Sunday Muse I

Sunday muse for the week that was:

Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Proverbs 31:8-9

Bumper Sticker Philosophy

I adore bumper stickers. Reading them is an affective way to release road rage and quietly comment on society’s proclivity to pontificate. Additionally, it is the poor mans billboard and a right of passage for our licensed youth. Also, we develop a sense of the person behind the wheel and gently place them into our stereotypes. Whether these profiles are left, right, center, or crazy, stickers are the window to a person’s inebriated psyche.

Currently, there are many political stickers roaming the landscape. From the Neo-classical “W” to the more Warhol inspired ribbons of countless colors and messages, ranging from “Support the Troops” and "MIA/POW" to my personal favorite “Just pretend its all okay”. However, I have always been partial to the standard rectangle bumper sticker with two-tone colors, clear sentences and poetic euphemisms, which brighten any traffic jammed day.

One of the most telling such stickers was the analogy of Col. Sanders. Paraphrasing: “If you’re a taxpayer and vote Democratic it is like chickens voting for Col. Sanders.” What a great piece of advice. Voting for the Democratic Party will ultimately kill you through a guillotine of taxes and social welfare programs. Furthermore, the appearance of the sticker was unblemished by the torrid sun, so I concluded that this sticker was relatively new to the bumper of a 2005 F350 Dually Pick-up truck.

Apparently, this sticker was placed on the truck well before the ultimate passing of the 2005 Republican sponsored energy bill. In which, some of the following sections might be of some interest to Col. Sanders:

• The Ultra-Deepwater Slush fund: this provision, added in the 11^th hour to the House bill, would (creates) up to $2 billion in Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues to a new fund designed to benefit the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land (Tom Delay’s district)
• Royalty holidays for oil and gas producers in the Gulf of Mexico
• Sec. 219. Sugar cane ethanol program. This provision authorizes $36 million to try and make sugar cane a viable source for ethanol. (With CAFTA this is a windfall for all of Central America!)
• Sec. 316 Alaska offshore royalty suspension. This provision extends royalty breaks to oil and gas producers drilling in the OCS off of Alaska. (I guess corporate welfare is much better for America’s national interests then social welfare – let them eat cake!)
• Sec. 1002 Cost sharing. This provision requires the government to pay for 20% of non-federal energy R&D projects and 50% of demonstration and commercial projects.
• Title XIV. Incentives for Innovative Technologies. This recent addition to the energy bill authorizes unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for energy projects.

I understand that votes on the floor consist of Democrats and Republican however this was a bill pushed by both the President and the GOP majority. I guess Col. Sanders doesn’t discriminate when it comes to chickens, hens, Democrats, Republicans or more importantly the American people.

A healthy consensus or a wrong turn

Senator Joseph Biden – (D) Delaware, a 32 year veteran of Congress, spoke at the American Constitution Society’s lunch on Friday July 29^th 2005. He eloquently and cerebrally delivered a message of self-examination, concerning Supreme Court nominations. His speech was more than a lecture or a stump speech, it was a reexamination of ‘consensus values’ established over the last 80 years.

In fact, Sen. Biden stated that his speech centered on “reexamin(ing) the essence of the social contract*”. In which, an examination is assembled over government and its role in our lives. Specifically, does the government have the right of intrusion? Does the government have the obligation to shield the public from powerful interests, whether those interests are public or private? These are the essential issues which the Supreme Court will be grappling with for the next 200 years or more.

Sen. Biden, who has been an adjunct professor of constitutional law for over 15 years, remarked that we should have a “healthy view of the constitution”. Encompassed in this healthy view is a true consensus of rights and liberties under the constitution. For as Biden reveals “at the heart of liberty is the ability to create your own perception of the world … not to have a perception placed upon you”.

Moreover, Sen. Biden unmasked the spin from the White House and congressional Republicans about Roberts being a “strict constructionalist”. Sen. Biden overthrew this notion with a more realistic explanation. In which, a “strict constructionalist” is code for “the whole sale liquidation of the constitutional right to privacy”. Concurrently, he states it is “appropriate and necessary to look at constitutional methodology because it makes a difference in our lives”.

Furthering, his point about the colossal importance of justices was a short history of the current court with particular attention paid to O’Conner. For example, according to Sen. Biden, there were 193 (5 to 4 decisions) since O’Conner was appointed to the bench. O’Conner was in the majority 148 of those times. With the resignation of O’Conner, Justice Kennedy becomes the swing vote, however the tilt to the right (in this case a tilt to the right refers to the lessening of private rights and personal privacy as protected by established constitutional law for the past 80 years) will be cemented with Kennedy as the swing vote.

Lastly, Sen. Biden ends with a common theme, for which, we all should think about before we wake up and place on our obligatory partisan faces. He asks a simple question, (paraphrasing) “do we have the power to protect ourselves from the powerful?” Besides, can we afford not to have measures of protection?

* Sen. Biden refers to this social contract (not to be confused with Rousseau’s unwritten social contract) as the Federal Constitution, which in his terms is a “Civil Bible”.

Be careful what you wish for…

“It still takes twenty or more years to reach full democracy.”
Daniel Pipes (1)

If Daniel Pipes is correct then U.S. and Coalition forces will be in Iraq for at least two decades. A sign of this permanent democratic force is seen in the half dozen new military bases in Iraq.(2) Notwithstanding the domestic struggles this presents in America and other nations, is the more pressing problem of Iraqi perception. Iraqis need solace in this transitional stage of governmental development. Foreign forces must secure the nation and then help Iraqis with a federal form of government. As Fareed Zakaria states, “until a legitimate government has been formed … the United States will play the role of honest broker among the various factions.”(3) However, many challenges now face these democratic forces.

