Statue of... homeland security?

A picture is worth a thousand words, and I’d say that applies to illustrations also.

I’m a fan of editorial cartoons. I check www.caglecartoons.com for updates about 20 times a day. I just love the way a really good editorial cartoon can boil a heavy, complicated issue down to one single illustrated frame. Even when I don’t agree with the political slant of the artist, I really appreciate a well-done poignant cartoon.

But sometimes, I think they say more than the artist intends. I found this one, by Lisa Benson, today that really struck a chord with me, but not in the way she’d intended.



The cartoon is in reference to the U.S. Supreme Court decision to extend the writ of Habeas Corpus to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Habeas Corpus means that anyone detained has the right to meet his or her accuser, or in the case of the American legal system, to meet with a judge and be charged with a crime. Habeas Corpus exists to protect people against illegal imprisonment. The ruling is significant because a number of people have been detained for longer than at year at Gitmo only to be set free never having charges brought against them.

Many commentators standing to the right side of the political line are upset by the ruling. They would like to see detainees held indefinitely. They believe that extending basic human rights to detainees, who are often 100 percent innocent, will leave America less safe. I believe that is the message meant to be conveyed by the cartoon.

But what stands out to me more than anything is that she put the words ‘Homeland Security’ on the base of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty stands to remind people around the world that America stands for freedom and liberty from oppression and fear of government. Lady Liberty reminds the world that no matter what, America was built on the notion that everyone has a right to pursue freedom and happiness with minimal government impediment and no fear. She reminds the global community that everyone has the right to criticize the government without fear of reprisal. That everyone has the rights laid forth in the Constitution.

Perhaps granting Gitmo detainees the right to face their accusers will mean more of them are allowed to leave earlier. Perhaps some bad people will get back out. But the alternative is many innocent men and women being locked up for 15, 25, 30 months… we’re America. We’re better than that. We have a Statue of Liberty, not a statue of homeland security. This protectionist, nationalist agenda is leading us down a terrifying road to tyranny in a police state.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.”

Many hawks wrote thousands of words on this notion that security is more important than liberty without actually saying it, Ms. Benson’s cartoon did what editorial cartoons do best. One little frame of illustration said what millions of words could only try to convey… many Americans value security over freedom and I don't know about anyone else, but that scares the hell out of me.

Finally... $4 per gallon!

I for one am happy gas has hit $4 a gallon. Hopefully it’ll be the turning point at which Americans get a clue and start looking more seriously at alternative forms of energy and alternative types of vehicle propulsion.

Before I go too much further I’d like to address the term ‘alternative fuels.’ I think the combustion engine has outlived its usefulness and we need to be looking miles beyond new fuels, but toward Alternative Means of Propulsion (AMP). The term alternative fuels keeps us stuck with the antiquated notion that we can move society forward with a new fuel for an old technology.

What I hear…

I hear neocons on the radio and read columns by them online blaming the high prices on the government’s prohibitions on drilling and building refineries in America. ‘Open ANWAR,’ they say. ‘Let us drill here and the price will go down! It’s simple economics stupid!’

The pseudo-socialist left blames the oil companies because they see record profits. ‘Prices are rising and their profits are increasing exponentially,’ they say. ‘Let’s tax them so they’ll lower their prices! Government can solve all of our woes!’

In Tom Friedman’s NYTimes column this week he suggested that perhaps congress should create a tax that will ensure that gas never drops below $4 per gallon ever again. He supposed that by doing so, it will push American consumers into the arms of the AMP markets.

I like Mr. Friedman’s end, but his means are a little sloppy. Creating new laws is never a good idea.

So I have developed my own pretty simple idea that falls a somewhere in between the left and the right: eliminate oil subsidies and temporarily shift them to AMP research and development.

In the beginning of the oil days, the American government subsidised the industry to help get it started. Their justification being that the automobile was an invention that could benefit society as a whole, and to help launch that industry and standardize a fuel source would benefit all people. A noble concept, but now, more than 100 years later, the oil companies have a government subsidized monopoly on vehicle fuel. They make billions of dollars a year in profits, yet they are still subsidized by the government.

