It's Fer Me Ma...

It seems, my dear readers out there in Radioland, I might become a columnist. Of course, it's just to answer my parents. Here's what my mom sent me the other day:

Did you catch OpEd piece on Thurs. 12 A14--The Rebirth of Civility? Here's hoping that the internet blogging can help up us bring civility so that freedom of expression means more than just being able to say whatever you want, without having to be obnoxious just to be heard. If the shouters could only learn that by being civil they might actually be listened to, not just heard. I loved the one quote--"Free speech is enhance by civility."

And of course that brings us the the radio personality. It looks like the Web Sites and Bloggers had a lot do with him getting canned. What do you think of that kind of revolution. You have always said that the Web would be the forum of our future. Interesting proof of its power, if indeed that is what made the networks act.

I read the column as well (once she mentioned it). And there was a little buzz around the blogosphere (still for lack of a better word) as well. There has actually been a rough reaction to the idea of making a written 'Code of Conduct', which is understandable. The internet is a true haven for free speech and is populist by nature. We of this realm prefer to keep things as libertarian as possible, and any attempts to directly govern, well, any of it, is fought tooth and nail.

I definitely fall into this camp, on the principle of free speech. Having a dictated regulation, even if in good spirit, creates restriction in what people say, and so the essence of being able to speak one's mind is lost. We should all viscously defend against any path towards an Orwellian Nightmare.

However, as I have mentioned before, humans are naturally social creatures, and we do not live in this world alone. Our interactions define our very lives. So, while external regulations on speech should be fought against, reasonable internal regulations are a necessity. And there is a natural regulation as well. Anyone may speak however they wish, but they certainly must be prepared for the repercussions thereof (hence Imus.)

If one wishes their voice to be not only heard, but listened to and possibly even heeded, those words cannot offend those listening. As a regular reader of blogs and message boards, I regularly come across those one-lined, misspelled, oft profane sorts of retorts that do not amount to anything. They are merely pests, much like flies, that may momentarily take your focus, but do nothing to change the actual debate taking place. And in this realm of written words on the internet, it becomes an easy habit to simply ignore them.

So essentially, if you want to be heard, you have to be pleasant and respectful. Of course it also helps to also speak and write well. Even when being utterly opposed for a multitude of reasons to another person's position, that minimum requirement of civility (for that's the magic word here) has to be there for a debate to even take place. The opinion column points this out, just as rules of the road mean everyone actually gets to travel with reasonable ease, even with following rules. Daniel Henniger, who wrote the opinion, brings up how regardless of situation, Congress members must refer to each other by the gentleman or -woman. I think an even more pointed example, considering how tame and toothless Congress often appears to be, would be the British House of Commons. They can spew utter vile at one another, but always with rules according to manners and how to address one another. It's amazing to watch; check out Prime Minister's Questions time (something I think we should have here.)

Bottom line, the natural forces of balance that rule us all do still apply to the cyber world as well. If you open up a debate, one has to be prepared for the dissenters and the flies buzzing around occasionally. However, only those who reply in respect and with dignity will be heard and be considered as having any clout. And should someone say something totally out of line, they will most certainly hear about it.

This brings us to Imus getting fired from the radio (for now, radio's hurting for personalities. Also on that note, I am an inexperienced fool who barely keeps abreast of facts in this world, and am up for hire.) Rather than sending letters to the station, it is email. Instead of spreading rumor and bad news to those within earshot, it can spread faster over much greater distances in the blogging realm (I like this term better). The cry rang out, and the people were heard. Vox Populi, Vox Dei. ("The Voice of the People is the Voice of God.") Instead of protesting in the streets, people (relatively) directly voice their opinions in the blogging realm.

Most things on human interaction still seem to return to that ancient golden rule. Probably because it's such a reasonable idea.

The Worst...

The horror which befell Virginia Tech yesterday is of an unspeakable nature.

There is a feeling of inescapability to it, I think. There is so much else going on right now in the world, and in my own life, but for the life of me I can't stop wishing there was something I could do to help or comfort those more directly affected by it. However, I can't help but feel affected by it as well. It all could have happened at my Alma Mater just as easily as anywhere else.

I am reminded of how I felt when listening to the radio about the bombings in the London Underground two summers ago. I was just out there, living, traveling in those tubes. I had been to Kings Cross Station numerous times, and passed it so many more. I have for London, as I have for being a university student, a distinct familiarity with being in that place. I was just there. I cannot escape the feeling that I could have been there and want to be there because it feels as though my friends could be there.

All this writing does very little. There are no words that befit such a pointless, painful loss of life. A lack of words is not discomforting, though. There is a comfort to silence. Silence creates a somber space for the mind to unravel its twisting thoughts or wrap them in a warm cocoon. In silence, you can have a friend put an arm around your shoulder, and that will be all that is needed. I take comfort in the fact those poor souls still reeling from all that has happened have that out there for them.