First, there is a power vacuum in Iraq. Even with the provisional authority and the appointed president, governmental structures are nonexistent. Military forces must continue to immobilize terrorist insurgents. This can only be adequately done by increased troops in Iraq. As Daniel Byman points out, “the size of forces (needs to) be approximately 100,000 troops until security is established.” (4)The troops can be a stabilizing factor as well. Byman details, “establishing democracy in occupied Iraq requires that U.S. and other occupying forces become involved in a host of local disputes as well as policy issues.”(5) In effect, the occupying forces must become an example of negotiations and deliberative action. If military forces can help with ground level disputes then it will help foster lasting democratic change.

Second, Iraq’s natural resources must be secured and held in a Public Trust. (6) This Trust will be used for health care and universal education. As Daniel Yergin interprets, “Iraq desperately needs billions of dollars for basic health and education.” (7) Moreover, these petrol-dollars can redistribute wealth in the short run; enabling the poor and the disenfranchised to become active citizens. However, Iraq must not become a petrol-state where the government ask for no taxes and grants no liberties. This has been the theme of Middle Eastern nations. In Iraq, however, revenue must come from the people in the form of taxation. This will keep the populous active and establish accountability in the democracy. Additionally, it will create viable lines of communication between ruled and rulers. This is not an easy proposition. However, low interest loans and compensation must be granted by foreign governments. In fact, loans without interest would be of greater value, for the citizenry will not see the monetary loans as financial wind falls for ‘conquering armies’. Perception in this matter is significant to stabilization and ultimately democratic success in the region.

Third, the Middle East region must play a significant role in the development of a federal republican form of democracy in Iraq. Natural antagonists such as Turkey and Iran must be kept at bay. This will be a struggle; however a salient point in this endeavor is the European Union and United Nations. For example, Turkey is vying for admission to the European Union and at the present moment on a watch list. If the U.S. and Coalition forces make the Iraq situation a matter of acceptance into the Union then Turkey will back down. The markets of Europe await an enduring and helpful Turkey. Iran must be thwarted by the United Nations. Moreover, Iran cannot view America as an occupying force and will not deal with America one on one. The United Nations must sweeten the deal for the Iranians. In fact, a bold move on the part of the United Nations may lie in ‘helping’ with a legitimate nuclear reactor, thus enabling inspectors back into the country and establishing clear intelligence on Iranian weapon capability. This process can be long and drawn out but the longer the negotiation process the better for Iraq.

Finally, democratic backsliding has been a phenomenon since the third wave of democratization discussed by Samuel Huntington. This process of falling back into old grooves of autocratic strongmen must not occur in post-Saddam Iraq. Critical to this forward progress is constant assistance to the most impoverished sectors of the country. The assistance must be in the form of benevolent help and tolerant considerations. The best and most efficient means of this type of caring is using international peace keeping forces. U.N., Red Cross and International Amnesty groups must reach out in the rural areas outside of the main urban centers. Again monetary incentives must be provided by foreign governments. These groups must literally build the infrastructure needed to bring lasting hope. So, “involvement of outsiders (is) seen as international assistance, not American occupation.” (8)

(1) Found in Dudley, William (ed.) Iraq: Opposing Viewpoints. New York: Greenhaven Press, Thompson/Gate, 130.

(2) Phone interview with Lt. Louis D’Avignon (medical physician) with the USAF in Iraq.

(3) Zakaria, Fareed. “Islam, Democracy, and Constitutional Liberalism.” Political Science Quarterly. v. 119 n. 1 (2004):4.

(4) Byman, Daniel. “Constructing a Democratic Iraq: Changes and Opportunities.” International Security. v. 28 (Summer 2003): 77.

(5) Ibid 76

(6) Zakaria, Fareed. “Islam, Democracy, and Constitutional Liberalism.” Political Science Quarterly. v. 119 n. 1 (2004):3.

(7) Dudley, William (ed.) Iraq: Opposing Viewpoints. New York: Greenhaven Press, Thompson/Gate.170.

(8) Zakaria, Fareed. “Islam, Democracy, and Constitutional Liberalism.” Political Science Quarterly. v. 119 n. 1 (2004): 5.

Out of Plato’s Cave

As many have stated before and many believe to this day, men are disharmonious by nature and war is a part of the global environment. Utopia is unrealistic and impossible. Thus an artificial balance must be created, between man’s Hobbesian nature and peaceful coexistence. Perceptions from the Plato's cave (see The Republic) of realism have been fraught with mistruths and oversimplification. When nations come into the light and out of Plato’s cave, liberalism will be waiting. In the 21st century this is a real and possible alternative to the strife and vindictive nature of 20th century realism.