A 1998 study analyzed the actual cost of gasoline when subsidies and tax breaks were accounted for. For every area they looked at, direct and indirect subsidies and tax breaks, health costs, inspection costs, defense costs, and many other areas, they assigned a low and high estimate for the cost paid for by the federal government. Their conclusion was that in 1998, when premium never even hit $1.50, the actual cost of a gallon of regular unleaded was between $5 and $15. I can only imagine how much that’s grown today with gas at $4.01.

I propose that rather than create new laws to add to the legal quagmire, we do some shifting. We move all of the direct subsidies and tax breaks given to oil companies and over the next three years, we shift those benefits to AMP research and development. Then, over the following three years, that money is incrementally decreased and the fuel tax breaks are abolished. From that point on, we leave the propulsion of our vehicles to the market to decide.

If the government weren’t involved, market costs would have driven oil into the ground (pun intended) long ago and we wouldn’t have this problem. And drilling in ANWAR or anywhere else is like the little dutch boy sticking his finger in the dyke. It can only stop the inevitable for so long. If we eliminate the problem for future fuel sources, future generations will have a much easier time transitioning to newer, better technologies… but, if, after 10 years, there is still a demand for oil, we’ll open up American soil.

The combustion engine is in its death throws. Let’s put it out of its misery and use our superior technology to run the world in a more efficient, sustainable manner.

Why Global Warming doesn't really matter and being Green is so crucially important

There's a pretty big argument in America... well, the world, about 'global warming.'

Proponents of both sides of the issue use science to back up their beliefs, so generally they're both right. Here's the thing about this absurd debate: It doesn't matter. All the argument is doing is stalling gigantic technological advances that have the potential to put America back in it's standing as the most innovative, progressive nation on Earth.

Here's the big problem with global warming 'science.' It's impossible to get a definite answer either way. Ever. I'm not a scientist; I never even did very well in high school biology class... I did once own a chemistry set though. But I digress. What I do remember of science form my public school days is the need for a 'control.' In elementary school we tried growing grass in several different environments.
We cut a bunch of milk containers in half, filled them with the same soil and planted several packets of the same kind of seed. Then, the fun began. We put a planter in the closet, one in a shaded corner of the room, and one under a bright lamp. In a few short weeks, we would know what several different unnatural lighting conditions did to the grass. But how could have accurately understand what happened if we didn't know what would happen naturally? Enter the control. We put our final planter on the windowsill to soak up all the natural light it could.

To know for sure whether humans play a role in global warming, we would need access to alternate realities or other earths that never began burning fossil fuels orbiting the sun on the same path as Earth. In short, without a control we will never know. We could cut carbon emissions to zero and the climate may return to one we're comfortable with, it may keep right on doing what it's doing. We could double our carbon emissions and the Earth may bake and kill everything except cockroaches and Twinkies, or it might change to a climate we're comfortable with.

Essentially, no matter what we do and no matter what happens, we'll never ever ever know conclusively whether global warming is a liberal myth to allow Al Gore to run our lives or whether it's a cycle that's been repeated over the last few billion years (or 6,000 to 10,000 years for those of you who haven't succumbed to that liberal fairy tale called evolution).

To many, America 'going green' means the government telling us how to live our lives and forcing us to all drive a government issued Prius and limiting us to two hours of electricity in our homes a night and restricting elevators to people who cannot physically climb stairs. And under some leadership, that's all a definite possibility. But it's a far stretch on the probability meter.

One of the amazing things about our society is the ability to innovate, adapt and overcome. And with the proper prodding, and the depolarization of this issue, the free market will create and mass produce new technology that'll look to us in the coming decades like a '65 mustang would look to the founding fathers.

