EDIT: I stand corrected by commenter, Rick Perlstein (who knows? People read this blog?), that this speech I refer to was not given solely to the DLC, but to a wider audience that had some DLC members in it. Thus, my criticism about the DLC being the less ideal audience for Perlstein to waste his effort is moot. But whether or not Perlstein spoke to the DLC alone, I think it is still important to consider circumventing and calling out the DLCers for the reasons I lay out in the post… we can think of the DLC audience in an abstract sense. Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for the correction.

I know, “reading is fun and easy.”

Perlstein gave a speech to a group of powerful Democrats…

END EDIT

I am glad to learn (via Digby) that the DLC is taking the time to listen to Rick Perlstein.

Here is some of what he had to say:

Here’s Bill Kristol, in a famous 1993 memo I’m sure you’re all familiar with: “Health care is not, in fact, just another Democratic initiative . . . the plan should not be amended; it should be erased. . . . It will revive the reputation of the . . . Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests.”

I’d say this memo is the skeleton key to understanding modern American politics, if it didn’t make me yawn. There’s nothing here that’s unfamiliar to historians who’ve read Republican secrets going back 25, 35, even 70 years. You can sum them up in 10 words: “If the Democrats succeed in redistributing economic power, we’re screwed.”

They have reason to fear.

There is a website that thousands of committed Republicans spend hours on, giving and receiving marching orders. When people stray from the party line, it’s not unusual for them to be banned. Free Republic, I’d argue, is far more crucial to the Republican infrastructure than the Heritage Foundation.

The prescription for the Democrats?

…They [the Republicans] know they’re screwed if we’re credible in our pledge to deliver new kinds of power to ordinary people in their every day lives.

Democratic congressmen can do that, for example, by making a credible collective pledge that if you vote Democrat enough you will never pay another medical bill as long as you live. You really think people wouldn’t stop voting Republican then?

. . .

Guaranteed. Health Insurance. For All. Not, as I found it formulated on the website of even one of the most liberal senators, “access to affordable health insurance.”

Side note: the new darling congressional candidate (perhaps rightfully so… perhaps) of the progressive bloggers is guilty of the wussier stance on healthcare.

I believe Perlstein’s words accurately depict one reason why the Democrats keep losing. And it is one very important reason in need of elucidation, particularly to the DLCers.

But, as David Sirota would agree, Perlstein’s audience, the DLC, is itself an equally important reason for the Dems’ consistent electoral failures (and yes, I consider garnering around 50% of the vote a failure where popular and progressive political stances are ripe for the taking).

My concern is that Perlstein’s words are being wasted on the DLC. What will they do? Probably they will either (a) ignore the advice, still convinced of (or beholden to, thanks to corporate dollars) the “centrist” (read: socially moderate, economically evil) strategy will win the day; or (b) they will steal the language only to betray the cause upon election.

But possibly, they will (c) heed Perlstein’s advice and begin to govern according to their progressive mandate. This third option sounds fine. It strikes me as unsatisfying, however, that these DLC opportunists should be the electoral beneficiaries of Perlstein’s (and all of our) wisdom.

I understand that many progressive movements in the past were led by those who could bend with the winds. Even FDR and his Dems, though perhaps partially altruistic, were probably more afraid of the rapidly organizing socialist and communist parties. Here’s the 1932 party platform… though it sounds fairly progressive today, it certainly did not call for The New Deal that came to be. (I think Zinn writes about this… couldn’t find any decent links).

The New Deal further illustrates the problem. Back then, the Democratic politicians gave more than they were promising. Today, they promise more than they give. Why? Back then, the people were organizing outside the Democratic party. Today, the people keep falling in line.

If the DLCers take Perlstein’s words to heart, I bet we will continue to fall in line. Then we risk betrayal, whether it be upon election, or upon the first instance that Perlstein’s strategy fails is blamed for failure. And the whole time, in victory and defeat, we will remain dependent on these milquetoast boors to organize and unite us under their shaky wills and their changeable allegiences.

Progressives need to organize themselves outside the Democratic party, or at the very least organize in concert with the Dems who can push the party in the right direction, while circumventing DLC types. Though the DLCers need to hear Perlstein, and though it will be better if they run with his gospel, I would rather see Perlstein giving pep-talks exclusively to the rank-and-file who could use the reassurance that, yes, they are on the right path. The progressives need to draw a line in the sand. The DLCers need to choose what side they are on… and fall in line.