The United States, as the one true power in the world, creates this alternative. At this time in history the power fulcrum is in the hands of a democratic-republican form of government, which possess resources and skills (educational exchanges, technology advancement, debt relief, etc.) which can be reallocated, in effect fostering initial democracies. As G. John Ikenberry remarks, “at no other time in modern history has a single state loomed so large over the rest of the world,” as the United States. (1)

Moreover, unilateralism is not inevitable; cooperation can become a national interest. In fact, for The United States to prosper it must become a beacon of cooperation and international problem solving. Ikenberry also produces guidelines for The United States to follow:

1. Functional demands for cooperation.
2. Functional management of hegemonic power.
3. Functional American legal and institutional tradition.(2)

Nations must have a functional mechanism to debate and coordinate issues with The United States. A proto type can be seen in The European Union, which is a “manifestation of this sovereignty- transferring legally binding multilateralism.”(3)

In sum, examples are available and intentions of peace making have been exhibited (4), however The United States, like a child understanding a new language is sometimes confused, but with time and conscience effort it can fully understand new words and ideas, for it must practice the language and actions devloped through Kantian liberalism. Consequently, preemption and strike first mentality is a residual effect of the 20th century. This will soon ware thin on the institutions, which generate power in democratic-republican governments, i.e. the people. After such time war can begin its long fade into history, or as John Mueller uncovers, “war begins in the minds of men, it can end there as well.”(5)

(1) Ikenberry, G. John. “Is American Mulilateralism in Decline? (http://www.apsanet.org/) 533.
(2) Ibid
(3) Ibid p. 535
(4) See Lang, Anthony F. Jr., Albert C. Pierce and Joel H. Rosenthal, ed. Ethics and the Future of Conflict: Lessons from the 1990’s. New Jersey: Pearson, 2004.
(5) Betts, Richard K. ed. Conflict After The Cold War: Arguments on Causes of War and Peace. 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 2002) 128-130.

A Primer: School Choice

“As Patrick Hefferman, president of the Miami – based Floridians for School Choice, told the Tribune in 1998, ‘School choice is a well-established policy in Florida. You just don’t get it until you’re 18.” (1)

This tongue and cheek remark strikes at the heart of the dilemma; between public regulation and private choice. We already have choice in education students just have to wait. Unfortunately, in a free-market system individuals are accustomed to having choices, which will be a cost-benefit ratio. The educational system needs to understand that people want choices. This does not mean that public education is wrong or bad; even though many will debate such a claim. However, the notion of choice, control and power are quite attractive to parents. This attractiveness will not dissipate, unless there is a compromise.

Freedom of choice is instilled in the democratic process and public education is also ingrained in our society. Yet, these two forces are not mutually exclusive. They can work together to develop a system of choices and controls, which better serve the student population. Even, Milton Friedman reveals the need for “approval” which translates into regulation. Moreover, Adam Smith firmly believed checks within the free market. These principles also apply to the educational system. For a monopoly by its very nature will not create optimum output. In the case of education it is imperative to civic, business and international relations that choices are made available to parents, thus an optimum output. Only when this occurs can we truly start talking about ‘educational reform’.

(1) “Private Colleges and School Vouchers.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2000

Forgive them Madison for they know not what they do …

James Madison one of the most astute and well developed political minds of the past three hundred years is now rolling over in his grave. He has been called “Father of the Constitution” and his immeasurable contribution to the formulation of federal law can not be denied. He, with the assistance of the French philosopher Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, (see Spirit of Laws) developed the notion of separate branches of government:

“In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.” #51

Moreover, Madison had the forethought of political factions and its debilitating consequences on government:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” #10

This situation as become common place in America, we seem to focus on differences and angles of grievance rather than common cause. Ambition is a powerful motivator in this cycle of cynicism and suspicion. Furthermore, Madison understood ambition clearly as presented in this prophetic statement:

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” #51

Unfortunately, a very Anti-Federalist society has taken Madison’s label The Federalist and made his work for a healthy federal government a mockery. The Federalist Society gives lip service to Madison, Jay and Hamilton. This “service” is displayed prominently on their web site:

“We have fostered a greater appreciation for the role of separation of powers; federalism; limited, constitutional government; and the rule of law in protecting individual freedom and traditional values. Overall, the Society's efforts are improving our present and future leaders' understanding of the principles underlying American law.”


Interestingly, this is the same empty rhetoric that Samuel Bryan, Federal farmer, Robert Yates, and John DeWitt sermonized in the Anti- Federalist papers, more than two hundred years ago.

For example:

Brutus:

“Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns. We have felt the feebleness of the ties by which these United-States are held together, and the want of sufficient energy in our present confederation, to manage, in some instances, our general concerns… If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed.”

Federal Farmer:

“A federal government of some sort is necessary. We have suffered the present to languish; and whether the confederation was capable or not originally of answering any valuable purposes, it is now but of little importance. I will pass by the men, and states, who have been particularly instrumental in preparing the way for a change, and, perhaps, for governments not very favourable to the people at large. A constitution is now presented which we may reject, or which we may accept, with or without amendments; and to which point we ought to direct our exertions, is the question.”

John DeWitt:

“America stands completely systemised without any of these misfortunes. -- On the contrary, from the first settlement of the country the necessity of civil associations, founded upon equality, consent, and proportionate justice have ever been universally acknowledged.”

It is important that we keep close watch on wolves in Federalist clothing. I understand that history is a thing of the past; however some political and cultural history must be understood fully. For if the Anti-Federalist of yesterday and the Federalist Society of today are acclaimed as champions of true federalism, freedom, traditional values and separation of powers then our nation will be lost.

“I appreciate the question…”

This simple and rhetorical statement is the mighty non-answer precursor of Press Sec. Scott McClellan. If you are unfortunate enough to receive this passive-aggressive statement, then you will be left bemused in an abyss of non-answers and historical references. You will instead receive the party line of “look at the record” and “in past conferences I have made my point clear” or my favorite “I don’t answer questions which are hypothetical or speculative”.

Scott McClellan, a Texas native, is not what I would call a straight shooter. He has the uncanny ability to dodge and weave the most aggressive questioning; hence his appointment to the position.

