How Much Is Too Much?

Society always exists in a tug-of-war between security and liberty. The line shifts from nation to nation, society to society, and time to time.

In the United States, we have always drawn that line much closer to liberty than to security. We have always considered it more important to be free than to be safe.

Since September 11, 2001, however, that line seems to have been moving closer and closer to security and farther and farther away from liberty. I could multiply examples, but allow me to use just one: the airport.

Since the terrorist crimes of September 11, 2001, Americans have been willing to submit to ever greater intrustions into their liberty in order to increase their security. We have submitted, sheep-like, to standing in lines, to walking through machines, to emptying our pockets, to taking off our shoes (and, in my case, sometimes even my shirt), to the sullen stares of government agents eyeing us suspiciously and ordering us around.

I understand the fear. I understand the yearning to be able to simply fly from one place to the other, to visit family, or take a vacation, or conduct business, without the worry that you will die in a fiery explosion at 30,000 feet.

But, I wonder two things. First, does it really make us safer, or does it just make us feel safer?

We struggle to make sure no one gets a bomb on a plane. After all, the Locherbie terrorists used a bomb on the Pan Am flight they blew up. But, the September 11th hijackers didn't use a bomb. They overpowered the crews of their planes with box cutters. So, we try to keep bombs and box cutters off the planes, but they sneak them on in their sneakers. So, we make everyone take off their shoes and walk bare-foot through the metal detectors while some government agent examines our shoes on an x-ray machine. And so someone puts the bomb, not in his shoes, but in his underpants. They make bombs out of liquids, so they won't let us take liquids on the plane. So, they make the bomb out of powder. Now we can't take powder on the plane. But, there are people trained to kill with their bare hands? What if one of them kills a stewardess and overpowers the flight crew? Will we consent to being shackled to our seats during the flight?

And, why just planes? There are lots of trains or theaters or malls where a bomb that was made out of metal that never had to go through any security at all could kill at least as many people as are on your average jet liner. What will we do when a terrorist blows himself up with a bomb in his underwear in a movie theater? Submit to a strip search so we can watch a movie?

Do we really think we can keep ahead of large groups of people who are willing to die in order to kill us?

I don't know if it really makes us safer. I'll leave that question to be debated by the experts. But, I wonder.

The second thing I wonder about is, when is enough enough? When is it too much?

I hear that air lines either have decided to impose or have actually imposed a rule that you can't have anything on your lap or go to the air plane's rest room during the last hour of a flight.

Really? Really! I can't read my book during the last hour of my flight? If I have to go to the bathroom during the last hour of my flight, I just have to sit in my seat and wet my pants? Really?!

I know this: I already avoid flying whenever I possibly can, because I detest submitting to the humiliating treatment one must undergo to get on an air plane. I'm toying with the fantasy of defying authority by holding my paper back copy of 1984 right up next to my crotch during the last hour of the next flight I can't avoid and daring the stewardess to take it away from me.

I know how to make air flight perfectly safe. You do, too. Every passenger must submit to a strip search, complete with body cavity examinations, and then fly naked chained hand and foot to their seats. Our physical safety, at least, would be secured. I don't think I'm going to agree to that, though. How about you?

So, taking a deep breath and trying to think reasonably, what ever happened to the idea of allowing American citizens to submit to thorough background checks which, if passed, would entitle the citizen to a security card that would allow them to pass through airport security with a minimum of screening? I'm pretty sure, if the FBI were to check me out as carefully as they possibly could, they'd decide that I'm really not going to blow up a plane.

So, what ever happened to that idea?

It Would Cost Money to Save Lives, So, We Shouldn't Do It

Things that make you go, "Huh?"

The Environmental Protection Agency has made a finding that there is "compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health." Austin American-Statesman, December 8, 2009, Kindle Version.

The finding opens the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

Now, I think this is a no-brainer. It seems to me obvious that there is "compelling scientific evidence." However, clearly, reasonable, good-hearted, intelligent people could disagree on the point, and many do.

That disagreement, however, is different from the response of U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Did they disagree with the conclusion that there was "compelling scientific evidence" that Americans' health was being hurt by manmade greenhouse gases? No. That was not their response. Their response was - it's going to cost money to reduce greenhouse gases, therefore we shouldn't do it, the health of Americans be damned.

Actually, the precise words were, "'It will choke off growth by addding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,' said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ... ."

