Letter to John Boehner

My grandma received a Republican political survey (she has Alzheimer's so she can't fill it out), so my mother gave it to me to play with. After completing the survey, I drew up the following letter, which I plan to send along with the survey. I may censor Shepherd Smith's colorful exclamation when I print it out.

----------------------------------------------------

Dear John Boehner and the RNC,

It is my personal understanding as an educated citizen of the United States that the Republican Party is not acting on behalf of the American people on any single issue.
Furthermore, I found the survey sent to me on behalf of that same party to be unfair and unbalanced, deliberately slandering and making unjustified swipes at the opposition. The term “socialism” used in question number 9 is used chiefly to terrify your constituents and is absolutely devoid of merit.

I do not condone the torture of enemies within our custody (mentioned in #11). We are the United States of America. As Shepherd Smith once proclaimed, “We do not fucking torture!” We are better than that, we have even survived the USSR. We cannot debase ourselves and become the very monsters which we are currently fighting. You believe Barack Obama is straying from the Constitution, while at the same time you argue for waterboarding and Christian theocratic governance, particularly against homosexuals. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states—and I quote—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof.” This, of course, includes using Christian ideology to justify discriminatory policies towards homosexuals, as well as Creationism (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, 2005), and Christian historical revisionism in the Texas public schools.

Let us move on to the issue of national security. If it is indeed true that we must be “relentless in our efforts to protect Americans from terrorist attack”—and no one is arguing that we shouldn’t be—then it would follow that the Republican Party would equally support cleaner energy. Oil is controlled by regimes that are supportive of the militias that wish to do us harm. Furthermore, oil is controlled by regimes that do not share our values of democracy and individual freedoms, particularly of expression. These governments do not represent the will of their peoples, and are without exception despotisms. A particular offender is Saudi Arabia, with whom, against our stated interests, we have a healthy relationship while their women are oppressed under Wahhabi ideology (the fundamentalist sect of Islam). On its face, the Saudi government is trying to get its imams to tame the rhetoric, but still government charity money finds its way into the bank accounts of Wahhabi schools and the terrorist militias we encounter in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regimes reliant upon petroleum do not have to tax their people. Tom Friedman laid out the dynamic quite nicely in his Hot, Flat, & Crowded: He said that while our motto was “No taxation without representation!” the motto of oil states is “No taxation, so no representation, either.”1 I’d rather pay taxes to have a fire department, a police department, a decent school district, and have a say in public policy than not pay taxes and have none of those things. And how do you expect to pay for two large military campaigns, when our Defense Department had to ship out soldiers without sufficient equipment? Saving money by expending soldiers is not a good policy.

Question # 20 is particularly uncomfortable “because there is no room for compromise.” Scott Roeder didn’t compromise, did he, when he shot Dr George Tiller last year. Neither does the KKK when they launch campaigns in the southern Midwest against Mexicans. Proposition 8 in California wasn’t a compromise, either, what with all of the money pumped in from Utah. No, George W Bush didn’t compromise when he signed the PATRIOT Act and Alberto Gonzales helped him slip through legal standards of interrogation. How can we expect to get anything done if Israel and Palestine do not compromise on peace agreements? The only way the Jews will have a home is if both sides can leave each other well enough alone. Building settlements in the West Bank will only exacerbate the situation. What do you want with Social Security? It’s already going bankrupt, what more could you want? Are tax cuts for the wealthy really going to help our economy? Our government has the means and the resources to alleviate economic hardship at least a little, and create markets for cleaner energy, enticing venture capitalists and corporate R & D divisions to build and deploy wind turbines and solar panels to the scale we need them for. If our government does not take this step, when will our energy companies decide to take the initiative? They’ve had 8 years to take the initiative, and all our industries have been able to produce are even bigger cars that consume more oil and give more money to our enemies abroad—even as the fighting was most intense.

Also of note, though I must examine it separately, is the Republican position on the judicial system. The term “Activist Judge” is a farce. I mentioned above the Dover Area School District case in 2005. Before the trial, Christian conservative pundits praised Judge John Jones III for believing almost exactly like them, being fairly confident that Creationism would be seen in a more scientific light. However, Judge Jones III, like all judges, is bound by the US Constitution and must rule in accordance with it. The Creationist movement has been exposed as an inherently religious phenomenon, and it was decided that it was a violation of the First Amendment to include it in a science curriculum. A court case such as that one, as well as the one that will come in Texas over the history curriculum, arises because someone—and that person can be anyone—recognizes a violation of our laws. These came about by injecting political ideology (which often carries with it deliberate misinformation) into a public school. The judge then has a task of evaluating fairly the arguments and appropriateness of the actions taken by both sides and rules whether or not they do in fact adhere to or violate US law as it is written. This is true in all cases of this type, often involving religious matters in public policy, and as a refresher, here is, once again, the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof.”