What I find truly amazing is his complete ability to not answer any questions, what so ever. For example, during his July 25th 2005 press conference he was asked a series of questions starting with the nomination of Judge Roberts. He slips into Orwellian doublespeak with statements like “speculation” and “see what requests are” (referring to Senate requests concerning Roberts legal decisions) and when pressed about Roberts conservative ties to the Federalist Society, his ready-made answer stumbles off his lips like Levi Garrett, “He (Roberts) has no memory of paying dues or joining the organization.” Sounds like the Ministry of Truth hand wrote that one.

Finally, and most importantly he sticks to the party line. He does not waver or bow. He is completely under the GOP spell. This is an incredible asset for the party in this troubled time, however to what cost? Does party loyalty and ignorant stubbornness outweigh the American people’s right to clear answers?

I commend Mr. McClellan’s stalwart talent; however he will have to answer questions about the nature of truth and deception eventually; when the microphone turns against him.

“Can you ever recover from a loss of trust?”

This was a question posed by Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA Officer from 1986-89, during a 2hr and 14 minute Hearing on Security Implications of Revealing Covert Agent's Identity on July 22nd 2005. This panel of former CIA and defense operatives was informative and lucid regarding the importance of CIA agents and their ability to generate human intelligence. Moreover, this type of intelligence was touted as most critical from the 9-11 commission hearings. In fact, this “actionable intelligence” was the cornerstone of the 9-11 commission. It is clear that agents in the field are the most important group of operatives in finding “actionable intelligence” which translates into national security policy and defense.

The distinguished panel has devoted over 50 years of combined service to the intelligence community in the form of case officers, field operatives and defense analysts. The panel included Col. Patrick Lang (ret.), Larry Johnson (CIA), Jim Marcinkowski (CIA), and David Mac Michael (CIA); each gave unambiguous and open information concerning the damage caused by the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The panel revealed first and foremost that it was a truly bi-partisan group which formed out of the CIA leak scandal. It was clear that the members of the panel initiated the hearings. They called upon members of congress to establish a hearing to discuss information which the public and elected officials should be made aware. This was not a democratic partisan witch hunt. To the contrary, the panel forced congress to act and finding that no Republicans would participate in the hearing, Democrats participated. However, listening to Tracey Schmitt RNC Press Secretary you would think differently:

“Democrats’ eagerness to hold faux hearings illustrates the partisan nature of their attacks. If Democrats had any confidence in the investigatory process, they would hold their fire and let the investigation proceed rather than rushing to judgment. Considering their own dubious history where sensitive intelligence is concerned, Democrats would be better served embracing restraint.”

Of course, hearings during independent investigations are not new. In fact, hearings were conducted during the Clinton and Nixon administrations. Thus, this type of public hearing is actually quite regular and proper. Moreover, in light of this crime it is important for the public to be aware of all relevant security viewpoints.

According to the panel of experts, trust is the casualty. In fact, trust became the theme of the hearings. Trust, in this instance, is the ability to develop strong ties between American operatives and foreign agents, thus creating actionable intelligence. Trust that the American government will keep its solemn promise to secure the secret identity of agents in the field. Trust is also critical for recruitment of men and women into the field of espionage.

Finally, the panel alluded to the negligence of the White House. In fact, the non-action of the Bush Administration sent a strong message to the intelligence community. Saying that they “do not care” about the agents in the field. Concurrently, creating a situation of “self-inflicted wounds” and “semantic parlor games” instead and action. Action, which could have sent a comprehensible statement, such as firing anyone involved in the leaks. For anyone privileged to view classified information must be held to higher ethical standards. However, action was not taken and repairing the trust lost between the political arm and the practicing arm of government may be lost for some time. Unfortunately, during this “war on terror” an abundance of time, like our trust in government, is notably absent.

Brother, can you spare a dime…

In this case a political dime. Bush, this summer, will find himself in a bit of a quandary down at the ranch. First, that darn prairie cloud raining down Rove and Libby pellets just when you want a clear afternoon to enjoy the setting sun. Second, that inescapable specter of FDR and the New Deal social security legislation which keeps Laura up all night, with its blasted chain rattling and down right ornery chants of “private accounts won’t work”!!

Third, tucked away neatly in his memory is the realization that the Downing Street memo has been forgotten, but for how long? Fourth, there is the looming question of … what is called again … Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia … O its gotta be one of those countries fighting against progress, democracy and freedom. Finally, no vacation away from the office is complete without calls from congressmen wondering if Roberts is the “right” choice for the vacancy.

With Bush’s political capital spent on the above issues, he needs the rest and relaxation of Crawford and the ranch which has become an oasis of solitude. Even though the temperature in Crawford feels like 107 it will be a cool breeze compared to the heated onslaught of questions, probes, investigations, second guessing and war causalities.

Mid-term elections of 2006: GOP boon or bust?

Even through the GOP has seen better days; this mid term election will give them a much needed boon. Yes, that is correct, even though the Iraq war is on going and CIA leaks are dominating corporate media, the GOP will rise once again and thwart the Demo’s chances in 2006. Simply put the Demo’s learned nothing from the 2004 election and have sat back without critically looking at altering their party structure.

The Democratic Party is varied and well rounded in belief and position; however it lacks the hierarchal organization needed to get the critical 10-15% swing vote. The GOP is masterful at “getting out the vote” through a lucid and simplistic power configuration of party leaders at every level. Redundancy is kept to a minimum and counties are systematically divided into quadrants and no door is left uncanvassed.