Um. Okay. So do fire codes. If we didn't have to build buildings with two exits so people could escape in case of fire, they'd be cheaper. Explain that to the people who were burned to death in the Lame Horse nightclub fire in Russia. "Hey! It's okay you were roasted! The building was cheaper! Get it?"

So do other kinds of health rules for buildings. If we could use asbestos insulation in buildings, they'd be cheaper. Everyone would get asbestosis, but the buildings would be cheaper, don't you know?

Or electrical codes. Or plumbing codes. Or lighting codes. Or elevator safety codes. Gee, buildings would be so much cheaper if we just didn't have all these pesky codes protecting people, of all things. I mean, what do people matter when you're talking construction costs? First things first, you know?

Fine, argue with me about whether the world needs saving from global warming. I don't think there's much to argue about there, but at least we can have a principled argument. But, when you start in that it will cost too much to save the world, I'm getting off your train. I'm not going there.

And, the fact that, for some reason, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks there are Americans who will agree - it just costs too much to save humanity - is deeply troubling.

The Politics of Pounding

Alexander Hamilton, Revolutionary War hero, one of the drafters of the U.S. Contstitution, one of the authors of The Federalist Papers, first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, trusted advisor to President George Washington, Federalist, and constant target of Jeffersonian Republicans' attacks, wrote:

"[N]o character, however upright, is a match for constantly reiterated attacks, however false."

It was a lesson hard-learned by Secretary Hamilton, and one we would do well to consider today.

A Letter to Leonard Pitts

On July 6, 2009, Leonard Pitts, a columnist with the Miami Herald whose work appears regularly in the Austin American-Statesman, wrote an article about Governor Mark Sanford. It moved me to write him this e-mailed letter to him on the same day:

"Dear Mr. Pitts,

"I must start by saying how much I enjoy your work. I look forward to seeing your commentary in my local paper, the Austin American-Statesman, and you are possibly the only commentator whose work I always read when I see it.

"I have to admit, this is partly because I so often agree with you, but I like to think it is also because you are thoughtful, logical, and a good writer.

"I put your commentary on Governor Sanford's infidelity in the same category: thoughtful, logical, and well-written.

"Yes [sic], I was jarred by part of it. So jarred that I felt ocmpelled [sic] to write to you. I know how I feel about what you wrote - that jarring part - but I am as yet unsure what I think about it. So, I'm not saying you should not have written it. I am saying it really jarrred me and I'm very troubled.

"'Next time some politician goes before the cameras with his figurative pants down around his metaphoric ankles and says "I made a mistake," let's form a mob and drag him from the podium. You bring the lanterns, I'll bring the pitchforks.'

"I would have thought you might be more sensitive to the images that get conjured up by the words 'mob,' and 'lanterns and pitchforks,' than the average commentator. For me, those words conjure up some pretty terrible images.

"It is not that I don't think that sort of treatment is exactly what the hypocrites deserve, and I think their behavior says much more about their character and fitness to serve than you managed to mention. I just don't think mobs, lanterns, and pitchforks are the right response.

"Perhaps you will respond that you didn't mean those words literally. To that, I respond that I have heard that said to excuse the crowds at the John McCain rallies calling for the death of Barack Obama. 'We didn't mean to literally kill him.' And to excuse the incendiary rhetoric used by abortion opponents in describing what they thought ought to be done to those who provide reproductive services to women. 'Oh, we didn't mean to literally kill them or burn their clinics.'

"Yet, those words, whether meant literally or not, have an effect. Even if they don't produce the literal result called for, they have an effect on the way people think about each other. To have someone of your credibily and stature say that we ought to form mobs and drag politicians from the podium gives people license to think that's just what we ought to do to another human being. If not that one, then someone else.

"I think the Republicans and conservatives of this nation are consumate hypocrites. Governor Sanford could be exhibit A in the trial of Republicans and conservaties on the vile charge of gross hypocrisy.

"But, lest we be hypocrites ourselves, then we must accept the same standards of restraint on our language that we ask them to accept on theirs. If incendiary language directed against those we support is wrong, then incendiary language directed against those we oppose is just as wrong.

"So, I'm feeling bad - jarred - by your language, and especially so because it came from you, for whom I have such incredible respect. I don't know what I think about it yet. I haven't had time to sort that out, but I feel jarred.

"And, I cannot send this without adding that I still have incredible respect for you. I just feel - maybe - you made a mistake.

