Tag: Politics

What does Freedom mean to me? Lots of guns.

The implementation of law allowing for the concealed carry of weapons on University campuses in Texas on August 1st is a perfect example of the increasingly distorted concept of “freedom” in the United States. The backers of the law tout the Second Amendment right to bear arms as being instrumental to the American concept of Liberty, and view an assault on the Second Amendment as an attack on the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution as a whole. This ideological concept of radical Liberty, including the right to bear arms in an academic setting, reveals itself to be problematic when put into practice. The response of Universities in Texas and of law enforcement to this new freedom has been to increase surveillance in order to better protect students and academicians. Not only does this express the inherent danger of increasing access to concealed weaponry, it undermines another, more universal aspect of human liberty: freedom from the threat of government intrusion and surveillance.

What is under threat is not American freedom and liberty, it is a clear presentation of what those concepts mean. If freedom is defined as protecting only the rights enshrined in the Constitution, and those rights are strictly defended against any rational restrictions, then we have, in fact, narrowed our definitions of liberty and freedom. Guns are not a terribly important part of personal freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from unfair coercion and surveillance by the government are all much more vital to our current system of governance than the unrestricted right to access firearms. These rights are not defended nearly as vociferously as gun rights in most public forums. The myriad opportunities and social safeguards provided by a liberal economic system and an independent judiciary are also keys to personal freedom in the United States. Focusing on such a limited form of freedom elevates it to a more prestigious position than it deserves, and obscures the fact that the benefits it provided to the populace in respect to the government were neutralized by the establishment of 1) a standing army, and 2) modern industrial techniques. The rights to freedom and privacy have not been made moot by changes in technology or institutional structures. If Americans wish to maintain their freedom from government interference it would be better for the citizenry to not make the Second Amendment the priority above all other rights.

Why Obama should be more like Ronald Reagan

Initiative is a paramount theme in the operational philosophy of warfare. The ability of an actor to impose their will on their opponent, to choose a time and place of conflict and place pressure on an opponent’s weakness is a valuable strategic advantage. The United States, while avoiding wasteful and costly foreign entanglements, has ceded strategic initiative in a variety of global affairs, but particularly in Iraq and Syria.

In the midst of America’s steep decline in its ability to project power globally at the end of the 1970’s, Ronald Reagan started a “crusade” against the Soviet Union. Confronting the “Evil Empire” directly with increased military spending (preying of their weak economy) and fighting proxy wars against them helped to destroy the Soviet system. There were, as there always are, unintended consequences and blowback that came to the fore only after the loftier goal had been achieved. Notably, and regrettably, the funding and supplying of radical Islamists would come to haunt the United States. There was also the diminished respect for many peoples of the world after the United States supported oppressive dictatorships in the name of anti-Communism and the dangerously increased tensions with the Soviet Union that could have led to a nuclear war. The aggressiveness and assertiveness, paid for with deficit spending, gave the United States the strategic initiative and allowed for American-advantaged negotiations to take place between the superpowers.

The disaster in Syria and Iraq is the result of many historical failures and murderous groups attempting to hold or seize power. It is also a vortex dragging in major world powers with the pull of the global disasters of social collapse and terrorism fears. In addition to the global problems, there are complex regional rivalries that have combined to make the countries (perhaps former countries) of Iraq and Syria bloody battlegrounds for proxy wars.

Many pundits have argued aggressively for US intervention or applauded the Obama Administration for its restraint in not fighting unwinnable wars. In many ways the President is an impossible bind when confronting the disasters in the Middle East. For the US, the prospect of a complete power vacuum in Iraq and Syria is untenable while at the same time reacting in a mild, or very targeted manner is not effective in the long term.

Admitting the fact that there is already a humanitarian disaster, and that the United States has partnered with dubious, and indeed, criminal, allies – the US has little to lose by facing its geo-strategic enemies with greater force and resolve. Bombing the Assad regime directly in Syria and arming our chosen militias with greater technical abilities would send a strong message to Russia and deter the Putin regime from greater aggression or, if it were strongly opposed, would spread Russia’s military thin. In a broader view it would allow the United States to dictate terms of peace and influence the rivalries between Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

The enemies of the United States are emboldened, but weak. A strong show of force and resolve would likely strengthen the United State’s ability to conduct diplomatic enterprises effectively. The value of initiative is known, the disaster in the Middle East is already manifest, and long term consequences are unknowable for the greater part. It behooves the United States to control what it can, and for the Obama Administration to act more like the Reagan Administration.

