Monday, March 26, 2012

NIMBY=ALAEUIFT; or, Honey Where Are My Keys.




 
Article Analysis Assignment

First, read a news story from the newspaper or the Internet.  Answer the following questions regarding your news story: 1) What is the main issue, who are the main actors being discussed;  Then, choose one of the assigned articles you read for this week.  Answer the following questions regarding the assigned article: 1) What are the basics of this article (who, what, when, how, why, etc.);  2) What is the overall main point the author is trying to convince you of?  3) Do you agree with the author’s argument?  Why?  Why not?   Finally, tie together your news story with what you learned from the assigned article, textbook readings, podcasts, videos, etc. for this week.  Type your answers in the box below using your own words, no outline or bullets, complete sentences and paragraphs, single-spaced, full-page. 
 




What is international law? I can’t say it is any clearer to me now than before I read the chapter six times. And not because of some lack of definition…not hardly. And certainly not because international laws are unnecessary to society at large, or to the global community. The opposite, I believe is true, actually--it seems that law is law no matter where and/or how you look at it. If we are allegiant to our state, and wish to remain free in a civilized society, we know that law  protects as well as punishes us, so we choose to adhere to the law—well, at least 99.44 percent of the time. Unless we decide we (hang the rest) should be allowed to jaywalk, or speed, or that only our tax cuts are necessary or only our sphere of influence should be accorded sympathy. This is NIMBY, right? Allowing that crime must be punished/society must be necessarily and properly protected means putting someone’s neighborhood smack dab in the middle of the town that centers their economy on enforcing the police power of the domestic state. Sounds like where I would want to live. 
I lived down road from the death penalty prison in Carson City; it was next to the city sewer treatment plant. Yeah, in Nevada. Hot, dry, desert Nevada. But the smell was bad two miles away where I lived, so there is little wonder about the smell next door. Just saying. Treatment of prisoners IS an international concern. Not to digress too much…and I know San Diego is a wonderful place to live…but states that hold vast economic power (or veto power, like US, UK, France, China, and the Russian Federation) are going to see more international legitimacy lent to their purpose, and will economically and otherwise “battle by proxy.”  Iran was glad to not have American interference in the summer of 2009, for example, largely because their rage would be misinterpreted as American rage. Imagine if the Arab Spring had been kicked off not by legitimate, local concerns about global inequality but instead by a cowboyish "everyone must live free the way we live free” attitude. All players would be somewhere else on the board.  
 Kofi Annan saying that the Iraq war was illegal is/was not enough to make Bush a War Criminal, though I wonder if someone had stolen so blatantly two elections (Scalia misremembered the outcome of Bush v. Gore recently, and Michael Parenti is one radical lefty who has a valid point about Ohio in ‘04) in some South American country, whether we likely would have “intervened.” Calling that out isn’t controversial, because we were right in Iraq, right?
We must protect American sovereignty and thus we “look forward,” but we cannot ignore that Bush has canceled overseas trips and Cheney cannot enter some states without fear of arrest. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush endorsed Romney recently. I look at the ALEC endorsement of the Stand Your Ground, the NRA endorsement of that law and Jeb and there is no doubt in my mind that these laws contribute purposefully to the mindset (be a vigilante against criminal minorities and the Law will protect you if you are the last one standing in an “altercation”) that led to the killing of Trayvon Martin. Stand Your Ground does not trump Do Not Chase. It cannot. There are too many laws in America that we would bellow about if/when we see/saw them elsewhere, too many laws that were written with the intent to have disparate impact on the poor, the minority, and the poor minorities--especially among  punishment of juvenile minorities, and this is just one more Jim Crow déjà vu in my rather partisan view-- but the UN will remain unable to police American affairs. Good. We shouldn’t let them. Of course, we shouldn’t need their push to correct ourselves, but sometimes, we do (“…evolving standards of decency). We need to protect our sovereignty while redressing multiple grievances. We will set the lead, no matter our choice. 
Do we want to live in a Civil (laws codified) Civilized society? Then we know we cannot regulate free speech harshly here or internationally, as this would violate every international regime. This gives Sarah Palin’s Prayer Warriors and their type (not to mention other threats, like soldiers refusing to follow orders or going beserk) a unique ability to undermine and tarnish our image by pretending to be diplomats and putting real diplomats in trouble by hiding their evangelical intent. Do we want law at all? Maybe America would be stronger if every other nation was subservient to us. Some on one side of the aisle seem to hold that view. They appear to feel they have a biblical mandate to be involved in domestic politics both here and internationally. What can be done about that, seeing as how the end goal is the end of civil law—replaced by Biblical Law?
 Are we bound out of obligation? Is that all we’ve got? Chuckle. Thanks, Eddie Vedder. When I say, “Honey, where are my keys…” it is hardly a question of if she should help me find them; we both need those keys. So it is with international law—we are married to the obligations we recognize as mutual---until ALAEUIFT kicks in. What? “All Laws Are Equal Until I Feel Threatened.” That’s NIMBY international- style. International Law is more Muller v Oregon than UN v. Bush (right to contract versus hey-stop-that-right-now). Justice? Really? What is justice anyway? For who? Who says? And so what then? Who has power to enforce? Who has power to intervene or bring about intervention? “Winners get to write the history.” “To the victors go the spoils.” Will the ICJ\ICC ever intervene here? 
Lots of questions, but the last one I can try to answer. No. America can barely get the other states with permanent  veto power to agree which day is best to meet next, so…until it becomes a problem that harms our interests outright or quick, decisive action can solve (Bin Laden/Libya)—it’s not our problem. We will work to avoid war at most costs, but avoidance alone is not what allows “law” to work.” Recognition alone is not exactly how international law works, either. We try every method of diplomacy, we make our power known through ICC/ICJ and other maneuvers (blockades, alliances, Hillary Clinton), but we remember the free market rights of arms dealers and grease those wheels just as we do “secret” business with those same “criminals” in the name of arms control and deterrence for security’s sake. We know well from the lessons of the Cold War the coercive benefits of interdependence, where only fools violate the law. 
Lastly, a word on “…evolving standards of decency.” No International body will ever argue that intervention is necessary because of Obamacare. No-one and no group within the International Community taken seriously will ever announce President Obama a tyrant/war criminal for mandating that people have adequate health care and that all partners in a civil civilization take part in their neighbors upholding their own responsibility…more likely, intervention might come one hundred years from now if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care act and Americans still have no recognition of their “right” to life…which eventually requires a minimum of care. Is that not true? Then, what is up with the whole “Take Back America” theme? Take it Back  where? Pre-Westphalia? We know how Realists feel about the UN/ICC/ICJ, etc., already…drown the government in a bathtub, indeed.


























Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Skittles/Gun/Poor Man/Run---Treyvon Martin and the Terror of Repetitive, Generational Miniature Crystal-Nights

I know you must be thinking bad about me, son/ I got a bag of skittles/You got a gun/ My hoodie is on because there is rain but no sun/ Fight or flight? Shit...You'll shoot me if I run or if I don't run/ :-/
· · · See Friendship

Monday, March 19, 2012

Shouting "Force!!!" In A Peaceful Theater...and And Other Familar Refrains

First, read a news story from the newspaper or the Internet.  Answer the following questions regarding your news story: 1) What is the main issue, who are the main actors being discussed;  Then, choose one of the assigned articles you read for this week.  Answer the following questions regarding the assigned article: 1) What are the basics of this article (who, what, when, how, why, etc.);  2) What is the overall main point the author is trying to convince you of?  3) Do you agree with the author’s argument?  Why?  Why not?   Finally, tie together your news story with what you learned from the assigned article, textbook readings, podcasts, videos, etc. for this week.  Type your answers in the box below using your own words, no outline or bullets, complete sentences and paragraphs, single-spaced, full-page.




This week I chose the article “Romney Can’t Take A Stand…” because of the focus in the lecture video, i.e., the first step of successful international diplomacy is controlling our message while factually displaying a positive image of America. That the long-time frontrunner of the Republican Campaign for Office of President is incapable of keeping the same position regarding any maneuvers a President Romney might make in Afghanistan,  through until the end of an entire sentence, even in a discussion about how to best assign military force, even on Fox News , is in my eyes an absolute disqualification. That he manages this trick of “mind over tongue” while winding in the domestic right’s predictable, tired swipes at the “leadership” “abilities” (his quotes, not mine) of our current Commander in Chief is what makes his lack of stance laughable, and so dangerous. One cannot laugh off intentional stupidity and assume it sass or irrationality less the consequence of inaction. This isn’t just personally disqualifying because it is a less than positive image presented to the voter or the global “sphere of influence”—I’m fine with that debate being had the way we are and usually have it, as I feel like I always learn something —his non-recognition of the adage “a non-answer is still an answer” (ok, I made that up, but) exposes a hole in the soft underbelly of conservative/new libertarian thinking. I must admit it is reminiscent of the remaining candidates “death marching” [thank you, Chris Matthews] toward Tampa, this flip-flopping of Constitutional principles and calling non-persons real, but it can perhaps help us better understand the last ten years of American Diplomacy and our “fading supremacy” pre-Obama ( who won the Nobel Prize as an award to recognize the Office he was chosen to inherit, in honor of the People who choose a leader promising renewed American Diplomacy, because of the peace brought and bought by American process of Democracy, as far as I can tell).
                In the lecture video about International Diplomacy, former Bush Administration Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes outlined three objectives the nation must accomplish if we are to uphold our supremacy, or “exceptionalism.” She describes how, first at the state level, but also through various agencies and sub-state actions, America’s image abroad is shaped, or was under the previous administration (minus the zeroes in the how-we-plan-to-pay-for-it column and the Hi-How-are-you-here’s-some-democracy attitude and the missed chances to nail Bin Laden, etc.). We want to offer a hopeful, opportunistic message; we hope to isolate and marginalize hateful ideology, and we seek to unite the world with our position using what we believe to be shared (social) values and (economic) interests. These three themes seem fair, and reasonable. Of course, I like to find the problems, so…
                First problem I see is this: how can we allow our own politicians (elected and former-cum-lobbyists) and citizens travel the globe under the guise of American Diplomatic Interests but in the cause of a coalition of conspirators whose aim is indeed, the end of civil law in America? We allow this as Free Speech, and there is no regulation of the pieces moving our image on this global scale? None? Huh. Hmmm. Huh. Maybe it’s my failure, but I cannot see how this is not circular logic,  even self-defeating in action. Here’s one way to show what I mean:
Rachel Maddow last Thursday asked Oklahoma Senator ( R ) James Inhofe if he had really watched her show, the one he quoted in her book, and she was dumbfounded to hear him say he had, because the show in question was one where Maddow outlined how David Bahati, author of Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill, was connected to Doug Coe of the Family (C Street, The Family; Jeff Sharlet), and since Doug Coe and the Senator are so close---perhaps we could hear an explanation re: the Senators position on the issue? Inhofe appeared initially flustered, checking his chart of notes and talking points, but in the end chose to blow off the question with the usual spin, denying he knows a “David Bahati” and pronouncing Doug Coe all but a saint. Well, you may not know him, sir, but he is proud to know you, according to researcher Rachel Tabachnik. Again, do you believe such a law would have a place in America, or is it, “too late” to try that here? What image are you hoping such hateful legislation sends about America, a fair question given the origin of inspiration for the legislation (see: Lou Engle, The Call Uganda). I would propose some new restriction on the Speech and Debate clause, tied to use by the offending parties Party of the filibuster. Now, that’s reform.
                A second problem arises when we are willing to admit the first, but we can go over it in some little detail using three main themes: Complexity—sure, America’s own apartheid past shows we are diverse in our beliefs and feelings about how we should internalize/display nationalism; Conflict--our own civil war, and those who cannot let it go, not to mention the inequality we are willing to endure for the sake of… Continuity. We must choose to remain relevant on the world stage, holding fast to more than an ideology, but to the idea of America, the one we would want to present to the world (esp. through techniques described by Hughes of U2’s Bono)  and as the sun sets in California, there are no credible candidates for the way forward for America on the Republican ticket And again, domestic policy is driven by domestic politics, which we as students and voters have some voice (this here, hear?) to be heard in Democracy. How much hope and change can a poor man stand and live?
Finally, a closing word about Americans For Tax Reform  head Grover Norquist and his pledge here as a treacherous example of diplomacy through sub-state action: this group cheerfully is shouting “Force!” in a peaceful theater…the definition of force according to the text is “a euphemism for violence.” Norquist has repeatedly asserted the belief of those associated with him with a simple declaration: the American Government taxes by force. We are unique in our guarantee of peaceful transfer of power in our democratic republic---without revenue, or willingness to fund it, or willingness to recognize the role of revenue in our peaceful process-- how can we sell our freedom, and how dare we believe we are offering a good deal when the most powerful lobby in favor of de-centralizing American power is Congress? If Inhofe (signatory) and the coalition of Norquist succeed, will not the Family be the dominant “decider” when it comes to how to conduct American Domestic Policy/Foreign Policy/Diplomacy? Now, that’s terror.














