republican Party (especially right now), is the political equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. A lot of Americans are fans of tyranny, and a lot of Americans like to have reality written for them. It’s easier than actually thinking about things.

Permalink 2 Comments

10.10.06

Small Nuke Syndrome

Posted in Politics, Current Events at 9:43 pm by diantus

            At some point, one can only look at the happenings in the world and say, “wow.”  Things seem to be spiraling rather out of control on our little ball of rock and the odds of them becoming sensible again seem far away from our present reality.  It was difficult for me to choose a subject for today’s posting, but I think I’ll go ahead and talk a little about North Korea and the likely fallout from their recent nuclear test (link).

            I am rather reminded of the people of Krikkit from the Douglas Adams book Life, the Universe and Everything, who, upon being gifted with the most devastating weapon the universe had ever known, commented that, “It’s such a small bomb, but we think it might destroy everything.”  Or at least I’d like to think that there was such attention paid to reason in the tiny nation of North Korea.  As it stands, this regime is determined to do whatever it can to maintain its power indefinitely.

            This nuclear test accomplishes this narrow goal in two important ways.  First, by demonstrating the capability to detonate a nuclear device, they cause any would-be attacker to pause before engaging.  After all, there can be little wonder that the North Koreans would retaliate against their neighbors with the aid of their new nuclear deterrent.  Needless to say, this is a generally unacceptable proposal.  Even if, like most Americans, you are incapable of appreciating the value of a foreign life, the impact to trade and global production that a nuclear calamity in China or Japan would cause is difficult to overestimate.

            Secondly, the act helps the North Korean regime attain much needed stability by further isolating it from the rest of the international community.  No civilized nation can really afford to engage North Korea at the present time.  While this reality is completely understandable, one has to wonder about the North Koreans themselves.  After all, these people live under the most brutal and rambunctious tyranny on the planet and every decision of that government seems to take them further and further away from the hope of salvation.  It becomes easy for us to separate a rogue government from its people, which is precisely what we have done with North Korea.  The peasants are not the state.

            Really, not many pundits or major news outlets have discussed the lives of the actual people of North Korea.  It is understood that it is an impoverished country that receives rather a lot of poorly distributed aid from its reluctant neighbors.  However, the state of permanent economic crisis there cannot be understated.  The country has been suffering severe food shortages for over 11 years, and its industrial base continues to decline as the government continues to rely on a process of vicious centralization.  The result is an estimated GDP growth last year of less than one percent – well below the rate of population expansion.  Centrally planned economies do not hold together well – especially not without significant infusions of outside aid/trade.  Needless to say, as the North Korean regime becomes more and more isolated, the situation of the North Koreans becomes increasingly desperate.  Amnesty International currently ranks North Korea as having one of the worst human rights records in the world.

            The question of what to do with the North Korean government is one of the more complicated of our age.  You cannot simply cut them off and force their collapse since this would open a floodgate of refugees and precipitate an unimaginable humanitarian crisis in southeast Asia – one which neither South Korea nor China are anxious to have on their doorsteps.  Nor can you simply invade and hope to dethrone Kim Jong Il.  The North Koreans have one of the largest standing armies in the world (somewhere around a million men), with the ability to call up an estimated 2-3 million more in reserve.  Only China could hope to match those numbers, and international tensions being what they are, the Chinese are neither inclined nor welcomed to make a conquest of North Korea.  Besides that, there are the difficulties inherent in attempting to dislodge so large and well bunkered an adversary.  It could be neither a quick nor easy fight.

            Given the inability of outsiders to effectively bargain with the North Korean government, perhaps there is some possibility of dealing directly with a suppressed populace?  Is it possible to take the unorthodox approach of attempting to encourage the population itself to rise, maybe through a combination of propaganda and covert arms shipments to potential rebel organizations?  While North Korea is asserted to be the most closed society in the world, it must be possible to destabilize such a shaky façade.  After all, no country can possibly be completely unified – certainly not behind such a cruel and unbending dictator and his nonsensical ideologies.

            The reality is that the resolution to the current crisis will have to come from China.  I wait with some anticipation to hear Beijing’s response.  You see, when North Korea does something provocative like this, China’s is the only response they really need to watch.  If Beijing elects to cut off support for the North Korean regime, it will fall.  Will China’s increasing desire to become a respected player in global affairs finally come to fruition with its wayward neighbor?  One can only hope.  If they do elect to end the standoff on the Korean peninsula, the US and her allies must be prepared to offer extensive assistance, since the fallout will be more than the Chinese could bear alone.

            The only reason I bring this point up is that the US media has done a rather poor job of helping the public actually understand Korea.  It has been a subject long left to the deliberations of military and political theorists who seem to have few ideas on how to deal with them save waiting it out.  The trouble with waiting is that today there are over 24 million North Koreans who are in far greater need of liberation than the people of Iraq had ever been.  The can be no doubt that the American War of Choice was against the wrong tyrant, and that we are now, more than ever, in desperate need of a solution in Korea.  The recent events there should make clear that we need to take some kind of action against the North Korean government.

            Of course, the jury is still out as to whether or not the North Korean nuclear bomb was another dud.  Like everything else there…

Permalink Comments