No one wants you to give up your SUV. We want you to call for the automakers to make better use of current technology so that that SUV uses less fossil fuels.
No one wants you to stop using electricity; we want you to use more fuel efficient technology like CFL bulbs and LED lights, and to build houses that will more effectively use natural lighting and to get the energy you do use from renewable sources like wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal.
And we want you to get your energy from more localized sources. When energy is created at a power plant, a lot of energy as heat is wasted in the creation. If the source was localized, the heat could be used to heat a house. Also, the further a unit of energy travels from its source, the more energy is lost in the transfer. Less energy is wasted when it only has to travel form a solar panel on your roof to a battery in your garage that'll light your CFLs when it's dark out than what would be lost to send the necessary energy from a power plant 30 miles away to light your conventional light bulb.

‘So what?’ you say. ‘Global warming isn't real, it isn't provable... who cares?’

Coal burning plants and gas-powered cars still create pollution that's bad for our bodies. Global warming or not, pollution is unhealthy. So who cares? China cares. India cares. And that alone should be enough to make America care.

They say necessity is the mother of invention. China and India are growing. Big time. That means higher energy demands, more pollution, worse health rates, and higher oil demands (which economics 101 teaches us means higher prices for everyone). We don't need these technologies in the way China and India need them… yet. But they're on their way, and they're just as innovative as the U.S. And whether or not we're at the point that we need cleaner technology, once it exists, it's only a matter of time before every modernized nation in the world uses clean energy exclusively.

China needs clean technology. If we don't act to create it for ourselves (which means we can sell it to them too!), we're going to be buying it from them in a decade or two. Too many Americans seem to have this notion that if we say we're great enough times it'll just stay that way. They just don't get that it took a lot of hard work and sacrifice to become great, and staying great is going to take far more effort than becoming great ever did.

We already have technology that can drastically lower our pollution rates. We need to use them to set the example for the rest of the world, and to bolster our economy by selling it to the world. We need a push by our government to move private industry toward jump-starting research and development into more sustainable and renewable technologies. We also need to keep an eye on our politicians to make sure they're acting in the best interest of the people and the nation as a whole, not in the best interest of corn farmers and oil importers. We need to ensure that our government is using these technologies as much as possible, and putting forth the idea that it's important; not pounding the American people with new regulations and restrictions that infringe on personal freedoms.

I don't believe the government should have the right to decide whether you can drive and SUV or not. But as long as the SUV does what it's meant to do why the hell do you care what powers it? (Unless of course you’re in the upper echelons of Exxon Mobile, in which case: suck it up, that’s business!)

But for argument's sake, let's say bolstering the dollar by creating the world's main supply of renewable energy technology isn't enough to get you on board. Let's look at a couple of other potential outcomes of renewable and non-fossil fuels. Both of my next two points refer to unrest in the Middle East: first, Iraq and then Iran.

Whatever the reason you believe we're in Iraq, oil plays a role. Liberating the people, an imminent threat of WMD, links to Al Qeada: those are all nice ideas, but the sad truth is, we're in Iraq because that's where the bulk of Earth's oil is (if that wasn’t true, we would be in Africa because there’s more suffering, North Korea because they posed a more imminent threat, and Pakistan because that’s where OBL probably is).
I realize that America doesn't get much oil from Iraq, but we use more oil than anyone else, and a disruption in anyone's oil supply is going to have an effect on our oil prices. That's basic economics. In short: If we didn't use oil, we wouldn't be in Iraq and we’d probably be finishing up in Afghanistan because our military wouldn’t be stretched so damn thin.

Now, Iran and nuclear capabilities. Countries use nuclear power for two things: bombs and energy. So any country trying to make bombs can easily claim that they're making power. But, what if we made it so nuclear power wasn't necessary?

Iran says, "We're enriching uranium so that we can build nuclear power plants."
America replies, "no need, we'll help you build the groundwork for a renewable energy system with solar and wind."

If they really are trying to make more efficient power (and I’m fairly certain they’re not), they'll take us up on the offer, and everyone's happy. But if they refuse our offer, we have a rock solid reason to suspect they're up to no good, and we have a concrete reason to bomb or invade the country.