Underestimating the Potential for Catastrophic Failure

This year, in Poland, a modern, democratic nation, a nationalist political party is transforming the government into an authoritarian regime. It has assaulted the independent judiciary and has ignored the rulings of courts and dismissed its political rivals. Who predicted that Poland, a country that cherishes its hard-earned democratic government and is prepared to have great economic advantages, could fall so far so fast.

History is filled with the ruins of once-great civilizations and empires that suddenly and swiftly came to an end. People tend to underrate the occurrence of large-scale disasters. People think it won’t happen here or now, they look to the past and see the obstacles that were overcome and think that it is  impossible. There could always be a catastrophic natural disaster, or a political one.

Deep political divisions are difficult for democracies, wherein compromise is necessary. The more division, the more gridlock, the more likely it is that people will turn to someone who will overthrow the current order. This is where Donald Trump makes his entrance into the national political stage. It is unlikely that a President Trump would overthrow the Republic, but it is not inconceivable that he could undermine the rule of law and the primacy of the Constitution in governance. Presumptive Republican nominee Trump has already undermined political norms of discourse and brought conspiracy theory, political violence, and racism to the fore of our national politics.

There is nothing certain about the future, and it is naïve to think that our government couldn’t have a tremendous crisis brought about by the actions of a President Trump.

The Aging Infrastructure Paradox

Many countries in the developed world have an infrastructure crisis. In the United States there is an avowed problem with bridges and railroads, but also with water and sewage systems and with internal governmental communications technology. There is general agreement that these aging structures need to be replaced or repaired, but the cost is tremendous and the political jockeying for funds is, and will be, intense.

There is another problem, though. With technology advancing so rapidly, how does a municipality or nation decide when to proceed in adopting technology with promised cost reductions and improvements over the horizon? Any project undertaken will necessarily be outdated and overcost compared to projects undertaken in the near future, but further deterioration in infrastructur hurts all facets of society.

It is clear that in physical infrastructure projects leaders must choose a contractor and technique and live with it, technology in this arena and costs will always fluctuate but structures must be maintained.

In communications technology any investment designed to modernize infrastructure will be rendered obsolete in a few years. Anything adopted in the public sector will immediately lag behind innovations in the private sector. This can lead to problems that are not immediately apparent, such as tech support being ended for the technology in use. If quantum cryptography or other innovations provide superior security from cyberattacks then anything not using that technology will be vulnerable to intrusion. Systems that are immediately antiquated will be vulnerable and attractive targets.

Flexibility is integral in modernity’s ever-advancing technological revolution. Skeleton structures that can be modified and updated are optimal, instead of rigid, permanent structures, in both physical and communications projects.

The Obvious Discrimination in North Carolina’s "Bathroom Bill"

It is completely apparent that North Carolina’s law restricting the use of public bathrooms to the sex listed on an individual’s birth certificate is designed to encourage and act against transphobia. There is no other logic that would require this bill to be passed now.

If the law is designed to protect children, why is it being passed how with a focused on transgendered people? Heterosexual males, who were born men, could dress up as women and enter a woman’s bathroom to assault people before any specific law was passed.

Further, heterosexual males, who are born men, are vastly more likely to be sexual predators. This ties in to one of the recurring themes of fear against the LGBT community. The idea that LGBT individuals are more likely to be promiscuous and sexually deviant is not supported by facts. It is a social panic for a problem that does not exist. Transsexual people have not been accused of assaulting people in bathrooms, and even if they did, they are such a small minority of the population that there is no overwhelming need to single them out for rigorous legal restraint. More people in the United States have had a sexual experience with an animal than there are transgendered persons. This law was only passed as transgendered people have prominently entered the public consciousness.

The final factor that makes clear that this is a discriminatory law that is designed to placate panic and demonstrate disapproval of the LGBT community is that it is unenforceable. It is a bad law. Police cannot monitor every public bathroom and demand individuals, who they suspect are transgendered to produce their birth certificates. It is unreasonable and it would seem to require some sort of invasive profiling.

Bad laws and unenforceable laws destroy respect for the law. This argument over social norms would be better litigated in other civic arenas besides the courts and legislature.