http://jeffsharlet.com/ Lecture Video/Karen Hughes  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/rachel-maddow-james-inhofe-gays_n_1352937.html http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/jon-stewart-to-grover-norquist-your-pledge-is-a-failure/254465/ http://www.atr.org/reducing-government-half-a1095
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-joseph-stalin-invented-american-exceptionalism/254534/ http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/3/16/162019/247 http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/09/5614680-rachel-maddowdavid-bahati-full-interview

Monday, March 12, 2012

Nuclear Feasibility and the Insurgent Santorum/Electoral Revolt Strategy, Perhaps Maybe?


This week I chose the article…”Santorum Insurgent…” where the candidate, who has taken an extreme position on too many ideas to enumerate here, takes an extreme position regarding the importance of his campaign. For the purpose of this discussion, he is also quite vehemently for the use of US military force against Iran. Rhetorically.  He tied with Romney in Michigan; he apparently thought he was an underdog. Now, to be fair, I take his meaning at first glance to be “I won even though I’m an underdog,” but the dictionary definition is pretty clear:” 1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent” and “2. One who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party.”  I see here a comparison I would like to make, especially given the growing harshness of the rhetoric and fear-politicking we know has historically appealed to our lower angels in times of severe economic instability.
To make the point that this is not the old “both parties” bull, I will point to the article “Nancy Pelosi Ridicules.” Passing a jobs bill, she is saying, is really just everyone lining to up to pledge to the same flag at the same time. “Woo-hoo! The “little king” is on parade! We need and deserve more than that. I believe Speaker John Boehner’s need to be publicly patted on the back for doing the right thing (the obvious right thing in my mind being massive, even excessive government spending so as to stimulate domestic consumer spending , which oughta free up recalcitrant and often near [ha!] criminal banks to do some lending)  so as to avoid the political cost of continuing outright obstruction shows a reality many Realists are loathe to recognize, but one that exists all the same: Governance is different than campaigning, in fact it Requires Revenue--and the current crop on the Right are, well, strengthening Iran, even perhaps increasing the likelihood America will be drawn into a “war of choice.”
Are we nearer a nuclear threat from Iran or any other nation this day from a previous one? Not hardly. No, really, who is telling you this? Because they know the facts, they know better, they avoid telling you, and that is messed up.
           Consider the coercion factor of nuclear weaponry—where no state can use one or all  states  will suffer—and see that this idea, the coercion utility of nuclear force is the sum of our problem. Each who seeks power must also accept the People’s responsibility to act Rationally.  MAD (mutual assured destruction, crazy as it sounds) and deterrence diplomacy work, have worked, do work, are expected to work in the near and far future, just as more government spending sooner in each of our Great Depressions would have pushed the nation forward sooner. This is a current reality—no rational actor will start a nuclear war. An independent non state actor or a government overthrown and run by extremists? Well, those are different stories. The utility of owning a nuclear weapon is the main draw for those who do not have one, but there is no feasible way for a state without one to get one without the United States knowing about it. Let’s focus first on what we are really scared of—an extremist government acting irrationally to nuke us.
 MIT  Professor Ted Postol,  interviewed for Boston Review (“What’s Wrong with Missile Defense”) ,nearly laughs at the Missile Defense scheme, the whole idea. I tried to follow it; his class would be immense in its reading alone, I presume. But this was well defined: the physics are nearly impossible, since you have to account for decoys and brightness and such, and the technology is prohibitively expensive to test-- and yet we have continued down this path for a number of years. We have been spending militarily for decades to prepare for a war we know will never come. All major states have nukes and the ones who want them can only come by them through illicit means. More Postol: “The ideological assumption of the extreme right