Is our changing climate due to human involvement? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know for sure. But the environmental, economic, diplomatic, and potential profit benefits of becoming a greener society are pretty close to limitless. Make no mistake, renewable/sustainable technology will power the world; and it's not a matter of if, but when. The if comes in when we ask: who is going to lead the charge? Technology exists, spend a few extra bucks and let the developers know you want it. It's up to the purchasing power of American consumers whether our solar panels will say 'Made in China,' or 'Made in America.'

A War on Something

I was at an anti-terrorism briefing the other day, something we have to do annually, and i got to thinking, what is the war on terror? George Bush says it’s Iraq, John Edwards says it’s a bumper sticker. I say, it’s neither and a little bit of both.
Merriam Webster defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. The department of defense defines it as the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. And if you consult Wikipedia, you’ll find that it is now, and has been for some time, a very contested and controversial term.
It’s basically Person A using strategically random violence to scare Person B into thinking A’ll do it again so that B will give A what he wants. Contrary to what it seems our government would have us believe, neither Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussien created terrorism. It’s been around since the beginning of time, give or take a couple days. Disillusioned despots and conspiracy theory crackpots will always exist, and they will find ways to inflict damage on society, resulting in fear.
Even if we could somehow eliminate all terrorists from the earth, new ones would arise someday. Not necessarily for the same cause, but as long as we live in a global society in which there are conflicting religions and unhappy people, terrorism will always find a way to rear it’s ugly head. When someone is so desperate to have his voice heard that he is willing to die for his cause and take out innocent people with him, terrorism will exist. Terrorism is not a country in the middle east, it’s a tactic.
In the American government, we have made a vague definition that allows us to randomly pick the countries, people or organizations that are, or support said ‘terrorism.’ Essentially, we can freely attack anyone we wish as a ‘preemptive measure.’
So what am I getting at? Should we just pretend the terrorists don’t exist and let them run amuck and ‘spread the hatred of Islam across the globe?’ Should we leave Iraq and ‘let the terrorists win?’ Should we ‘give aid and support to the enemy’ by continually questioning our leadership?
No. What I’m getting at is that there is a huge threat to Americans and western civilization as a whole out there, but ‘terrorism’ and ‘the war on terror’ are merely buzz words meant to elicit some emotion: fear, anxiety and patriotism. In saying that, I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of terrorist acts, or condone it, I’m merely saying that the terms are used pretty much for the sole purpose of making us scared, usually so that we’ll let the government become a little bigger and a little more secret.

I’ve heard that George Bush’s domestic spying initiatives are keeping America safer and as proof: ‘we haven’t had any more successful terrorist attacks on America since september 11.’ By that logic of course, we can also thank George Bush that no aliens have taken over earth and that zombies have not climbed out of their graves to eat our brains and our young.
And so now, almost 600 words in, I’m going to get to my main thesis: the war on terrorism should not be an offensive, reactionary war fought with guns and soldiers, but rather, it should be a defensive, preemptive war fought with a lot of intelligence gathering, analyzing and sharing.
I realize I used a buzzword in there: preemptive. But I’m not talking about attacking another nation because in five to 10 years it may have the capability (although probably not the inclination) to attack us. I’m talking about using intelligence more… well, intelligently to stop terrorism before it starts.

