The Trouble With Normal...

In Britain yesterday, "police have arrested a dozen men accused of plotting a large-scale terror attack on targets inside the United Kingdom. The suspects, who ranged in age from 17 to 28, had been under surveillance for weeks and were believed to have links to Pakistan and Bangladesh, security officials said."

In Washington, "Metro Police are randomly inspecting bags at the Braddock Road and College Park Metro stations Tuesday."

Over the last few days, in an effort to get tough on terrorism (am I the only one who thinks that is an irony?), police have been rounding up the usual suspects to steal a phrase.

This is not the first time I have raised the issue of the erosion of the basic rights of the average American, but I am beginning to wonder if we are not seeing the erosion of basic human rights in the all encompassing desire to defeat terrorism.

I do not have enough history from the 1930s, but this society of fear is beginning to make me wonder who will come into power as the savior and free us from all this tyranny. The last guy to take on that mantle was very charismatic and had the solution to the problem. And the world plunged into war for more than five years trying to defeat him.

When Groping the Public Is For Your Protection

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong (Wikipedia)

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” (attributed to Sinclair Lewis - 1935).

What I find ironic, if not a tad depressing, is that the very same people that will not leave their guns at home are the very same people that are supporting the draconian security procedures now in use by the TSA. And in both cases the rally cry is the same. "It protects us from the bad guys."

Since September 11, 2001, more American rights have been eroded, especially the perception of being innocent until proven guilty than at almost any other time in history. Forget for the moment that more people die every year in car crashes than have died in all terror related airplane incidents since the Write Brothers invented the thing. Forget that there is still no requirement to scan every piece of baggage and package that goes onto an aircraft. If you are are going to fly as a passenger on an aircraft, you are assumed to be up to no good. A potential criminal. Someone who is going to kill everyone around you.

Since September 11, 2001, the bogeyman of the Muslim terrorist has been manufactured, packaged, and sold to the American people like the hottest Christmas toy and with few exceptions, it has been purchased and believed without question, rational discussion or thought.

The American psyche seems to need a bogeyman. Initially it was the Government of King George III. Over time it has ranged from as simple as the Russians to as complex as illegal aliens. But the idea of a terrorist, especially on an airplane, seems to have taken all level of sanity and civility from people. And that is a very disheartening thing in a nation that used to praise civil liberties above all else.

The Myth of Sisyphys, or the Great Amercian Election Game

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Pretty appropriate for Election Day 2010 here in the Excited States of America where the same old bums are arguing that they know better than the current bums.

Yeah, yeah, I have heard the rhetoric. We are done with socialism (oh really?), the current crop of deadbeats are responsible for high debt (forget for the moment that Reagan did more damage to the US budget than any president before and until Bush II), and on and on and on.

The real issue is the amazing shortness of memory. The amazing ability for the average, and not so average American to ignore the real issues and succumb to the rhetoric without applying any thought.

Changing the make up of the House of Representatives is a nice feel good measure that your voice is heard. Forgetting that those same representatives are not beholden to you the voter, but to the machines (and funds) that got them elected in the first place. It will not get you a new job. It will not turn the economy around. It will not automatically make it rain money. But it could have some very chilling effects that most people are overlooking.

A Republican house will likely overturn many of the valuable social programs that are preventing large numbers of Americans from dropping into abject poverty. The counter argument from my libertarian friends is that it isn't the government's job to keep them out of poverty. Fair enough. So what does the well educated, hardworking individual who has been out of work for more than six months do? Really? What do they do? The societal safety net that existed in the 1920s is gone. Many would argue it was pretty much gone by the 1920s. But what are they supposed to do? Congress cannot force companies to hire, and there has been very little hiring going on in the last 18 months. Most people are down to bare bones with high debt and many are trying to work, with little success. So just what are they supposed to do?

A Republican house has been trying, for generations, to tell the average, and not so average American who they can and cannot sleep with. With the backing of the even more right-wing tea party, it is likely that this time, should they win, that they might actually get the ability to enforce this view. At risk is a woman's right to chose, the rights of union between those of the same sex and raft of other rights and privileges that have been gained over the last generation.