of the Republican party is that there are weapons of mass destruction out there that can be delivered over intercontinental range by ballistic missiles, in the hands of people that just aren't rational like we are (polemically I guess), and that we need to be able to protect ourselves from these irrational people whom we cannot deter and are either out to get us or out to minimize our ability to do what we think we need to do in the world. That is the mindset that seems to me to be behind this push for defense.” He then makes clear that those lying about the current “threat “of nuclear” (let’s say……..Iran) are lying, saying those who push this fear are, and he uses this word liberally, “ridiculous”: “We attack their surface-to-air-missile sites daily when they turn on the radar, but when they put the ICBM out there, we don't attack it. We are afraid to do it. And then the net result is that they launch this ICBM and we are without a defense. That is the scenario. The scenario is ridiculous because it is unimaginable that we wouldn't attack this ICBM first.”
I refuse to be afraid of a virtually nonexistent threat, myself; I will not believe the lie. Truly then we see that Terror is a tool of the weak. So. There is no viable threat from a nuclear state, at the moment, but I would like to point to the “dark side to American populism.” (McCain as quoted in the movie Game Change). The main point we would be wise to take from this is that what we see as madness is not necessarily incompetence. It might be a threat to the legitimacy of our non-violent transfer of power. Imagine if the electoral college chooses to revolt?! Would an extremist government not then have nuclear deterrent power, if say, Santorum were the Republican nominee and the electors refused a second term from President Obama? An “insurgent” candidate? Really, Mr. Santorum?
          So, lies? Yeah, politicians lie, and some use fear to push their election. This is not exactly new ground, especially in a discussion centered around war and nuclear power. In fact, I am loathe to believe that there is New Ground—there is only ground we have been over before; there is only today we must survive. Thanks to 9-11 and the Patriot Act and drone technology, as Marc AmBinder in the GQ article assures us, we would know if the chemical composition of the soil in Iran were to change—so this is not Iraq. One thing we know about the current administration: they will not lie to get us into a war.
I am reminded of a fact from history (another class I am taking) –the annual budget of the US government at the beginning of the Great Depression (1929) was 2 billion. When the New Deal went through, that number rose to 9 billion. But the War Boom is what saved the economy, this excessive massive government spending. This appears to be the aim of the Right, to start a “just” war and blame the inevitable rise in taxes on that, not their legislation or political choices (they took an oath to never raise taxes, remember?) What they forget is that the budget went up to 100 billion dollars, as we collectively saw and solved for an  immediate need to build and repair infrastructure and put in place better safety nets so that the individual could no longer held accountable for the failings of society while all were paying to defend it. We have here, perhaps, some unique opportunity to address redress, and in the coming weeks we will go on to discuss many possible (if not short term) solutions.
 But a question: If there was a new war to break out, nuclear or more conventional-- one that required a draft even, given the state of our volunteer forces, how would we as a nation respond?  Do we have the infrastructure ready to mobilize the people? Are the people really willing? Willing? Ready? Really?
















 
Source citation:


 
Article Analysis Assignment

First, read a news story from the newspaper or the Internet.  Answer the following questions regarding your news story: 1) what is the main issue, who are the main actors being discussed; then, choose one of the assigned articles you read for this week.  Answer the following questions regarding the assigned article: 1) What are the basics of this article (who, what, when, how, why, etc.); 2) What is the overall main point the author is trying to convince you of?  3) Do you agree with the author’s argument?  Why?  Why not?   Finally, tie together your news story with what you learned from the assigned article, textbook readings, podcasts, videos, etc. for this week.  Type your answers in the box below using your own words, no outline or bullets, complete sentences and paragraphs, single-spaced, full-page.