Seems that people are anxious to know (thanks HuffPo) just where Judge Roberts stands on abortion. In light of this, I found an interesting concept on Echidne, and found a little more on Feministe. They are about a Katha Pollitt column opining whether losing Roe v. Wade is necessarily all that bad. From the portions of the column I have read, it seems she concludes that we will not gain much by taking abortion off the political table. Though many say the Roe decision itself is what put abortion on the table and caused the backlash against abortion rights, Pollitt thinks that, if Roe is overturned, abortion will continue to be a prominent and perhaps overshadowing issue in state elections, still to the detriment of wider discussion. She may be right.

The question: should the Dems simply stop campaigning on the issue? That depends. It may depend on the state. It may depend on whether the Republicans will force the issue and force the Dems to take a stand. Or maybe abortion is a question of basic human rights that would be unconscionable to abandon.

Could there be another way? Bear with me, these ideas are new, for me at least.

As it stands, Roe may be overturned. If so, Dems could be in for the fights of their lives to defend abortion rights in the states. Sadly, this fight will probably be to the detriment of *gulp* the less “gonadal” (to quote Ralph Nader, though he was sadly referring to gay rights… but the sentiment is not without validity) and the *gulp* more important systemic economic and social issues that go largely ignored.

Instead of funnelling all of our resources into electoral campaigns and lobbying, perhaps we should work outside of (er, wiggle around) the law. We can put our resources normally used for political purposes into a vast network of people and organizations that can guarantee free and safe abortions to anyone in the nation. The network can provide money for transportation, when necessary. Also when necessary, doctors with social consciences can provide free services when economically feasible, else the pro-choice organizations may pay for the procedures.

More details need to be fleshed out. And this may not solve the problem of minors seeking abortions, of course.

And what if a federal law banning abortion is passed? Perhaps this pro-choice “underground railroad” can stretch to Canada, or off-shore. Or perhaps we can simply establish a massive and supportive network of law breakers. But that opens up good people to potential criminal prosecutions.

And who knows if enough resources could be mustered to achieve these lofty goals. Perhaps the electoral process is the best investment, and perhaps we should be putting abortion-rights front and center of electoral contests. But maybe if we put abortion aside, anti-choice voters will have no further need to pledge allegiance to the Republicans who so often act against their interests on every other issue.

Women seeking abortions shouldn’t need to feel like criminals. They shouldn’t need to go through these efforts. But gosh, we’re losing everything else. Of course, I am probably exaggerating the sway of abortion as an electoral issue.

Even if a strategy which places aside abortion is not adopted, we may lose these abortion electoral battles anyway, which means we may need to start thinking about how we can make abortions available in the face of draconian laws.

Just some quick thoughts, and quite controversial. So I’d like to hear more nuanced critiques than I have provided, please comment away.

Looks like white male U.S. Circuit Court Judge John G. Roberts Jr. will be replacing Sandra Day O’Connor (she requested that a woman succeed her). Let’s familiarize ourselves with him, shall we?

People for the American Way’s Report
Independent Judiciary’s Profile
Slate’s Profile

I don’t know much about this guy, but it doesn’t look good so far. Plus all the crowing on Republican blogs is too cheery for my tastes. At the same time, I’m hearing of possible conservative displeasure that this guy isn’t conservative enough. But it may not matter anyway (hope you’re right, Ben). Updates as they arise.

Just wanted to note that The New Wisdom is included in this week’s Carnival of New Jersey Bloggers, which is hosted by Sluggo Needs a Nap this round. Yup, The New Wisdom is written by New Jerseyans and no amount of Turnpike jokes or shoobies will stop us. If it’s one thing the Carnival shows us, it’s that New Jerseyans are a politically-aware, well-informed bunch. If you’re new here because of the carnival, please check out our forum, which is filled with insightful conversation.

A slightly personal post, if you will abide.

When I graduate law school, I will need a job. For the public interest-minded, like myself, there are few options out there. Non-profits are few and far between. Every state has organizations devoted to providing civil legal services to low-income individuals. There are also plenty of public defender offices. To a lesser extent, there are non-profits that focus on matters of public policy and activism. But for the deluge of new JDs coming out of the degree-emporiums they call law schools, demand and competition for positions in these organizations is very high. And since the jobs provide for a steady source of income (though quite low in comparison to many firms), benefits, and often less mind-numbing and more inspiring work, those who get the jobs seldom let them go, which results in few positions opening up for new graduates.

Where else can the public interest-minded turn? Theoretically, government work is in the public interest, and it is generally characterized as such. District attorneys prosecute alleged criminals, making us all safer. Attorneys staff regulatory agencies and government bureaucracies, thereby keeping industries in check and maintaining the integrity of the government.