Here’s some stuff I read recently that made me go hmmmm…
In 2002 the Merkle Foundation released a report called: Protecting America’s Freedom in the Information Age. The report is about restructuring America’s intelligence community to work together better. Here’s part of a possible 9/11 scenario based on information that existed days before the attacks:
In late 2001 Nawaq Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar bought tickets to fly on American Airlines Flight 77 (which flew into the Pentagon). They bought the tickets using their real names. Both names were then on a State Department/INS watch list called TIPOFF. Both men were sought by the FBI and CIA as suspected terrorists. Now if, hypothetically, all airline purchases were run through a watch list database, these names would have thrown up red flags. Had those names and purchases been checked against each other, it would have shown that both used the same address. Further digging would have shown that two more tickets for flights that day (the AA 11 which went into the North Tower, and United 175, which went into the South Tower) had also been purchased from that address. Putting agents on the ground to investigate further would probably have had a snowball effect and 9/11 could have potentially been averted. But this is just a hypothetical.
That’s a brief synopsis of the one hypothetical situation. To read the whole situation, check out the report. Page 32-33 of the PDF, or page 28 and 29 of the actual document.
My purpose in relaying that is not to try to assign blame, I don’t think anyone intentionally ignored any information and I realize hindsight is 20/20. But that’s pretty much what I’m getting at. Hindsight. We can see now that had the dots been more visible, they could have been connected. If names of everyone doing everything were cross-checked against these watch list databases at all levels, the dots would become more clear, and thus able to be connected.
We know that if the names of everyone purchasing airline tickets were checked against a watch list databases, 9/11 could possibly have been avoided. So why not take that, and apply it everywhere? Instead of allowing warrantless search and seizure and domestic wiretapping, how about we filter the names of everyone doing everything into the watch list databases and see if there are any suspicious connections. Cross reference everyone applying for jobs, loans, schools, licenses, library cards, credit cards, leases, Sam’s Club memberships… everything.
I realize this still seems invasive, but the big difference is that I’m not suggesting these things put you under suspicion, only that if you’re already under suspicion for a legitimate reason, that the intelligence agencies can track what you’re doing and where you’re at. The difference may seem slight, but I think it’s a very important difference.
Something else apparent by hindsight is that information that could have stopped 9/11 from happening was out there, it just wasn’t connected properly. So with that in mind, why is it necessary to start all of the domestic spying? I’ve heard, and even said myself on occasion: ‘If you don’t have anything to hide, why is it a problem?’ But in the end, it’s just the beginning down a slippery slope, and it’s unnecessary. What 9/11 shows us is that we need to find a better way to filter and analyze information, not that we need more information to sift through.
The lesson from 9/11 isn’t that we need more avenues to collect information, the lesson is that we need to be smarter about processing and analyzing the information we already have access to. Maybe that means consolidating all of our current acronyms into one intelligence agency. I would suggest creating a new agency that they all answer to, but that’s just adding more bureaucracy, which is the last thing we need.
What should have been done to fight the war on terrorism is a big push toward intelligence sharing and cross referencing at all levels: local, state, regional, and federal. Furthermore steps should have been taken to streamline gaps between different agencies like the FBI, CIA and NSA. They need to spend less time with their inter-agency wars and more time keeping America safe.
This would have cost a lot of money, but probably not as much as Iraq. Additionally, it would have created jobs, while Iraq is losing lives. But instead of building on lessons learned from the mother of all terrorist attacks, we invaded Iraq… because it was somehow part of the war on terrorism that was waged by Al Qeada on 9/11… hmmmm, i guess it’s just another one of those finding the dots to connect things.

How 'The Christian Right' ignores Jesus

This is the culmination of a few observations and arguments that I’ve had over the last couple weeks. This could perhaps be two separate postings, but I think it’ll work as one.