On the other hand, Demo’s organization is a reflection of their party: diverse, scattered, personalized and diffused. Redundancy is a cornerstone of the Demo’s party structure and the reliance on volunteers is suspect at best. Moreover, volunteers are no match for paid seasoned GOP county leaders. This will never beat a party which is well oiled, well organized and competent in “getting out the vote”. Hence, the mid-term elections of 2006 will be a much needed boost to GOP public image and recharge "the mandate" of a beleaguered administration.

Machiavelli Strikes Again

The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli

CHAPTER XXII : Concerning The Secretaries Of Princes

(Italics added)

There were none who knew Messer Antonio da Venafro (Rove) as the servant of Pandolfo Petrucci (W), Prince of Siena (United States), who would not consider (W) to be a very clever man in having (Rove) for his servant. Because there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless. Therefore, it follows necessarily that, if (W) was not in the first rank, he was in the second, for whenever one has judgment to know good or bad when it is said and done, although he himself may not have the initiative, yet he can recognize the good and the bad in his servant, and the one he can praise and the other correct; thus the servant cannot hope to deceive him, and is kept honest.

But to enable a prince to form an opinion of his servant there is one test which never falls; when you see the servant thinking more of his own interests than of yours, and seeking inwardly his own profit in everything, such a man will never make a good servant, nor will you ever be able to trust him; because he who has the state of another in his hands ought never to think of himself, but always of his prince, and never pay any attention to matters in which the prince is not concerned.

On the other to keep his servant honest the prince ought to study him, honouring him, enriching him, doing him kindnesses, sharing with him the honours and cares; and at the same time let him see that he cannot stand alone, so that many honours not make him desire more, many riches make him wish for more, and that many cares may make him dread changes. When, therefore, servants, and princes towards servants, are thus disposed, they can trust each other, but when it is otherwise, the end will always be disastrous for either one or the other.

It is important that W cut his losses and let Rove loose. I understand that the liberal masses will applaud and scream, however the issue will be over and rebuilding public image will be easier with Rove gone. Remember, eliminating him from the political spot- light is critical for the administration’s agenda in the following years. All we have to do is look back to Clinton and his legalese doublespeak, to see the detriment of prolonged media interest. If shrewdly done Rove can be blamed for almost all of the “perceived evils” of the administration. Additionally, Libby can also be placed in the line of fire or be kept in the background for future political problems. Most importantly, this must be done before Fitzpatrick concludes his investigation.

A=B and B=C then A=C

On July 17th at the National Governors Association executives and legislators from around the United States met. Issues of funding and federal assistance were tossed about; however the central issue was education. In particular, the recruitment of “qualified teachers and its relationship to successful student achievement.” The Teacher Recruitment Strategies headed by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas revealed that teacher recruitment was an issue which must be dealt within a timely manner. The obligatory statistics of teachers leaving the profession framed the debate.

After her remarks, Federal Deputy Education Secretary Raymond Simon entered with a 15 minute display of anecdotal evidence and “heartfelt” rhetoric. He surmised from his extensive “30 year career in education” (he did not reveal how long he actually taught school) that teachers want respect, support and a feeling of making a difference. Notably absent from this list was … money. Any observational survey which excludes money from issues plaguing poor teacher recruitment is false at best and propaganda at worst.

Sec. Simon went on to simplify the NCLB act into a mathematical formula. Where A=B and B=C then A=C. (This is a property of equality and inequalities. One must be cautious, however, when attempting to develop arguments using the transitive property in other settings.) As Sec. Simon reveals, through the magic of math, that high expectations for students will inevitably lead to high teacher recruitment. His conclusion is precise and clear, in fact it seems quite simple. However, the issue of higher teacher recruitment is not paramount to our teaching crisis in America. Paramount is recruitment of the most effective and intelligent teachers. The only way to achieve this outcome is through high pay for teachers. Not a pay increase but a comparable pay rate with other professions in America(lawyers, doctors and politicans).

It is odd that teachers are one of the most venerated professions in America and the most underpaid. This is an old song and dance; most Americans call it a shame and go about their business, however the issue of teacher recruitment is central to (not to sound grandiose) America’s future.

Historically, citizenry education was extremely high, in fact during de Tocqueville’s visit he stated that even the most common man knew his rights and understood the workings of American governmental structure, not to mention basic philosophy and theological works.

The question remains, if everyone agrees that teachers are underpaid then how do we increase pay without increasing the tax burden? One solution would be dramatic tax breaks for teachers. Everything from sales, property and federal taxes should be deduced, in some cases, and eliminated completely in others. It can be dubbed NTLB, No Teacher Left Behind.

Recruitment of teachers would vanish. Moreover, the most qualified and intelligent professionals, from any field would occupy the halls of our primary and secondary schools. With this torrent of persons into the teaching profession states can be particularly fastidious about who becomes and who remains a teacher. Expectations for teachers, not only students, will be elevated. Exceptional and meager teachers will be subjected to rigorous testing of subject matter and teaching methodology. This testing will be an annual event. With highly trained and motivated teachers in the classroom, then student achievement will rise. This is the true mathematical formula, A=B, B=C, then A=C, where A = decrease of tax burden, B = qualified teachers, C = rigorous testing for teachers and students alike.

Pass the Soma and give me a shot of unfettered fear

The Power to Divide in the July issue of the National Geographic, authored by Rick Weiss and Photos by Max Aguilera- Hellweg M.D.; echo the logic behind stem cell economics (see Justices and Economics Blog July 1st 2005).