An event like this displaces the soul from the normal progress of time. To the affected soul, time can slip by without a notice or slow down into agonizing micro-moments that never seem to pass. Eventually, the soul will recover, and the mind will be able to perceive the world as it is once more. Hence the adage, "Time heals all wounds." It is a simple truth, and the affected will settle back in the world in their own time.

Those lost are at peace now. It is their friends and families that must now cope. For the rest of us, the time is not to debate, to speculate, or to even speak. The time for all that will come eventually. For now, let us just pay our respects with our silence.

Peace~

Here's Some Old School Conservatism...

Here's just a little tidbit my pop sent me recently:

I can just see the twinkle in his eye as he says this. The lead mathematician at Bletchley Park that broke the Enigma Codes was quite gay.

"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."

Winston Churchill

So here's something for my dad, a brilliant piece on Eisenhower's Realism by Jonathan Rauch (as discovered by reading Andrew Sullivan again.) The man who knew a little something about war used the philosophy that peace cannot be forced, it is merely a product maintaining a proper balance of forces.

I wanna be like Ike~

War Powers...

The United States has formally declared war five times in its two and a quarter century lifetime. The last time was against the Axis powers in World War II. So since 1945, the United States has known a world utterly free of the pains of war.

How can this be so? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress is the only branch of government with the power to declare war. It was quite purposefully vested in the body of government that is the slowest in making decisions. The main reasoning being to not have a single person with the power to send its citizenry to die without provocation or reason. They had had enough of that with the royalty of Great Britain.

Again the question, how could we have been involved in so many conflicts without declaring war? The answer is right there: we were in conflicts, not wars. Well, at least, that was so often the designation. Or 'police actions'. It is quite a trick in order to combat an abstraction, not another state. We fought communism, not the Viet Kong. We are fighting terrorism, not the Iraqis. Of course, we did not defeat communism; it just happened to fail in the Soviet Union. And it sure seems that we aren't looking to defeat terrorism anytime soon, since it gets so constantly stoked and provoked. Besides, it is not something that is defeatable; it is simply a tactic. But I digress.

Most of these undeclared wars came about due to one thing: fear. More specifically, paranoia. America after the Second World War followed a foreign policy of containment against communism. It was particularly strengthened by the fall of China to communism in 1949, playing into the idea of the 'domino effect'. The fear of communism spreading aided in creating and maintaining the idea of containing communism to its current borders, effectively drawing us into every local nationalist conflict that decided to support itself with Soviet funds.

Also with the beginnings of the Cold War, the United States Congress started vesting increasing emergency powers to the President, so he may react more swiftly than they in the event of a direct attack by the opposing powers in the East. It means that the President could effectively send troops anywhere deemed insecure for democracy/capitalism/our interests, and from there escalate or surge (we've heard those words before, no?) as deemed necessary.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 set into place a set of rules regarding how far a President could go with this new-found power. Apparently Congress realized that a certain cap should be in place after being in Vietnam for over eight wildly successful years. What it amounted to was that the President could act freely for 60 days before Congress would decide whether or not to continue or end US troop involvement, with an additional 30 days while Congress convenes and debates.

The President of the United States, a single person, has been given control of the most powerful military in the world for any three month period without question. What an American ideal! I am so glad that our country was not founded under the philosophies against arbitrary rule by one person. Otherwise we would be running counter to the very wisdom of the brilliant men who helped create a new, working model of free democracy that would inspire people the world over for centuries.

To bring my whole convoluted post to a close, let us return to the present. With the rubber stamps being pushed out of power in Congress, debate has returned to whether or not to continue the war in Iraq and how to end it. But the past half-decade's rhetoric has punctured the powers of Congressional and even societal debate. The idea of cinching the military's purse strings has been termed 'not supporting our troops'. This is a damning phrase now, but hopefully one that will die. Of course troops are supported, we will always support them, because we won't have them return home the way Vietnam veterans had to for just following orders. In fact, I hope they return home seen even more differently: as tragic heroes put through hell for other peoples' cruel, cruel lies.

Here is my point, pure and simple. Congress is doing its job. The War Powers Resolution, and indeed any and all Presidential actions using American forces without a direct declaration of war, or invocation of Article V of NATO, is illegal and unconstitutional. I am willing to grant certain powers to extricate American and ally citizens from direct assaults. Once they are out and safe, our troop involvement ceases, because no war has been declared.

The title of Commander in Chief is meant to be only the unifying apex of all the military branches. The President commands the Army and the Navy in battle only. It is Congress, and Congress alone, that raises, organizes, arms, and keeps American military power. Congress creates treaties and declares war. It is within the powers of Congress to decide whether or not and where to send the American military, and when they are done operating. Commander in Chief only directs the forces when they are sent to engage the enemy, and even that power really gets delegated down (ie Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower and the Generals and Admirals, and even filtered on down the way it is supposed to be structured.) Congress essentially owns the military; the President only gets to operate it when Congress allows.