But politics warps this theoretical classification, in both subjective and objective ways. The subjective effect is easy to recognize. My personal policy preferences (though I consider them stronger than mere “preferences”) will never allow me to become a prosecutor. Why? Because I recognize that many crimes in this country could be prevented by social and economic justice before-the-fact. Poverty breeds crime. Who tends to commit crimes? The poor, the mentally ill, the uneducated, the addicted, and the desperate (take a trip to the criminal court in Manhattan and go see the arraignments). Are some of these people immoral and deserving of prosecution? Perhaps some are deeply, manifestly, born with evil in their hearts, and perhaps some only committed their crime for that reason and none other. If this is even possible, I would posit that the number of such offenders is infinitesimally small. If given a chance to compete in the beginning of life, and if given a decent environment (social, economic, and natural) throughout life, I imagine most of today’s criminals would be law-abiding. Simple determinism.

Another important reason why I couldn’t be a prosecutor is that prisons are terrible places. We should keep as many people out of them as possible, for reasons of both compassion and utility, until they become truly rehabilitory and safe.

But within this group of criminals I have just described, I decidedly left out probably the biggest group of peopled who commit “crimes,” but who in my mind are not even criminals. These people are the victims of the war on drugs; if only the war was actually “on drugs” and not a war on people. The United States boasts the largest number of incarcerated people and the highest percentage of our population incarcerated in the world, though we are only the 3rd most populous nation (and supposedly a nation that values freedom). The primary reason for this is drug prohibition. Why are people arrested for drugs? Using, dealing, and a whole host of crimes caused by addiction (theft, mugging, etc.) or the black market (homicide, etc.).

But I digress with these statistics. The point is this: I could not with good conscience prosecute a person for possessing a drug, nor even use a drug charge as leverage for a plea. The ridiculous prison statistics bolster a case for drug legalization, sure. As do economic arguments (for example, financial the benefits of a government controlled drug cartel), and crime reduction arguments (if legalized, drug-related crime would disappear). But I think the most convincing argument may be one of morality and justice. It is not right to arrest someone for the mere possession of drugs. Public consumption of drugs? Sure, treat it like public consumption of alcohol. Nobody wants a junkie shooting up in front of their house. Driving under the influence? Certainly a just criminal statute. But merely possessing a drug, in the home or out, is inherently harmless. (and lets not forget the double standards, re: cigarettes and alcohol)

Furthermore, even the many laws against dealing need to be reevaluated. Surely we should go down hard on the big time sellers and suppliers. Many small-time “dealers” are little more than junkies making enough profit to score their own fix.

Thus, prosecution is one line of work I will need to stay away from. I would reconsider in the highly unlikely scenario where a local DA chooses to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a way that would circumvent unjust criminal laws. David Soares of Albany comes close, but I’m not sure if he will push his discretion far enough for me (and I don’t think I would want to move to Albany).

I also feel great reluctance to enter government work in general. This introduces more of an objective influence of politics. George Bush is in charge of the federal government. George Pataki is in charge of NY’s government. Bloomberg has got NYC. In general, Republicans tend to want to limit the public benefits government agencies provide (Bloomberg on a much lower level, I would guess). Even if I were to work in NJ, where the Dems currently have control, who knows how long it will last? And just like with DA’s offices, having Democrats in office does not necessarily they will be working for the public good.

Yet with a Democrat, say, as President, you can at least have some faith that many of the federal agencies will be allowed to fulfill the social good they were intended to promote. And many of the attorneys that start in a Democratic administration will remain employed under Republicans. They become the often overly-maligned bureaucracy. But in the hands of the current administration, we see these agencies either twisted from the inside or hand-cuffed. This article (thanks to Laborblog) about immigration officers impersonating OSHA officials to fool illegal immigrants is the perfect example of the sick ways agencies are undermined.

So, if I can’t find a public interest job? I guess there’s always personal injury. Contingent fees… ah yes.

UPDATE, 7/17/05:
Here’s an excellent comic (8 pages, short, and effective!) provided by Greg, written by his brother-in-law, which really personalizes the effect drug laws have on regular people. Do read!

UPDATE, 7/18/05:

Here is another example of the way politics ruins perfectly good regulatory agencies, thanks to HuffPo linking to the NYTimes. The EPA is now wasting precious resources on PR (aka, propaganda). Why would the EPA need PR? Because facts lead to one set of conclusions, and spinned facts lead to another set of conclusions. I feel sorry for all of the attorneys who joined the EPA under Clinton for the noble purpose of protecting the environment, and who now must stomach this twisted facade to keep their pensions.

I will be blunt: Most of the food you eat is probably poisonous.

