Fear This

Yet again, President Bush has tried to bolster his credentials and his power by appealing to fear—this time attempting to draw comparisons between his middle east meddlings and World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, arguing that “staying the course” in Asia proved wise when completed, catastrophic when abandoned. Interesting if weird parallels, as WWII involved fighting Japan, an imperialist power (as the U.S. has become), Korea, a Communist threat to world security that never materialized, and Vietnam, another instance when listening to the French would have been wiser.

His purpose, of course, was once again to argue that his warmongering keeps America safe from al-Qaeda, ignoring that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist organization until the U.S. invasion, glossing over his complete failure to capture Osama bin Laden—in fact, the president doesn’t even bring it up anymore. He DOES like to keep trying to scare the public, warning that another attack could come at any moment, and claiming his administration’s policies have so far prevented such attacks (an unsupported claim), ignoring that his administration dropped the ball and allowed the 9/11 attack he loves to reference so frequently. Truth is, we’ve been LESS safe on his “watch.”

His blind obsession with Iraq, fought on the heels of Afghanistan, has made the country even less safe, straining the military so far that commanders warn we can’t continue past this spring, while officers quit in droves and troops fall to the extreme stress of drastically increased deployments, and the U.S. commitment needed to end the mess with no end in sight. U.S. military planners had always prepared to fight wars in two theaters simultaneously. We’re doing that—for longer now than we were in WWII. Another conflict would leave us simply vulnerable. Imagine Iran and North Korea decide to push their advantage and attack together. We couldn’t handle it. We’re weak.

Bush’s arrogance and go-it-alone attitude has left the U.S. with few friends, and mostly made clear to foes that the only power we respect is nuclear power. Hence, the sooner a nation can achieve nuclear weapons, the better. How does this make us safer? We’ve given them every incentive to ignore diplomacy and pursue arms.

And how about the cost of all this invasion? The U.S.S.R., remember, fell under internal economic pressure, not at the hands of enemies. The increase in U.S. debt is financed by overseas borrowing, and adding this to our large, continuing trade deficit will only hasten our almost inevitable second place status to solid, expanding economies like China, India, and the European Union. This won’t help our safety either—in fact, it will largely prevent our recovery.

What is it about 9/11 that makes so many Americans so myopic? Take the hero worship of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, praised for his leadership following the 9/11 attacks. Yet what did he do other than what any mayor would have had to do?

And while Bush harps on the New York attacks, he gutted every dollar he could from every program he could, leaving FEMA a shell of its former self with an incompetent political appointee at the helm—not to mention denying global warming and pulling out related environmental treaties and programs, a step toward more frequent and more destructive storms. He has come as close to repealing free speech as possible, hand picking audiences, censuring media images of the war, using the justice system to harass politic opponents, and spying on U.S. citizens while striving to keep such practices secret from Congressional oversight. How does this make us safer?

All in the name of 9/11.

Writer

When Did We Become the Soviet Union?

When I was a child growing up in the 1960s, our school regularly held “bomb drills” where we would either (1) crawl under our desks or (2) march into the hall and put our heads against our lockers. Yeah, I know, that’s a ridiculous response to the perceived threat of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, but that was the policy.

Our teachers also taught us about the Soviet Union—mostly that “Russia” was not the proper term, and that living in the Soviet Union was horribly oppressive. People couldn’t live where they wanted to live. People couldn’t leave the country if they chose. The totalitarian government made all the decisions. Evil. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” And the evil was defeated. Or just replaced.

My girlfriend and I waited six months while she got permission to come to the U.S. from Canada. Yes—Canada and the U.S., a border I’ve crossed frequently with no more than a brief conversation with the border guards. She applied for a new passport, even paid for expedited service, but to date has not seen her passport, even though she’s been assured that everything is in order, that it’s just waiting for someone in Ottawa to stamp it. Canada finally issued her a letter indicating her application was in process and allowed her to travel on that.

The U.S. holds an equally bizarre stance. Passport applications are months behind, including those with expedited payments, and all to accomplish WHAT? [My state’s senator, Chuck Schumer, has called for a refund for those folks who didn’t get the expedited service they purchased. Imagine.] Deadlines have been adjusted and readjusted, but if you want to go to Canada, you’ll need a passport to get back. Nothing else will do.

Why?

“Homeland Security” has nothing to do with this (unless the government is hopelessly stupid). ANYONE with an iota of common sense, determined to do so, can cross this border. Hell, in many places, a small boat or plane will do the job—in some places you can just walk across. Even if somehow we sealed this line, we have oceans on each side. It’s just not hard.

Then why the increase in “security”? Remember—the 9/11 hijackers were all in the country LEGALLY. If we’re addressing security here, it’s only the illusion of security, the administration once more betting on the foolishness or inattention of the American public. So far a safe bet.

The Bush folks wanted a national ID card, and couldn’t get it. They substituted the passport. They cut taxes and ballooned the national debt. The passport fiasco generates significant extra income. They put in place a policy they couldn’t sustain with infrastructure, and so couldn’t deliver. Anyone see a pattern?

Logic has nothing to do with any of this. While jingoistic ideologues debate toothless immigration policy, reality seems immaterial. My girl, for example, lives with me, has her own income from her share of a business interest in Canada, has her own health insurance from Canada, but the U.S. figures too many Canadians already live in the U.S. Hardly the immigration message you heard on the news.