We are a lawful people. It is all we have. There is no state religion, nor royal family. We govern ourselves, and our laws are our agreements among free people. To break our laws is to make an offense to our land and fellow citizens. We fine their riches and imprison the offenders, taking away part of that which is most precious to all people: their limited time on this earth. The President has broken the law, and it is the fault of Congress for allowing it to happen. Congress must reassert its true place as the most powerful branch of the government, because it controls the money, and it represents the people most directly.

And I do hope we the people of the United States realize this. Our troops need to be brought home. Ask any of them what the better way to support them is: keeping them as the primary targets in the middle of a civil war fueled by religions fervor, or bringing them home to their families?

A Stewart, Colbert, and Fryer Sandwich...

I would just like to state that I would kill to simply be in the room while Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have a conversation. I got a small glimpse of it when my uncle sent me an article from Rolling Stone. I think it would be a moment touching divinity. Good golly those two men are brilliantly funny.

New Format...

The reason for the new format is because I've started dealing a little in block quotes. The previous template did not look very clean with them, but I like how this is laid out. Maybe I'm picky, but I do actually care how I present myself to the world (despite my youthful convictions.)

Ta~

The Future of the State...

I read a little chain of blogs having to do with the future of morality, and more specifically how societies of the future will look back at the practices we live by and how utterly barbaric they might become. This is really a fun topic to sit and ponder on. For me, however, I returned to a thought I touch on regularly: the future of the state.

Now, for those not fluent in political theory-speak, when I use the term 'state' I mean a country or nation with its own people, land, and government. Iowa is deemed a state, but it is merely an assigned territory of the state that is the United States. Often used in historical or political texts is the term 'nation-state', usually in the context of, 'coming from the scattered rule of many kingdoms rose the powerful, modern nation-state.' The kingdoms of France eventually gave way to the unified French nation-state, or simply state for short. Country is usually synonymous, but I prefer not to use it. Nation can also be considered synonymous, but generally among academics, nations are only composed of people, not tied to a land or independent government of their own (though that is what they strive for).

Enough semantics. What will become of the state in the future? Right now, the state is the authoritative body in the world. It defines borders, rights, land use, etc. It was not always so, though. Using the example I am most familiar with, Europe, there were shifts in what really ruled and people were willing to accept as true. Rome ruled throughout for centuries, and following its collapse, the Christian Church was the body that determined what power would exist where (or at least, verified a person or group's right to rule.) That authority declined and collapsed as well, leaving a void which states would fill, and a few, in their time, would attempt to conquer the rest.

The collapse of the Church's authority came due to the hands of Johannes Gutenberg and his movable-type printing press. People no longer had to rely on the interpretations of the Church in order to understand God; they could come to their own decisions on how the world worked. An ever-increasing state then stepped in to secularly, and relatively democratically (if only to say the people could remove the heads of poor rulers), decide order among people.

Our current era of digitization is creating a similar world of discontinuity that occurred following previous periods. Homogeneity is diminishing as people are able to find others with their more specific interests and beliefs in common. Entertainment is incredibly customized, to the point now of being increasingly self-made (rather like the ancient days, no?) It does not seem too far a stretch to see that allegiances to people and governments with which one disagrees may crumble in time as well.

I do not see this as immediate, or even remotely perceivable for some generations. It is difficult to even conceive of such a notion as not having a state one pays taxes to or even associates with. Instead, loose associations connected wirelessly to people occupying land not considered theirs all around the globe may be where people rest their identities. Maybe it will look similar to the religions of the world, with no specific countries under their feet anymore. Or perhaps there will be gradual migrations to be among those of similar minds to the point of disassembling and reassembling the borders of the world.


These are all odd scenarios associated with my pondering on the idea of a world without states. I wish this post had been more congruent, but sadly its writing was broken up beyond a week's time. I'm sure one can easily read where one session's writing ended and the other began. Hopefully I can have better luck writing in the future, when I may complete a thought in the same sitting as I started~

Nukular Power, Revisited...

Leave it to my pop to bring home bring home a point on technical issues so well:

Nice discussion on the blog. I wish the mainstream enviros would look at this the same way. ... Another point to add. Transportation (autos) consume 35% of the oil. Raising prices (taxes) to fund all forms of transportation infrastructure and high speed rail corridors would encourage smaller cars as would increasing the producers fleet mileage. By the way coal to liquid fuel means diesel which gets better mileage. South Africa and Brazil are the current world leaders in the technology.

Again, it seems to me that America would do well to simply pay attention to what others do and are capable of, not just look inward. Our Founding Fathers were champions of the former.