I watched an interview on The Colbert Report with a woman who wrote a book stating that essentially the ‘christian right’ has “shrunk God.” I don’t recall the name of the book or the author, but what she means by shrinking God is that in the political arena, Christianity is being reduced to two issues: gay marriage and abortion, neither of which Jesus himself ever explicitly talked about.
Her notion of shrinking God got me thinking…
If a visitor from outer space landed in America, someone with no preexisting knowledge of our society, what would he think?
If he were to watch or read our news in an attempt to ascertain what we’re all about, what would he find out? Something he would probably discover is that the Democrats and the ‘secular progressives’ are trying to destroy Christianity, which is supposed to be the crux of our society.
As he read on, he would probably come to the conclusion that this Christianity thing is about stopping abortion and gay marriage… you know, the two most important rules laid down by Jesus — the basis of christianity… hmmm.
No… that’s not right is it? No, the most important rules laid down by Jesus were to love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself. But, with the far right, which has claimed a monopoly on Christianity, fighting tooth and nail against universal health care and other social programs meant to help the poor and needy, how would our visitor ever actually get Jesus’ message about Christianity?
My argument is not in favor of government funded health care or any other social programs, but that fighting for those things seems more in line with what Jesus taught than fighting against gay marriage or abortion. It seems to me that a Christian who is political and feels it is not only his right, but his obligation to create laws forcing Christianity on the rest of the populace would be fighting to ensure that all Americans are taken care of and that no one is allowed to be rich; as the rich will have more trouble entering Heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle.

And now I’ll attempt to take this a step further by examining the New Testament’s stance on marriage and gay marriage. If you’re thinking, ‘the Bible says it’s wrong, you’re not going to convince me otherwise, so I’m going to stop reading now,’ please don’t. My premise is not to convince anyone that the Bible condones or condemns homosexuality. That’s open to interpretation and between a person a whatever god he or she believes in. Rather, I want to point out an inconsistency in the application of Jesus’ rules.
The question I would like to propose is this: Using the Bible as their guide the life, why does the Christian right want to outlaw gay marriage while allowing divorce and second marriages to be legal?
I realize that sounds a little cryptic, so let me explain it and then pose it again…
Here are the general arguments I hear in response to gay marriage’s place in the bible:
1) God says in Leviticus that homosexual sex is an abomination.
2) God destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah because of all of the homosexual sex happening there.
3) Paul calls it unnatural in Romans.
4) Jesus said that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I pulled out my trusty Bible the other day and looked into these sections, here’s what i found:
1) Very true. But throughout the New Testament, it states that Jesus’ death essentially made the old laws obsolete.
2) While Genesis mentions that men go to Lot’s house wanting to have sex with his male visitors, the Bible never explicitly says that the cities were destroyed because of homosexuality. However, Ezekial 16 says: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before Me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” No mention of homosexuality there either, but it does mention helping the poor. hmmm…
3) In the context of condemning idol worship, Paul calls homosexual acts unnatural. And for the continuation of the species, it certainly is unnatural as it kind of hinders any sort of natural reproduction. Interpret that as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality if you like, but it still says nothing about the state recognizing, for legal purposes, the union between two people of the same sex.
4) So I found the words, ‘God says marriage is between a man and a woman,’ but then I had this crazy notion to read it within the few sentences before and after it. And in doing so, I came to a startling realization… that’s not the end of his statement, and the question wasn’t ‘can two dudes get married?’
The question was, ‘can a married couple get a divorce.’ Jesus’ response is that not only is divorce wrong, but that marrying a divorced person is an act of adultery on the part of the divorced person and the second spouse. Jesus went on to explain that the 10 commandments, which includes you shall not commit adultery, are still valid under the new covenant. And that was one of those things that kind of made me go hmmm…

Anyone who believes that homosexuality goes against the Bible’s teachings is certainly entitled to that opinion, but what alarms me is that people are fighting harder against something that is, at best, implied in the New Testament than something that is explicitly forbidden by Jesus himself.
So I ask again: Using the Bible as their guide to life, why does the Christian right want to outlaw gay marriage (something never explicitly forbidden in the new testament) while allowing divorce and second marriages to be legal (even though it is expressly forbidden by Jesus himself)?
My desire is not to outlaw divorce, or to force Christians to believe that homosexuality is biological. My purpose is to shine a light on a glaring double standard with the hope that Christians who are political will stop dragging religion into politics and stop making the laws of our land based on outdated Biblical laws. Especially when those laws are based on implied sins while ignoring explicit sins. I hope that they will, in the words of Jesus, stop pointing out the speck of dust in their brother’s eye, while ignoring the plank in their own.