The only way for the Republicans to earn some respect now is if they begin to make responsible choices. And that means shutting down Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Progressivism is not a cancer on this country, and few people—if any at all—are serious socialists. Would a major political party be acting responsibly if it attempted to bring back Joseph McCarthy’s HUAC? Is that something that a political party in the United States of America—where people have the right to express themselves and assemble freely even in the face of opposition—feels it should do? Sir, I suggest you rethink how your party and your constituents conduct themselves if you wish to regain power. No major Democrat has ever publicly stated that conservatism is a cancer on its face, nor has any major Democrat ever brought a gun to a campaign rally, or openly supported assassinating any opposing political leader (Solomon Forell). A political party in such a state has no place in government. In the words of Michael Steele, RNC chairman, “We don’t do policy.” Even if people disagree with the Democrats on healthcare, I’m sure they are more well-liked than Glenn Beck.

1) Friedman, Tom. Hot, Flat, & Crowded. ©Picador 2007 Revised 2009. New York. p. 135

The Dysfunction of the Legislature

For quite a while, people have been complaining about Congress not doing what we view as what its supposed to be doing, specifically over the long-stalled fight over health reform.

Everyone sees this problem, from my dad (who is center-right), to myself (left). However, few people are able to offer a viable solution to this problem. They either offer a very short-term solution, or one in which our rights are sacrificed in an extreme fashion (ie violence).

We can pick out some juicy examples from both sides, from Byrd, who is older than the tree in my front yard, to the Republican senators who collaborated with Jack Abramoff (our collective memory is so comfortably short!). In 2006, we voted out who we saw as the worst offenders, but of course the incoming class proceeded to only gorge themselves on the work of their predecessors. By now a lot of us see the futility of our election system.

The problem is sometimes people descend into fantasies of revolution and bloodshed, often for rhetorical effect, but still we cannot let a call to violence linger in the minds of our gullible public*, lest we lose everything.

My solution is an Executive Order that imposes term limits of three two year terms, a maximum total of six years and declares public all financial gifts given to legislators by corporate and other private interests and posts this information on legislators' web pages. I would start there, but if anyone else has anything to add, I'd be happy to modify it.

Why should this come from the Executive? Because no legislator is stupid enough to put a stop to the good life. Come to think of it, I'm not sure the Executive would be so keen to do it either. He might lose political leverage. The Judiciary would have to do it.

The somewhat naive sentiment that the Founding Fathers supposedly had about being a legislator (that it was a boring job, people would want to return to normal life after their "turn") is costing us quite a lot. It turned out that these people could write the best rules for themselves--the best healthcare, amass a small fortune from financial gifts, and fail to follow their own regulations.

This problem isn't just going to hurt us now--it will continue to hurt us in the future, and will eventually cripple us. Yes, I want health reform, but there are too many other things this country needs to pass in order to prosper, and the partisanship on both sides is destroying our democracy.

We have one country. We could have more countries, but I'm sure too many citizens love America as it is to just split it up. Only in the last few decades have we had to contend with serious legitimacy problems when agendas on the right particularly during W. Bush tenure eroded freedoms. I'm not just talking about the PATRIOT Act, but also DOMA and the threat posed to abortion and euthanasia (remember Terri Schaivo? Hows that for an example of a Republican congressional disaster?).

The Republicans are currently claiming that Obama is a radical Socialist/Communist/Nazi/M

uslim and all other nonsensical and dangerous terms. Membership in far-right militias and weapons purchases are increasing as they had in the 90s. Now Republican senators are crying "Obama's gonna shove this bill down the throats of the American people!" Even if you think the bill was somehow done poorly, you know that we need some form of health reform.

Do you know why, though, the Democrats don't particularly believe that the Republicans are sincere when they ask to "start over"? "Death panels and Socialism!" Simple as that. The Republican representatives spent the beginning of the process--when they could have helped to ensure that the bill was done correctly--vilifying the Democrats and the Obama administration to their constituents, so when it came time to actually pass the bill, they say "Oh no! We didnt get any input! They didnt ask for our opinions!", even though everyone knows they were fooling around instead. Here's an illustration: A student in class spends the entire 5 months doodling instead of taking notes. When the final exam comes around, the students claim that they didnt get the notes and couldnt study for the exam. Too bad.

The problem is now the question of a "bad bill." I can't believe the Republicans, but we also have "Blue Dog Democrats" and Good Ole' Joe Lieberman. What do they want? Is there actually something bad about the healthcare bill, or is the opposition just bullshitting? I really can't tell. Kurt came over last night, and he could not give us a very good example of a problem with the bill. "Backroom deals!" Well, you do have to negotiate and see what is actually possible for pharmaceutical companies and doctors to do, so I don't immediately fault them. I'd need more evidence to be convinced of any wrongdoing.

I admit that I have spent much of this essay vilifying Republicans, and there are a few things Democrats as yet are not willing to do. For example, no one really wants to touch environmental reform, and Obama has not yet put enough funding into R & D for cleaner energy.