Now, I am not talking about The Princess Bride iocaine powder poisonous, but something more insidious, longer term, and more sanctioned by the U.S. Government. I am talking about a sinister neurotoxin called Monosodium Glutamate a.k.a. MSG.

“Wait, MSG is the stuff Chinese restaurants advertise they don’t use because it’s bad, right?”

Well, that is partially right. MSG was invented in Japan at the beginning of the 20th century, and is/was a common ingredient in Asian cooking. However, due to the bad press that MSG began to get in the 1960s, most restaurants ceased the use of this chemical as a flavor enhancer, or at least allowed it to become an optional choice for customers. It became a stereotype that MSG was only to be found in Chinese cooking; a stereotype so powerful that the collection of symptoms of excessive MSG consumption is referred to as “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome.” These symptoms include numbness, palpitations, weakness, headaches, sleep problems, abdominal pains and cramps, and changes in vision.

Why is it still used today?

To understand why this poison is still used today, you have to use the tried and true investigative procedure called “follow the money.” American food manufacturers realized how much money they could make at the expense of America’s health if they used MSG in nearly every product they manufactured. To understand why MSG would be added to a product, you have to understand what MSG does.

MSG, for all intents and purposes, is a poison. It is a neurotoxin, or more specifically, an excitotoxin. Excitotoxins, when applied to the neurons in the brain, cause those neurons to become over stimulated and die. This “over stimulation” is the benefit of the ingestion of MSG, as it actually tricks the brain into thinking that food being consumed is actually much tastier and delicious than it truly is. Think about how delicious KFC Fried Chicken is…but then realize that the delicious taste is not generated by that meaty chicken coated in eleven herbs and spices but instead by a neurotoxin that is simultaneously tricking and destroying your brain. (As an aside, KFC chicken actually exceeds the legal limit for added MSG in certain foreign countries) The brain has defenses against glutamate over-saturation, but it was never designed to deal with the amount that the normal citizen (unknowingly) consumes.

How does this benefit Food Manufacturers though?

Well, beside the obvious effect of having your product taste much better by adding a single mass-produced chemical instead of doing research or culinary experimentation, it allows food companies to eliminate quality ingredients in favor of sub-standard ones. The “off” taste of vegetable-waste matter or the normally uneaten fish or chicken parts is completely masked by this neurotoxin. Additionally, MSG is an insulin trigger, which can cause the consumer to feel hungry again not long after eating foods with high glutamate concentrations. Obviously having a fat populace constantly reaching for a bag of chemically laced chips selling for $2.99 is a prime market for food manufacturers. The food manufacturer’s lobby that supports the use of MSG blatantly claims that it is used to make people eat more on their propaganda website. Is it a coincedence that we are in the middle of what Jack Samuels calls an Obesity Epidemic when you consider the fact that over the last 60 years the use of MSG in foods has risen exponentially?

Over the long-term, MSG consumption basically results in brain damage, however the damage is so slight and the exposure so long term that it is quite possible for 80% of the affected brain area to be damaged before anything is noticed. Since the 1970s, researchers have implicated excess glutamate as a contributing factor in learning disorders, Parkinson’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s Disease, seizures, hypoglycemia, AIDS dementia, and brain tumors. There is also concern that the damage to the hypothalamus affects the function of the pituitary gland and other endocrine glands, which can lead to obesity. It is the very gradual destruction of neural cells from excess glutamate that can contribute to the above-mentioned diseases.

Why isn’t the public more aware?

There are two reasons the public is not aware. First, the FDA (itself not the purest of institutions) has been muscled by a powerful MSG producers consortium called The Glutamate Association to stymie any research into the long term effects of MSG as well as skewing the conclusions of any research that actually gets accomplished. The scientific flaws in the experiments that are used as cornerstones in arguments proposing the safety of MSG are so glaring that only the sheer number of these “experiments” as opposed to the meager and vastly unfunded experiments proving the danger of MSG allows the myth that MSG is harmless to live on. For example, it was shown in early 60’s that excessive MSG consumption caused brain damage in monkeys and rats. This experiment was to be repeated for the FDA in the 70’s, but this time backed by the Glutamate Association. The repeated experiment showed no signs of brain damage, however it was not released until years later that these monkeys were fed so much MSG they would vomit it back out, resulting in little actual MSG absorption. Also, they were treated with an anesthetic that is a proven blocker of MSG toxicity. Even the EPA has been sucked into the plot, as they have allowed MSG to be dusted over crops as they grow; crops that can wind up in any food, even baby food.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the FDA has allowed numerous loopholes to exist that allow producers to hide the fact that their product has MSG in it. You may think you are safe because you look at the food label and do not see MSG or the full name of monosodium glutamate printed. Unfortunately, this in no way means your food does not have MSG in it. The FDA regulations state that MSG has to be listed as an ingredient only if it is a separate ingredient in the food. Manufacturers can avoid this simply by using ingredients which contain MSG as a sub-ingredient. According to the regulations, these sub-ingredients can contain as much as 60% MSG without being labeled specifically as MSG. Here is a partial list of ingredients you may see listed on food that always contains MSG:
- Monosodium Glutamate
- Potassium Glutamate
- Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (HVP)
- Hydrolyzed Protein
- Hydrolyzed Plant Protein
- Hydrolyzed [Anything else]
- Plant Protein Extract
- Sodium Caseinate
- Calcium Caseinate
- Yeast Extract
- Textured Protein
- Autolyzed Yeast
- Hydrolyzed Oat Flour