To begin, the medical and moral debate, in which a "dream to launch a medical revolution in which ailing organs and tissues might be repaired – not with crude mechanical devices like insulin pumps and titanium joints but with living, homegrown replacements.” (6) However the dream also is seen as a “brave new world of “embryo farms” and “cloning mills”. (7) Thus the debate centers on self-preservation. The science community views the potential of stem cells as a medical approach to prolong life and develop new cures for disease – self preservation. In turn, the religious community examines this issue through the same lens – self-preservation. In fact, the religious community wants to preserve the embryo as a viable life form.

However, economics is not normative. Capitalism, in particular, is unrelenting and unabashed in its drive for profit. That is the nature of the beast, and a beast which suits our natural inclinations. Capitalism is the preeminent economic archetype for it enables choice without moral significance. We do temper capitalism with regulations and anti-trust legislation however with capitalism dominating the world it is quite difficult to close the preverbal Pandora’s Box of stem cell research.

Thus the question is posed: “Can the nation (USA) in which embryonic stem cells were discovered maintain its initial research lead?” (17) Or is the USA in danger of being “left behind.” (17) The answer is yes and no. Yes, for other nations are making it easier to perform research and develop new stem cell lines. No, because even though the current administration limits federal funding for research this does not restrain private funding. So it turns on the economic dime. Will scientists and investors keep the science in America or will money and scientists move to more economic-friendly locations?

Currently, many scientists are moving to other countries to further their research in order to develop new strains of stem cells. The U.K., Australia, China and South Korea are making strides, however the preeminent power in this field is Singapore. “Academic grants, corporate development money, laws that ban reproductive cloning but allow therapeutic cloning and a science-savvy workforce are among the lures attracting stem cell researchers and entrepreneurs.”(23) The biotechnology industry “already owns six stem cell lines made from conventional, noncloned embryos … now it is perfecting methods of turning those cells into the kind of pancreatic islet cells that diabetics need, as well as into heart muscle cells that could help heart attack patients.” (23) On the other hand, a majority of the research is still produced by Americans. “The work of U.S. researchers still fills the pages of the best scientific journals.” (26) Additionally, many states are leading the charge to help finance stem cell research. In particular California (Menlo Park) “has been the center of the embryonic stem cell revolution from the beginning.” (26-27)

Finally, the success of stem cells rests with the scientific community. Federal funding is lacking, however private funds help. Moreover, the race to achieve groundbreaking medical techniques and solutions to health problems is an arduous one. America does have the upper hand in scientific man power but is this enough? Do we need federal funding? Or more to the point is science part of our national interest and economic security?

Good Bye Yellow Brick Rove…

Laws for which Karl Rove should be place under the scrutiny of a grand jury:
(It is also important to note that he is completely innocent until proven guilty)

I. The Espionage Act of 1917: It prescribed a $10,000 fine and 20 years' imprisonment for interfering with the recruiting of troops or the disclosure of information dealing with national defense. Additional penalties were included for the refusal to perform military duty. Over the next few months around 900 went to prison under the Espionage Act.

II. U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having hadaccess to classified information that identifies covert agentWhoever, having or having had authorized access to classifiedinformation that identifies a covert agent, intentionally disclosesany information identifying such covert agent to any individual notauthorized to receive classified information, knowing that theinformation disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that theUnited States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covertagent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall befined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, orboth.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity ofcovert agents as result of having access to classifiedinformationWhoever, as a result of having authorized access to classifiedinformation, learns the identify of a covert agent andintentionally discloses any information identifying such covertagent to any individual not authorized to receive classifiedinformation, knowing that the information disclosed so identifiessuch covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmativemeasures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationshipto the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisonednot more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern ofactivities intended to identify and expose covert agentsWhoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended toidentify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe thatsuch activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligenceactivities of the United States, discloses any information thatidentifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual notauthorized to receive classified information, knowing that theinformation disclosed so identifies such individual and that theUnited States is taking affirmative measures to conceal suchindividual's classified intelligence relationship to the UnitedStates, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more thanthree years, or both.

(d) Imposition of consecutive sentencesA term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall beconsecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

Book Review: Political Man - S. M. Lipset

Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics, authored by Seymour Martin Lipset, is a groundbreaking work of timeless significance and relevance for sociologists and political scientists, regardless of concentration or field of study. In a sentence, Political Man uncovers, through comparative analysis and systematic correlations of documented statistics, the social underpinnings of democratic governments. Specifically, these “underpinnings” are depicted as: the development of social systems, consensual conflict, legitimacy, institutions, class separation (whether it is economic, educational or ideological) and political parties.

Social Systems:

“The main problem with which this book deals is democracy as a characteristic of social systems.”(1) Notice the order of events in this quote. Social systems are created and nurtured before the development of democratic rule and government. This may seem like a tautology, however, it reveals the natural inclination of man to develop social systems before governmental institutions and control are recognized. This is contrary to Thomas Hobbes, which define relationships, in the state of nature, as harsh and unrelenting for everyone is in a “war of all against all”. Lipset perceives man as social and cooperative which helps foster the development of representative and democratic forms of government. In fact, social systems are a prerequisite for democracies. I find this to be a salient point; man is by nature a social being. Assumed by Lipset that democracy is ‘the best game in town’ for it suits our very nature. However, this nature is not without conflict and disputes. In situ, Lipset finds that this innate affliction of conflict has a symbiotic relationship with democracy, in the form of consensual conflict.