Look at this another way—suppose she visited (she can visit for three months, then has to go back for 48 hours, then can visit again) and lost her passport (or letter, or imagine they were stolen—a popular target soon, I’ll bet). She’d be unable to reenter Canada. She’d then be an unwitting illegal alien in the U.S. What’s she supposed to do? In the U.S. at least, immigration cases don’t get the protections citizens are afforded—meaning they can hold you indefinitely for no reason. Imagine you go to Canada. Your luggage is stolen, along with your passport. How are you going to get back? The administration’s position is that you can’t return.

So let me see if I’ve got this straight. You can’t leave the country without government approval, through a State department approved passport, which you must purchase but will get whenever, maybe. If you don’t have your papers, you can’t return.

Yeah, hopefully, the Consulate can help you.

But truthfully, and I do NOT say this lightly—

The war on terror? The fight against “those who hate freedom”? Osama bin Laden won it six years ago, and the Bush administration features his top generals.

Writer

Home Insecurity

[I wrote this during Bush’s first term. Considering the recent cases involving reading the government reading email and tracking Internet viewing, I thought it worth a second look.]

“Get back in your car!” came the angry order.

“I live here!” I answered, only to hear the angry order repeated.

I’d just returned from Thanksgiving dinner at a friend’s house, a bit after 8 p.m., and I was listening the to rest of an NPR story (I can’t get NPR inside my country home). I wasn’t even sure about the source of the order, since no lights were flashing, and I wasn’t entirely sure the truck I saw suddenly swing around belonged to the Sheriff’s department. I certainly couldn’t tell at the time, since the truck was parked at an angle in the nearest lane, lights shining in my face, all I could see. I had tried to get out to explain that all was well.

The eventual terse conversation clarified the officer’s stated position that he didn’t know if I needed roadside assistance (I certainly hope this isn’t his usual roadside manner) and that since he doesn’t know me, he’s safer approaching me (like I’m safe from an unknown driver spinning around and accosting me). I was saved further harassment primarily after pointing out to the officer that I had only been sitting there five minutes or so, as evidenced by my fresh tire tracks--clearly indicating I’d backed into my parking spot intentionally.

Technology probably saved me further difficulties that Thanksgiving evening. The officer twice asked me my name, and certainly he could from there check my story--the phone book would do, but the patrol car laptop would also suffice--as well as checking my registration, insurance, and any possible prior incidents.

But in short, I was accosted in my own driveway, way out in the country, for listening to the radio, and primarily because the officer in question found listening to the radio in a driveway foreign. Hence, I’m even more concerned than before about the surveillance measures the Bush administration has pursued so relentlessly. Will other people’s perception of what is normal and acceptable become, ipso facto, the law?

I fear that’s so. The Bush administration is constructing an information system to combine all available data in one central location. All activities, all purchases, all Internet queries and more will be available without a search warrant. And in charge of this data? None other than John Poindexter, convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying evidence in the Iran Contra scandal, convictions later overturned during George H’s presidential tenure on the grounds that despite the truth of Poindexter’s testimony, he’d made an immunity deal in return for his testimony.

The information system is nominally a response to the “War against Terrorism,” an extremely unfortunate characterization. Certainly there’s a serious threat that needs serious consideration, but crediting the Bush administration for its response to this threat has serious problems: (1) such a broadly defined “war” will never have an end, leaving every president with broad and ambiguous power to do whatever in the name of national security forever, since such a war can never be declared “over” with certainty; (2) the Bush Administration could have prevented the 9/11 attacks by seriously considering instead of dismissing the Clinton administration’s reports about the growing threat; (3) naming Henry Kissinger, architect of the secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos to lead an investigation into the current administration’s failure to address 9/11 seems to have only one logical reason--Kissinger won’t embarrass the president (and replacing him with Tom Kean, a man with virtually no intelligence experience, underscores that the point of the investigation is to find nothing); (4) while Attorney General John Ashcroft insists the government needs greater powers to protect Americans against terrorists, he also refuses to allow tracking firearms as a violation of Constitutional rights, a bizarre contradiction in priorities (and does anyone really believe that a group of militia folk could hold off a hostile U.S. government with the state of weapons technology today? Should U.S. citizens be allowed to become nuclear powers?).

The truth is that technology will change multiple aspects of American life, and it probably can’t be stopped. Many of the consequences will be wonderful. Eventually, for example, people needing organ transplants will clone their own replacements, solving a current medical crisis. And, the unprecedented access to information by anyone with access to a computer and a modem is certainly beneficial. But this will come with costs. Further, given the current administration’s obvious disdain for Constitutional protections, it’s not hard to imagine that with or without official approval, illegal surveillance may already be in progress. Certainly, legal protections didn’t stop the Nixon administration.

The danger is that anyone in power can force a preconceived view of ethics on the public. There will be no escape, since any book purchase, any email, any documented action or position will be available for review. Given current political strategies of finding whatever fact can be spun and doing so negatively, America may be headed not for an era of truth, but for layers and layers of lies. Further, the electorate seems unconcerned. True, access to information is greater than ever before, but so relatively few people use this power, and even fewer evaluate that information before accepting it. Thus, although the danger from outside U.S. borders is real, the potential danger from the U.S. government is equally real.

And even if not, benignly collected data will always be in jeopardy from an outside hacker.

Consequently, everyone’s freedom--and perhaps life--is potentially in danger in the 21st century from anyone who finds any particular action or thought unsatisfactory--even listening to the radio in one’s own driveway.

George Orwell may have been correct--he just got the year wrong.

Writer