Also, the following frequently contains MSG:
- Malt extract
- Malt Flavoring
- Bouillon
- Broth
- Stock
- Flavoring
- Natural Flavoring
- Natural Beef or Chicken Flavoring
- Seasoning
- Spices

Finally, the following may contain MSG:
- Carrageenan
- Enzymes
- Soy Protein Concentrate
- Soy Protein Isolate
- Whey Protein Concentrate

If your food contains something on one of the last two lists, there really is no way of determining if MSG was added short of calling the manufacturer of that sub-ingredient.

You will be shocked how much of your food contains something on the list above, specifically the 2nd list. While gathering data for this piece, I looked through my pantry at all the various foods. I have made a habit of shopping at organic food stores, yet still an alarming percentage of my sundries contain some form of MSG. Such mundane things as soup, Doritos, canned tuna, barbeque sauce, cereal, tomato sauce, and even Swiss Miss Hot Cocoa.

How can you protect yourself?

Since the government is dropping the ball on protecting the health of the populace, there are a few steps you can take to keep yourself healthy and avoid the degenerative effects of MSG. First and most basic, avoid the foods that have MSG or MSG as a sub-ingredient. Always look at the labels of your food before you buy. Secondly, it is not always possible to see what ingredients you are eating, i.e. eating out, or you just have to have that bag of Guacamole Doritos. In this case, there are other foods you can eat which can counteract the toxicity of MSG. Foods high in vitamins C and E or foods that contain beta carotene will help if consumed after eating something with high levels of MSG. Personally, I like to have a glass of orange juice after eating something I feel could have excessive MSG.

All it takes is a small amount of information and vigilance in checking those ingredient labels to prevent yourself from being poisoned into debilitating diseases all in the name of that almighty dollar.

“Go back to bed America, your government is in control.”
-Bill Hicks

The last few days have seen a deluge of emails from various activism groups in my inbox calling for the President to fire Karl Rove due to what appears to be his involvement in the Plame CIA leak case. Move On, United for Peace and Justice, Campaign for a New America, Act for Change, and even John Kerry himself (so sayeth the email) have been on the job, demanding Boy George take action against this heinous crime and give Rove the pink slip.

I have to ask: why? What’s it going to change? Is firing Rove going to erase his number from the President’s cell phone? Is it really going to lessen his involvement in policy making? Is it going to remove him from all the backroom meetings that we don’t know about? Its not like those things are televised (which actually isn’t a bad idea…I’m looking at you, HBO). They can tell us that Rove is gone and that his influence in Washington has been marginalized, but really, where is the proof of it? Are we expected to trust their word alone? If it happened, would it really be anything other than some minor appeasement thrown out to give the illusion that accountability exists in this administration and that there are such things as consequences? Spare me, I can almost see the annoying emails of victory that will be in my inbox now. Until I see Karl Rove celebrating his win at a Brother Love look-alike contest, I have zero faith that “firing” him will do or prove anything. “Getting fired” in itself is such a ridiculous way to think about it, we’re talking about the confidant and right hand man of the President of the United States here, not a store clerk at Wal-Mart…when he’s fired he doesn’t go down to Target looking for a job.

Fire Karl Rove if you want, but leave the illusions at home. At this stage in the game we should be calling for the heads of people higher up than him, so if you feel so strongly about it do me a favor and don’t let your guard down if it happens. This administration is packed with liars and scumbags who rub our faces in their refuse daily because they can. Some people will say, “Well, its a start”. I’d love to be able to believe that, really I would. Unfortunately I know that if he is given the boot it will blow over faster than “Cinderella Man”, while the corporate news media focuses its attention on more important things like shark attacks, Brad and Angelina, and scary photos of Michael Jackson.