Consensual Conflict:

“A stable democracy requires the manifestation of conflict or cleavage so that there will be struggle over ruling positions, challenges to parties in power and shifts of parties in office.”(2)I agree, democracy harnesses the natural inclination of conflict and channels these passions into a viable, workable and flexible authority. The conflict becomes consensual for each party or group has the right to lose and not be subjugated by the majority. This critical point in democracy enables consensual conflict to perpetuate itself; causing governmental inertia and solidifies power shifts. In other words, power shifts (e.g. elections) from Group X to Group Y may be seen as viable, for it refreshes the democratic process. Basic conflict is needed to sustain a democracy. This establishes a horizontal matrix in democratic countries. In which, each person is equally and rightfully permitted access to political power. Lipset underscores this notion by pointing out the reverse situation. “Political systems which deny new strata access to power except by revolution also inhibit the growth of legitimacy by introducing millennial hopes into the political arena.”(3)Blocked access to power will erode governmental inertia and subsequently crack the foundation of democracy. However, “inherent in all democratic systems is the constant threat that the group conflicts which are democracies life-blood may solidify to the point where they threaten to disintegrate the society.”(4) This statement has merit. Tension and conflict may boil over and retard the growth of a vibrant democracy, however revolution is sometimes a necessary avenue of political discourse. (e.g. Thomas Jefferson) Yet the nylon safety lines which help countries parachute out of revolution stem from legitimacy.

Legitimacy:

“Legitimacy involves the capacity of the systems to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society.”(5)The systems are social and this cohesion of ability or as Lipset reveals “capacity” can be considered the soul of democracy. Without the consciousness of legitimacy embedded within the social framework democracy is doomed. Moreover, social systems, consensual conflict and legitimacy create a ‘foundational tirade’ for democracy. Furthering this point, people throughout the world have built upon this tirade and the outcomes have become unique and intrinsically human, for all stand upon this ‘foundational tirade’(6) draped in natural inclinations and passions. Democracy provides the vehicle for discourse without abandoning our nature. A vehicle equipped with political parties and class separation, according to Lipset. Lipset conveys these universal truths through comparative analysis of countries throughout the globe and finds patterns of behavior in relation to governmental institutions.

Institutions: Political Parties and Social Classes

It is true that political parties have developed into institutions within democracies, however the same may not be said of social classes. Or can they? Lipset, a self-proclaimed former Marxist, finds that political parties and social classes are intimately related. For example, “lower-class way of life (economic indicators of class) produces individuals with rigid and intolerant approaches to politics.”(7) Additionally, “working- class life as a whole emphasizes the concrete and the immediate.”(8) The socio-economic position of individuals can accurately reflect their political connotations. The economic condition coupled with education will produce a crystal clear impression of the individual in political terms. In fact, education is the most significant indicator of political position and attitudes. What's more, each individual can be placed on a spectrum of political ideology. The weights, which balance the individual on a liner line of political ideology, are: education, socio-economic background and religion. “The democratic center is backed by the middle classes, especially small businessmen, white collar workers, and the anticlerical sections of the professional classes.”(9) To the left of center is, “Peronism, largely found in poorer underdeveloped countries, (which) appeal to the lower strata against the middle and upper classes.”(10) Finally, on the right are the conservative sectors of the country. Amazingly this situation can be found in democracies throughout the world. Finally, political parties represent a “democratic translation of the class struggle.”(11)

Conclusion:

This book was first written in the 1950’s and the data collected represents that time and global situation (e.g. Cold War politics), however the maxims of class struggle have manifested within political parties and are still quite relevant today. Furthermore, Lipset’s fully detailed account of American style democracy sheds light on a country, which is now fully involved in creating democracy throughout the world (e.g. Iraq). However, the essence of the book is man’s nature as a member of a social system and how democracy creates a reliable and functional apparatus for this system to operate.

In closing, Lipsets’ major contribution to political science and more specifically to American political science can be seen as the unearthing of trends within societies that adhere to democratic principles. One such trend must be mentioned to solidify this opinion. Lipset communicates a prominent distinction in American political spheres, the idea of economic liberalism and noneconomic liberalism and how different groups align themselves with this distinction. In fact, “noneconomic liberalism is positively associated with social status.”(12)Where a person of high social status would indicate ones inclination to support civil liberties, improvement of race relations and a liberal style of foreign policy. This correlation has developed into an axiom of political science in the United States. Moreover, we rely on his findings as starting points for other contemporary research. Consequently, Lipset’s Political Man is the litmus test for many political findings throughout academic research. In other words, Political Man is the Aristotelian Politics of our time.

1. Lipset, Seymour Martin. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1981. p. VIII. (Note: all page numbers will be from this listed text)
2. P. 1
3. p. 67
4. p. 70-71
5. p. 64
6. See Diagram 1
7. p. 89
8. p. 109-110
9. p. 129
10. p. 130
11. p. 230
12. p. 318

Diagram 1:

Social Systems ----> Consensual Conflict----> Legitimacy----> Social Systems

What is Iraqi democracy?

“In order to realize democracy the titular attribution of power and its actual exercise do not remain in the same hands.”
Giovanni Sartori

Democracy is more than elections. Democracy is more than the tyranny of the majority. In fact, a true and liberal democracy is “a political system in which individual and group liberties are well protected and in which there exist autonomous spheres of civil society and private life, insulated from state control.” (1) This is the end of a liberal democracy. Many scholars have laid out the means. I will approach this topic via three academic researchers: Francis Fukuyama, Robert Dahl and Robert Putnam.