"Sincerely,James W. Collins"

I received this response from Mr. Pitts' e-mail address:

"Thanks for your thoughtful letter; I'm replying only because Mr. Pitts will be away for two weeks and I'm afraid he will be overwhelmed trying to get caught up, but I will be sure he sees your email, even if he doesn't have time to respond.

"Judi Smith
"Assistant to Leonard Pitts, Jr."

Mr. Pitts has never responded to my letter personally. If he has responded in his column, I missed it. I'm not sure if Ms. Smith's response was a canned response, but it could have been. I cannot even be sure if Ms. Smith actually exists.

And now we have the opponents of universal health care in America shouting down our elected representatives at their meetings on the topic, screaming at other Americans who are trying to express their opinions in support of universal health care, bringing weapons to the meetings, and even getting into physical conflicts with others at the meetings. We have elected representatives in the United States of America who feel the need to be escorted by armed police from thier own meetings because the crowd seems so close to violence.

And so it begins, Mr. Pitts. And so it begins.

What's in It for Me?

There is a television commercial currently airing advertising "Repower America."

In the commercial, a man says he's been reading about Washington these days, "And, I just gotta ask, what's in it for me?"

He then proceeds to explain what he wants for his children. his wife, and himself.

I just gotta ask, why do we "just gotta ask, what's in it for me?" When do we begin asking, "What's good for America?"

As long as our first question about public policy continues to be self-interested, we are probably not going to continue to succeed at self-governance.

As an aside, I found it an interesting commentary that some sophisticated advertising executive somewhere thought it would be an effective way to "sell" public policy to focus on self-interest to the exclusion of the common good.

Thinking Clearly about Marriage

Once again, I owe a debt of gratitude to George Bush for helping me clarify my thinking about an issue.

On January 20, 2004, President Bush delivered his fourth State of the Union address to Congress. In that speech, he said, "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

So, I went and looked up what "sanctity" meant.

According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, "sanctity" means "the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly."

Holy. Sacred. Saintly. Those are religious terms. Rightly so. Marriage is holy and sacred, and to live a life that produces a strong marriage is about as close to saintly as most humans are ever going to get.

These terms properly apply to marriage because marriage is, historically, at least, a religious ceremony and a state of existence which that ceremony creates. That our thinking about has weighed it with a whole set of secular baggage is beside the point. It is fundamentally religious.

There was a time when virtually no government on earth believed that it was or should be separate from the religion of the land it governed. Historically, the record is one of intermixing of religion and government, sometimes so inextricably that it became impossible to distinguish one from the other.

But, never, until the creation of the United States, did any government adopt the concept that it ought to be completely neutral with regard to religion, that it ought to keep its grubby little secular hands of things that were holy, sacred, and saintly, and leave that to the choice of individuals who either thought they were, thought they wanted to be, or wanted others to believe that they were holy, sacred, and saintly.

Tell me. What business does a government that is supposed to be separated from all religion have defending the holiness, sacredness, or saintliness of anything?

Besides being holy, sacred, and saintly, marriage as a ceremony is one of the sacraments of the church, like baptism, communion, and last rites. What would we think if one of our presidents announced that our nation must defend the sanctity of baptism? Hopefully, that would at least make us pause and consider that announcement carefully and critically.

Part of the problem, but just part, is that there are many different kinds of marriages, even among religions. The Christian religion, now, sanctions only marriage between one man and one woman. However, careful students of the Bible will note that that was not always the case. It is also true of Judaism, but hasn't always been. Islam countenances marriage between one man and four women, and then allows the man to have concubines in addition to his four wives. Old Mormonism (and some versions of modern Mormonism) didn't allow for concubines, but neither did it limit a man to marrying just four wives. The more the "marrier," apparently.

Once the concept of marriage began to escape the confines of religion, it took on an even greater variety of meanings. There has been at least one culture that allowed one woman to marry several men, though, of course, men have been careful not to let that idea spread. Divorce, once the province of the Church, escaped to become the province of the law, and in so doing, became widespread. Some people decided they wanted unions that involved several men and several women. Others have decided that, unlike the almost universal teaching of religions, marriage ought to be a co-equal partnership, rather than one ruled by the husband, to whom the wife was supposed to be obedient.

Within religion and without, marriage has already metamorphosed into an almost unlimited variety of concepts.

Now, homosexuals want to craft a new definition of marriage - two men or two women. And our president responds by saying that our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. Um ... why now?

The problem is that the government, our government, has no business defending the holiness, the sacredness, or the saintliness of any religious ceremony or sacrament. We got ourselves way off track when we forgot that. That is the job of each individual religion, each individual Church or church, each individual religionist.