Since the meat-grinder days of Vietnam demonstrated to the American people just what the military was capable of when it could conscript all the soldiers it wanted and the public demonstrated their vocal outrage at the draft, the military has been all-volunteer. This makes it dependent upon the will of individual citizens to sign up and agree to the constrictions of military service. In most cases, the recruit is aware or made aware of the structured life, regimented days and nights, and risk of death or injury that they will undertake during their service. Some people find the risks as explained to be acceptable while others do not. The choice of military service remains just that, a choice to be made or not depending on personal factors.

But in today’s war, with over 1700 dead and over 10,000 wounded (read: maimed, most often by losses of limbs due to road-side explosives), the Pentagon has learned that relying on volunteering has its own drawbacks. Every month brings new reports of the recruitment shortfalls by most or all of the branches of the military. The Army is 40 percent short so far, with three months left in the year. The other branches of the military, especially the National Guard, haven’t fared well either, despite the risk to National Guards being “overstated“. So what’s a Pentagon with a war to fight to do?

Introducing the Joint Advertising and Market Research Recruiting Database! Are you between the ages of 16 and 20-something? Have you ever applied for a job? A credit card? Do you have a Social Security number or a driver’s license? Well congratulations, because you’re in! You’ve made the cut. Expect a call from the military anytime soon. Or make that multiple calls. And letters. And more calls. And more letters. Maybe, if you’re lucky, a recruiter will show up somewhere you least expect and start with the campaign to get you to sign up!

As someone who never considered military service ever, even in the deepest recesses of his brain, I don’t want to seem as if I am against military service. But I would like to see an ethical process for American citizens becoming soldiers. Promising cash and prizes and college educations is not a moral way to convince people to sign up for the service. Combing through the realm of supposedly-private information to build a database for targetting potential recruits is not a moral way to find people to sign up for the service. Even the Christian Monitor objects to the latest Pentagon actions.

The Pentagon will always target the young, and this is something that will hardly change. Old soldiers don’t exactly inspire awe or confidence. But I will never agree to the military having access to every citizen whether they want to be contacted or not. And I certainly don’t agree with theprovisions in No Child Left Behind that constrain federal school funding to giving access to military recruiters. Most of the opt-out choices available aren’t broadly advertised to students in high school and college. It’s the military’s little secret that they don’t want people to know about: you can ask to be left out and left alone!. So if you have children and you don’t want them exposed to the tactics of recruitment that caused a suspension of all recruiting on May 20th, talk to your kids about the opt-out. If you are a student and feel the same way, do the same thing.

The choice is yours, to sign up for service or to be left alone without harassment that questions your integrity and patriotism. It’s not less noble to not want to fight, no matter what anyone says. Despite all the trappings, ribbons, medals, bows, shiny boots and impressive ranks, being a soldier has one basic truth to it: you may get ordered to kill someone, and the government will pay you for it. That is why I could not serve. Call me crazy, but there’s nothing in America so great that I would kill a man for it. Especially if we were both thousands of miles away from America, the man was no threat to me or my country, and my entire reason for being in his country was a fabricated lie by an amoral President.

I was sitting in front of the TV and flipped to CNN. They were airing a report on NYC’s steps to monitor the subways with more police in the wake of the London bombing.

For quite some time I, and I’m sure many others, have contended that preventing terrorist attacks is simply impossible (short of astounding and intolerable government intrusion). The NYC subway was my favorite example. Any person can walk into any of the hundreds of subway terminals, and from there attack at any part of the subway system. There is no security. They could use a small bomb, or even a larger one depending on which subway station they enter (caged vs. uncaged turnstiles). They may use biological agents, which could possibly spread quickly, says the Council on Foreign Relations, throughout the subway system (perhaps depending on ventilation… see this brief article on NYC subway system safety and see the story of Tokyo’s sarin incident).

Thus, if a terrorist wants to terrorize, it can be done. I don’t think terrorists, if their aim is to terrorize, would be dissuaded by their inablitiy to blow up a huge building or an important symbolic target when they could still easily attack some less extravagant target or crowded area.

Now, in response to the bombing in London, NYC is putting more effort into patrolling the subways. But what will these extra efforts achieve? Nothing has changed. Any person can still enter any subway station with a deadly weapon. By having more police in the subway, the small chance may grow slightly larger that a policeman will (a) believe someone is a terrorist, (b) have the confidence in this belief to question the person, (c) develop an even stronger belief by the behavior and responses of this person, (d) take further custodial steps (arrest, frisk, search baggage, etc.), and (e) be correct that the person is a terrorist. (forgive this probably inaccurate analysis of police-stops, but I imagine the actual policies and practices yield a similar conclusion… you just can’t tell who’s going to blow you up, and you probably won’t catch them)

But even with the increased police presence, we still probably won’t have a better chance of catching a potential terrorist. We beefed up our security exactly when it would be expected: in the wake of a previous attack. If your goal is to blow up people without getting caught, you will probably wait until after the knee-jerk reaction blows over (even though you still would probably be successful). The only way we could get even the slightest benefit from the extra police in the subways is if they stay permanently, which is highly unlikely.