The Fukuyama Four (2) :

The first level of democracy must begin with the psyche. The idea of democracy must be prevalent in all sectors of society. Evidence of democratic ideals in Iraq have been seen, “at the local levels, elections have been free and competitive, there is considerable freedom of the press, basic civil liberties are secure, and the bureaucracies are responsive to popular concerns and surprisingly accountable.” (3)This first stage is achieved when clear democratic ideas have been cemented in the minds of most Iraqis. The next level is the institutional make up of the country. This would include electoral systems, political parties and constitutional development. This level is critical for the next and most important level: civil society. Civil society is ‘local’ politics. Civil society is an outlet for communities and local groups to voice their collective opinion and have their needs recognized. Civil society is the conduit for democratic deepening. This deepening is the final level according to Fukuyama. This level “includes phenomena such as family structure, religion, moral values, ethnic consciousness, ‘civic-ness,’ and particularistic historical traditions.”(4) In Iraq this level will help fend off radical groups bent on revolution and disharmony. This level is more important than armies and suicide bombers. At this level dinner discussions can center on civil disobedience and peaceful demonstrations not plans for dynamite belts.

Dahl’s Democratic Process:

Dahl’s process involves two distinct stages. First, political order must be established. Reminiscent of Madison in Federalist No. 51, in which, “you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, force it to control itself.”(5)Moreover, “political order involves two stages a setting the agenda and deciding the outcome.”(6) In other words, government must have the power to set agendas and follow through with policies. This will create tangible outcomes for the citizens (i.e. public water projects, street cleaning and repair, health centers), and government can reap the benefits, in the form of legitimacy. In the next stage, order is redefined as democratic political order; in which, “the claims of each citizen as to the desirability of the policies to be adopted must be counted as valid.”(7)This stage is dominated by effective participation, voting and understanding. This stage is extremely complex. Citizens must have time and energy to view vast amounts of information. Furthermore, the government must not coerce decisions. Finally, the government must adhere to the vote verdict.

Putnam and Civil Society with Social Capital:

This last democratic reflection illustrates the most important aspect of democracy, where it becomes ‘the only game in town.’ This can occur if institutions are viable and facilitate virtuous democratic political behavior. Thus, when society has a specific demand, political interaction is generated. The government listens and acts on demands. This in turn creates policy and implementation by government actors. For, “a high-performance democratic institution must be responsive and effective; sensitive to the demands of its constituents and effective in using limited resources to address those demands.”(8) With effective institutions behavior can and often does change. This is a critical juncture where old habits die and new aspirations arise. If institutions are responsive then citizens will be more likely to use political means for discussion and conflict resolution. In the end, “citizens in a civic community regard the public domain as more than a battleground for pursuing personal interest.”(9) In Iraq this public domain must be decentralized and consensus building. Consequently, the most effective democratic structure for Iraq is a Federal Republican Democratic System.

1. Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: John’s Hopkins UP.3.

2. Fukuyama, Francis. “The Primacy of Culture.” Journal of Democracy. v. 6 n. 1 (1995).7.

3. Byman, Daniel. “Constructing a Democratic Iraq: Changes and Opportunities.” International Security. v. 28 (Summer 2003): 70.

4. Fukuyama, Francis. “The Primacy of Culture.” Journal of Democracy. v. 6 n. 1 (1995).8.

5. Webster, Mary (ed). 1999. The Federalist Papers: In Modern Language Indexed for Today’s Political Issues. Bellevue, Washington: Merril Press. 211.

6. Dahl, Robert. 1998. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale UP. 107.


7. Dahl, Robert. 1998. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale UP.108.


8. Putnam, Robert D.1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern
Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.9.

9. Putnam, Robert D.1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern
Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.88.

Justices and Economics

"This could have massive political implications for divisive issues like abortion, gay rights and medical research."

When President Bush nominates his conservative choice for the Supreme Court this weekend, their will be many screams from the left, center and right. Normative palpitations of women's rights and unborn children will chime like a bursting glockenspiel. Pundits and priests will be geared for a debate which would make any middle school forensics instructor grimace.

However, there is more to these nominations than poor language skills and frothy mouths. When the nomination is confirmed, an emerging economic decline is inevitable.

First, the issue of stem cell research will be closed and new experiments, patents and technology will be moved into other markets ( i.e. countries).
For even if you have a moral inclination to close a market; the demand does not vanish. China and Europe will shift into the forefront of bio- research and reap the benefits of new medical markets that Pfizer and Sanofi Aventis could only dream.

Second, the issue of abortion can finally be dealt with in a compassionate and conservative manner. Roe v. Wade will be overturned and abortion will be a thing of the past, like slavery, prostitution and drug abuse. However, there is a flip side to this arrangement. Abortions will continue; in fact abortions will only be available to the wealthy. Those with the economic means to leave the country and find medical assistance elsewhere, can you say: Bonjour! Economically challenged (11.3% of the U.S. population) groups will not be able to exercise this class segregated option and the state will pick up the tab; in the form of health services, adoption and schooling. Long live America moral socialism.

Finally, the issue of gay marriage will be extinguished. The federal court will circumvent the legislative process and end the horrific notion of two men or women sharing their lives with financial and legal assurances. Economically, gays will leave this country for other suitable forms of government which are more progressive. Thus they will be following John Locke's instruction, in The Second Treatise on Government (see Chapter 8-9) , and leave a government which is not representative. Consequently, a large group of hard working, diligent and civically active citizens will migrate north. And I thought the power of America was built on its diversity not its bigotry.