We got way off track when we forgot that.

Imagine a constitutional amendment defining baptism.

This does not mean that the family unit it unimportant to us as a national people, and, therefore, to the government that represents our will. There are very clearly aspects of the family unit that serve the society at large in completely secular ways and deserve our collective, even coercive, support.

However, we must think very clearly what these are. We must separate in our thinking those aspects of the familial relationship that serve some religiously-neutral public purpose from those that may be very important, but serve some purpose that is not fundamentally secular.

For example, providing a stable, secure environment in which children can be reared is probably a secular benefit which almost all Americans can agree is beneficial to the common weal. Controlling who someone has sex with and how they have that sex is probably something that most Americans would not consider really the government's business. If it is, then let's get those laws against adultery back on the books and start enforcing them. If I had to bet, I'd bet the grocery money that philandering opposite sex partner are a lot more damaging to the familial relationship than faithful same sex partners.

Once we decide what aspects of a familial relationship are appropriate for government support, and can define those in religiously neutral ways, then we ought to give a legal name to a relationship that incorporates those aspects. Call it "contractual fidelity," or "a family arrangement," or "bluteosis," or ... even ... "civil union."

Codify that relationship. Let judges, or some other government official, award that label and the obligations and rights that go with it, and only government officials. Let only government officials agree that someone is relieved of that label and its obligations. Then, provide whatever government support for those living in that governmentally sanctioned relationship that we deem appropriate.

If someone wants to get married, let them go to the church, which is in the business of administering sacraments, not to the government. If someone wants government support because they are in a certain kind of relationship, let the government determine if their relationship meets the governmentally-approved standard, not the church.

If a church wants to let two people of the same sex participate in one of its sacraments, or not, that's really not the government's business, is it? If the goverment wants to provide material support to two people who are providing a stable, secure environment for the rearing of children, that's really not the church's business, is it?

After all, who would suggest that the government can't approve a foster home for a child unless some church has approved it first?

We got confused. George Bush helped me get my thinking straight. Thank you, Mr. President.

Haggling Over Price

There is an old story about an English gentleman who is having dinner with a woman and he asks her, "Madame, would you sleep with me for a thousand pounds?" She responds that, yes, she thinks she would. Then he asks, "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?" To this, she responds with outrage. "Sir, what do you think I am?"

"Madame, we have already established that. Now were are merely haggling over price."

When President Obama says, as he did in his news conference on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, that he is "absolutely convinced" that he made the right decision when he banned waterboarding, "[n]ot because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees ... but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are," Austin American-Statesman, Thursday, April 30, 2009 [emphasis added], he is just haggling over his price.

When the President is against torture, not because it is wrong, but because we could have gotten the information in other ways, we have established what he is. Now we are merely talking about his price.

It leaves hanging in the air, like a poisonous mist, this question: Mr. President, what if we couldn't get the information in other ways? Would you support torture then?

I believe the evidence is ovewhelming that torture does not yield reliable information. I believe that there are clearly quicker, more efficient, and more reliable ways to get information from an individual than to torture them. I believe that when we torture, it deprives us of the moral ability to protest when others do, and to protest when our soldiers and citizens are tortured by others. I believe that torture is a crime under both United States and international law.

But, everytime we let the discussion of torture turn on or even turn to any of those arguments, we have established what we are, and we are merely haggling over our price.

Torture is wrong. We shouldn't do it because it is wrong to do it. Our position is not based on practical considerations, like whether we can get the information some other way, or, at least, it shouldn't be. Our position must be based on this simple reality: Americans don't torture people because it is wrong. Otherwise, we're just haggling over our price. We are not better than anyone else in the world, we are just more expensive.

If global climate change is a fight for our very existence, the fight over torture is a fight for our very souls.

Unfortunately, this moral ambivalence is not new with Barack Obama. Like Patton said of Rommel in the movie, "I read your book!"

In President Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," he discusses his opposition to the Iraq war. He mentions that he was asked to speak at an anti-war rally in October of 2002, and that there were those who advised him that doing so would not be a wise political choice. He admits that "... on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried."

Why? Was it because he had not worked through the moral issues that surround and beset the idea of American pre-emptive war - the notion that those who profess to live in the "home of the brave" would attack someone who hadn't attacked them, because they were afraid?