And mind you this is only the subway. The subway may be a more valuable target, since it’s destruction can halt the economy of NYC. But if the objective is killing, there are thousands of targets throughout the country where people are massed together, often within structures. They cannot all be protected, and they will not be.

Speaking of my police-stop scenario, here is what happened to a beloved (unless you’re a Star Wars fetishist) national starlet (thanks to Lakshmi Chaudhry of Alternet). Even Padme realizes she could hypothetically inflict destruction in other venues than the subway tunnel (or in the theater with aid of a George Lucas script) to which she was denied access .

Atrios and Stranger of Blah3 are rightly disgusted by the silliness of our national fear, particularly in comparison to the UK. Blah3 also points us to www.werenotafraid.com.

Are the police really achieving anything? Or are they simply massing in the subways for our piece-of-mind (and political survival)? Or is there presence along with the media fear-frenzy making us afraid in the first place? I don’t know. But I don’t think I would be any more afraid of terrorists if I were to board the NYC subway today than I was before the London bombing (I would test this belief, but I’m away for the summer).

INDICTMENTS AND THERAPY

Once again, as I keep bringing up hither and thither on this site, Rove is on to something. I have a feeling that indictments and therapy, in a loose sense, are the ways to fight terrorism. We need to look at terrorism, even international terrorism, like every other crime. How can we stop crime in general? We can’t, at least not without massive policing. But a more effective approach, and a better investment, is to create social and economic conditions whereby committing crime becomes less necessary (economic stability, education), more morally and socially difficult (community organizing, education), and less relevant (legalize drugs, start a government cartel, thereby eliminating all drug-related crime… that’s the biggest step… for another post), etc. Policing is but the reaction when therapy fails. Preventative medicine versus chemo and surgery.

The same goes with terrorism. We can make it less necessary, more morally and socially difficult, and less relevant for people to engage in terrorism if we drastically change our foreign (and by extension, domestic) policies. If we provide REAL aid and support to the poor across the world, then there will be less reason for people to get angry at us… and if they simply consider us an ally, then there is no reason why they would attack. By removing our military forces from foreign nations, just like legalizing drugs, we create no reason for them to attack us (see the penultimate paragraph of the previous front page post by MrKedder). All of this is the therapy.

The indictments? They go hand in hand with the therapy. We are cooperative with other governments, and they cooperate with us. No need to invade (there never was a need to begin with in Iraq, and maybe even Afganistan if we turned over evidence). Real international law, not unilateral idiocy. Law and order, not mass destruction.

One would rightly point out that many regimes are dictatorial or extremist, and wouldn’t allow us to be the great angel of the powerless. Then perhaps we should support civil society and oppositions. Support them how? Financially? Shed light with our bully pulpit? Economic persuasion and negotiation with the uncooperative governments (most fascistic bastards you can probably bribe)? Perhaps, even military support, as a last resort to save oppressed people. War? In this scenario, we would actually have the support of the people, unlike our usual situation (i.e., Iraq, where we starved them first, invaded second… but the Administration has never had their interests in mind). Is Rwanda a counter-example? I would say probably not, unless you believe the corporate media’s general take on it, the “purely humanitarian” mission, which I doubt… but this will require more research.

This whole post is a little straight-off-the-brain, but I’ll leave it to others to pick apart the flaws of my case.

UPDATE, 7/17/05:

I found this post on In Search of Utopia blog. Supports my thesis from a slightly different perspective. What I take from it? Even in the most totalitarian state, there will always be dissent. And the more totalitarian the state, the more necessary it will be to use violent means.

Instead of instilling fear, closing our borders, and creating a police state, we need to take a cue from Spain. On CNN this weekend, I learned that after the Madrid bombing and the election of the Socialists, Zapatero took the counter-intuitive approach by making it far easier for immigrants to obtain legal status (though there appear to be economic considerations underlying the policy as well). Naturally, this means many Muslims from Morocco and Africa were able to gain legal residency.