And then there is the continuing myth that soldiers are dying in Afghanistan to protect our way of life. Right. Spin that one a little faster, because so far I am not seeing a lot of improvement in my way of life since soldiers were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq almost ten years ago. I have seen an increase in the federal deficit, although not on the official books. I have seen a degradation of my civil rights, in the form of increased security at borders and airports, and I have seen a lot of good men and women come back in steel boxes. All to protect my way of life? Death, cost, and degradation is not my way of life, nor is it the American Way of Life.

So today is the beginning of the next election cycle. Vote carefully. The devil you know could very well be better than the devil you do not.

Mission:Accomplished?

In March of 2003, in the shadow of the attacks on New York and Washington, DC, the United States, and coalition countries invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq. In August of 2010, the last military troops, primarily belonging to the United States, left the once again sovereign nation of Iraq.

With the troop withdrawal, a number of questions remain. And while these questions are different from the questions that were asked when the coalition invaded in 2003, they are no less demanding of answers. Answers that, like the questions of 2003, are still lacking.

In 2003, shortly after the invasion, the entire invasion was questioned. What, exactly were the coalition forces doing in Iraq. The party line at the time was seeking weapons of mass destruction, although a number of people believed, and still believe, that it was because of Iraq's involvement with the September 11, 2001 attacks, despite evidence to the contrary. During the early days of the invasion, a number of us, including myself, kept asking "where are [the weapons]?" And the continuing answer was "They're there, we just have to uncover them." In fact I got into several arguments with those who know that if the weapons were there, they would be splattered all over the front page of the Washington Post. Especially at that time with an election coming and positive PR being in short supply for the Bush II administration. As we now know, there never were any weapons of mass destruction.

Failing to find justification...er...weapons, the Bush II administration said they were going after the Axis of Evil. For me, that never held water. Iraq was a brutal dictatorship, no question, but so is North Korea, and they actually have nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and an unstable enough leader to actually use them. For all that Saddam Hussein was, unstable he was not.

Now, as we enter the latter part of 2010, the question of why the United States was in Iraq is seldom asked. What is asked is what has been accomplished, now that the mission is concluded. Of course, calling it a mission begs the question, because a mission implies a goal, and clearly, there never was a goal. OK, the cynics, myself included, would say the goal was to secure the Iraqi oil, but even that seems to be a half-assed effort.

So what was accomplished? Democracy was brought to the Iraqis? OK, I can support that. Unfortunately many of the soldiers that rammed democracy down the throats of the local population are coming back to a nation less democratic than when they left and while Iraq may not, in 2003, have been terribly democratic, it had a governmental structure more stable and more secure than the one that is being left behind. And then there is the infrastructure, battered by over seven years of war and guerilla actions, to where now it is barely stable enough to keep the lights on. Who is going to stand up and take responsibility for at least restoring it to pre-war levels? The United States? Nope, their job is done.

Clearly the mission, undefined and unarticulated, was known only to those that started it, if anyone knows what it is. And several generations of both American and Iraqis will have to live, not only with the death and damage, but the clean up costs, both in terms of aid to Iraq as well as to the troops that have returned broken and unable to hold normal jobs. It is these hidden costs that ten, twenty, thirty years from now we will be debating and arguing over. When the shadow of history looks back at the Iraq war and wonders why it happened. The historians might be able to better formulate, what today is a mystery for many people: What exactly was the mission? And did it really get done?

And So It Begins.

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport will begin using full-body scanners within three weeks to check people traveling to the United States, after consultations with U.S. authorities, the Dutch interior minister said on Wednesday. (Reuters)

And so, it begins. In The Netherlands, you will be strip searched, via full-body scanner if you are coming to the United States. In Canada, you can only take one very small carry-on on board. Domestically, the use of full-body scanners have not been implemented yet but expect that as soon as the money is found, they will be, and privacy issues will go out the already large window that has been .... oh, who am I kidding. There has never been an implied position of privacy where security is concerned. Security is far more important than any pretension of privacy. Now all we need are a few good telepaths...