To you small government people, the businesses upon which you would depend are not willing to take the risk to get us what we need: The government has the means and the resources to at least indicate a market for cleaner energy, and the businesses, armed with a price point ("We need to make a solar panel/wind turbine/hydroelectric plant that costs under $2000/$5,000/$5 mil") will follow. We also need to neuter the influence of coal and petroleum, and only the government can do that. The government, however, should not have to impose greater efficiency standards. It is sad that we have stagnated for so long, as businesses have once thrived by themselves on innovation. Do we need to tell AMD and Intel to make faster and more energy-efficient processors? No. So why do we need to tell GM and Ford to make more energy-efficient vehicles? I dont think Toyota was pushed to make the Prius.

I said "We also need to neuter the influence of coal and petroleum, and only the government can do that." I didn't say they will. There are things our government needs to do that it just won't, and it will hurt us in the long run. For example, we do NEED to get off of petroleum. I don't care if you believe in climate change or not: By using gasoline, we are supporting governments we do not agree with. If we want Iran to halt construction of nuclear materials, we should stop buying their oil. If we don't want the Saudi government to fund terrorism, we stop buying their oil. Same for everywhere else. In those countries, oil deposits are nationalized.

Funny thing about oil regimes, by the way. Page 135 of Tom Friedman's Hot Flat & Crowded: "The way I like to put it is: The motto of the American Revolution was 'No taxation without Representation!' The motto of the petrolist authoritarian state is 'No taxation, so no representation either.' Oil-backed regimes that do not have to tax their people for revenue--because they can just drill an oil well and sell the oil abroad--do not have to listen to their people or represent their wishes." Maybe you think that the way we are taxed is unfair, but I'd rather be taxed and have a say than to not be taxed and have no say. I think of the problem not unlike Socrates did in The Crito: Socrates has been imprisoned after The Apology and is about to be executed the next morning, and Crito tries to convince Socrates that he should escape because the courts were clearly wrong. Socrates replies that by living in Athens, he has entered into a kind of contract that he agrees with the laws of the state. I don't agree entirely with this, as there certainly are Unjust Laws, but I do see this dynamic, and I also see that this dynamic exists in relation to taxes, as demonstrated in Tom Friedman's comparison. How much or how little we should be taxed remains to be examined, however (but lets not fly planes into buildings to bring it up, or call the President a n----- over it).

Our government (particularly the legislature), so long as these influences exist, and so long as the prospect of reelection exists (the two kind of go hand-in-hand), probably will not see the problem in favor of the people they claim to represent. We need to solve this problem complying with two conditions: 1) it must be non-violent and democratic, and 2) the solution must be permanent (replacing old legislators does not fix the problem).

*Gullible public: Bill Maher made a good case that the American people are not very intelligent, and so long with the Tea Partiers, Sarah Palin's popularity, Christian revisionism/creationism, and the vitriol against Obama, I'd say he's unfortunately right.

The Problem of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

I've been thinking about the case of the 9/11 mastermind for a few weeks now, and though I've staked out some of my positions in an earlier essay, I haven't given much substantial justification for them.

When I argued with my friend's mom over the topic, I only quietly cited the Constitution--which is a sufficient reason enough for us to be civil towards Mr Mohammed--but there is a deeper and better rationale behind this treatment.

Some people just want to get it over with, sometimes feeling that whatever we do to him--including possible Geneva Convention violations--would be justified because of how evil his actions were. But the truth is, that isn't America. It's as if he were the biggest insect on the planet, and we have trapped him and are preparing simply to get rid of him.

But wait a minute. He's the 9/11 mastermind. We can't just throw him away! We have an opportunity to juxtapose the very best of America against the horrors of Wahhabi ideology. No, this won't sway Mr Mohammed's faithful militias, but it may turn the tide of popular opinion to our favor where we need it most.

Let the man speak. Loudly. Let him call fire and brimstone from the skies. Let him derail us as decadents and infidels. By giving him the opportunity to voice his opinion we are already taking the higher moral ground. The very point is that they do not allow dissenters to speak where he comes from. So let us show him what it is he is fighting against. We can only win.

It isn't just a formality, it isn't simply due process. We have an opportunity to show a part of the world that often only sees Abu Ghraib our better half. Maybe they can see what others see in us.

How would I try KSM? I want a show. I want a loud conflict of ideologies. I want the trial to be seen across the globe, and especially broadcast on al-Jazeera. My only criticism of a military tribunal is that I don't think it could be as public as we need it to be.

The only question that remains is how we will punish him. I've given a lot of thought to this question, and I have come to the conclusion that we should not give him the death penalty. KSM's only goal in life was to end it and take as many people with him as possible for an ultimate reward. Let's deny him that reward. I feel that if we kill him in expedience, he would win. No, I don't believe in an afterlife or any gods, but I would still playing his game insofar as to prevent him from finding peace with himself.

If we aren't going to kill him, what should we do? Here's where I will admit I get a little nasty. Solitary confinement for the maximum possible allowance: KSM should spend as much time completely alone as possible according to the appropriate guidelines. He should be left alone as much as possible--not even harassment. And parole? I will just say that KSM should be up for parole about the same time as when we terraform Mars.