UPDATE, 7/21/05:

So, the NYPD is randomly checking bags of subway commuters. They can decline to be checked, however, which only means they can’t ride. Insanity? Or valuable? A bomber will see a cop and not even try to board the train. Instead, they can go into a restaurant, or a crowded street corner. The only good that comes of this is the protection of the subway system itself, which is very very important, so I’ll shut up. But I imagine theoretical bombers can still find some other way to cripple the economy while simultaneously killing people. This guy from the article essentially agrees:

Andrew Morris, a 57-year-old New Yorker who had a large bag slung over his shoulder Thursday, said he would consent to a search if asked, but added that the extra security measures are essentially useless.

“I think these terrorists go where it’s easiest to go, so if you make it hard on the subway, they’ll go where we’re weak,” Morris said.

UPDATE, 7/24/05:

Found this post, containing an Observer article, over on Steve Gilliard’s “The News Blog.” The article speaks directly to the benefits of using traditional law enforcement techniques to battle terrorism and the folly of using military invasions (not that any of us really believed these Middle Eastern wars were for the purpose of fighting terrorism, now did we?). And it is written with *gasp* facts, anecdotes, and examples. I’m no good at that, so I highly recommend reading it. The title of the post rings tru: “the law works, try using it.”

And here is a tragically humerous blog entry by Mithras which also gets at the obvious problem with NYC subway random bag searches… there are lots of subway entrances. Are cops stationed at every entrance? I highly doubt it.

I imagine my headline set to the tune of a phrase from the Wizard of Oz, the old ‘lions and tigers and bear, oh my” line from the scary walk through the woods. Say it with me now, to get a feel for what I’m thinking.

London attacked by Al-Qaida, oh my!
London attacked by Al-Qaida, oh my!
London attacked by Al-Qaida, oh my!

And it seems fitting, because that’s where we are at, nationally and globally. We’re all walking through some dark woods, letting our worst fears prey on us and set us on edge. We’ve been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing that armed might can overcome the power of faceless, formless fear. We’ve been sold on the notion that billions of dollars spent in Iraq will make us safer. Somehow, I don’t think the British people are in agreement with that.

Tragically, now Britain comes to understand the risks of allying with America in the “war on terror”. Up until now, it’s all been about the global spotlight. The Prime Minister rubbing shoulders with the President as he agreed with everything Bush said or did, almost, in the run-up to the war. But will it all have been worth it, now that Britain is the target? Bush has seemed awfully stingy with support given back to countries that have given it to him. Even before this attack, Blair couldn’t seem to get Bush to agree to any sort of assistance from America for the global poverty problem. Tony Blair should be questioning right now whether the sacrifice of his country will be worth what he gets in return.

London itself will be fine. Simon Jenkins at The Huffington Post points out all the reasons why. This is nothing new for London. They’ve lived through decades of bombings and attacks by the IRA. If only, and this is such a huge if only, America could respond the same way. If only we could exhibit a tenth of the steel in London’s spine. No, we are a country that will collapse its own airline industry in fear of terror. We’re a people that will boost the sales of duct tape and plastic sheeting by 1000% based on off-the-cuff remarks by some Homeland Security fathead. We’ve invented a color-coding system for how likely a terrorist attack is on any given day. This is how to fight back in a war on terror?

Let me point out what is wrong with this “war on terror” and why Britain is paying the price that they are today. Guns don’t solve violence. Missiles don’t cure political unrest. “Boots on the ground” don’t create peace of mind in an occupied population. Security checkpoints only point out that some people are denied access. This war seems to be about America trying to keep what it considers its own while maintaining the right to indiscriminately take more and more and more. Al-Qaida doesn’t want American soil. They don’t want to occupy our lands, take our women, and move in while we flee elsewhere. They want us out of their land. It’s that simple. No more bases in Saudi Arabia. No more support of pro-US regimes that suppress their own people and throw human rights out the window so as to be able to ship oil across the ocean in greater and greater quantities. This is not unreasonable. Ann Coulter would call for my head just for thinking that we should actually consider what their real demands are and entertain the idea of making concessions, as if mutual understanding were the hallmark of Satanic possession. Attempting to understand someone that hates you is not crazy or treasonous. It’s only the reasonable, rational, peaceful thing to do.

To Britain, I offer my sympathies. No one deserves to be blown up as they go about their innocent day. But let’s recall how many British troops are in Iraq right now, compliant in a war and occupation that has killed so many Iraqis. Let’s also remember how long Britain helped enforce the “no-fly zone” over Iraq. There is no better way to become an enemy of a people than to participate in actions that cause them harm. Britain has been doing this in Arabia for decades now, really. So while the victims of the attacks have my compassion, they cannot say that they should be immune from this type of action. Karma is a boomerang, so be careful what you throw out there. Deal out death and destruction, what else would you expect in return?