No, it wasn't that at all. It was because he "sensed ... that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent ... ." So, Mr. President, if you'd been more convinced, if you had a different "sense" of how imminent the threat was, would you have reached a different conclusion about attacking someone who hadn't attacked us? Are we just haggling over your price?

I want to make it clear: I was an Obama supporter. I voted for him. That he is head and shoulders a better man, and better for America, than our last president could not be clearer. But, I am becoming more and more convinced that the difference is quantitative, not qualitative.

I raised this issue, over the very passage from his book that I've quoted, during the campaign. I asked other of my friends if they weren't concerned that he didn't take a more principled stand on the Iraq war, that his stand wasn't against the wrongness of it, but against the evidence for it. So, this is not new with me. I had just hoped that I was wrong, that I was misreading his message, his carefully chosen words when describing why he was opposed to the Iraq war. I still hope I'm wrong, but I am still waiting for something he does or says to prove me wrong, or at least not prove me right, over and over again.

In his book, "The Audacity of Hope," he discusses many different issues of the day, from economic positions to abortion to the war in Iraq to lots of other things. I've tried to read it carefully, and I think it is fair to say that, with every issue, his position is: Some people believe A. Others believe B. I happen to believe A, but I can see both sides, and there are good-hearted, honest, intelligent people on both sides.

I am still waiting for one issue, any issue, on which he says: I believe A, and there really aren't two sides to this issue. A is right, B is wrong, and those who believe B are just wrong.

I think pre-emptive war is such an issue. Apparently, he doesn't. I think torturing captives is such an issue. Apparently, he doesn't. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I am so thick-headed that I just cannot see that those who think we ought to attack a nation that hasn't attacked us just might be right. Perhaps those who think we ought to torture our captives just might be right. Maybe those aren't the black and white, right versus wrong issues that I think they are.

But, surely, some issue is. There must be some issue where there just aren't two reasonable sides to the issue. Mr. President? Do you have any issues like that? Any?

Or is every issue merely one of practicality for you? We won't attack those who haven't attacked us, unless the justification is really, really good. We won't torture our captives, unless we really, really need to. We won't sleep with you for five pounds, but we will for a thousand pounds.

Are we really just trying to find out what your price is?

Barack Obama's First Priority

Oh, how I want to write about the torture mess. Instead, I'm going to start with what's most important. And believe me, it's hard for me to say that anything is more important than the torture mess. But, global climate change is.

I have heard President Barack Obama say that his first priority is keeping Americans safe. (More another time on the irony of how much that sounds like George Bush.) Yesterday I heard a member of his administration say that reforming the health care system was the President's first priority. Unless I'm mistaken, I've heard him and others mention other things from time to time as his "first priority." Someone needs to tell him that you can't really have more than one "first" priority.

He needs to make global climate change his first priority, and he needs to do so quickly. If he doesn't, then none of the rest of his "first priorities" are going to matter much in the long run.

I haven't kept an exhaustive record, nor have I made any attempt to monitor and review every new study or work of research that comes out about global climate change. However, I pay attention. It is safe to say that almost every new study or work of research finds that the old projections of climate change have been underestimations, and that the most current projections are much worse than the last projections.

I don't want to be too melodramatic, but ... We're all gonna die!

To use a metaphor that the President used the other day about the ship of state, the global climate is an ocean liner, not a speed boat. Once it gets started in a certain direction, it is very, very difficult to turn or to stop. It just keeps going, in the same direction, long after you yank the rudder hard to the side or reverse the engines.

Our ocean liner is heading for the edge of the world, and it will drop off into the Abyss if we don't get it stopped and turn it around soon. Time is quickly running out to accomplish that task.

Now, there are those at both extremes of the spectrum that think that's not such a bad idea. I know people who think that the extinction of homo sapiens will be a net plus. I also know people who trust that Jesus is coming back soon and he'll save us, or at least some of us, so why worry?

Unless you belong to one of those extremes, you'd better be worried. Very worried. You'd better be demanding that your President make global climate change his first priority.

Honestly, riding your bike to work and turning off your air conditioner won't do it. Sure, if everyone rode their bikes to work and turned off their air conditioners, that might have some impact on this doomed ocean liner's course. But you, by yourself? You're just making yourself uncomfortable.

We have to act as a nation, and we have to take drastic action, and we have to do it soon. Like, in the next year or so. If we don't, then we can stop worrying. Eat, drink, and be merry, for in a hundred years we will die. Not us, of course, but our species.

Once we have determined to act drastically as a nation, then we have to find ways to persuade all the other nations of the world to do the same.

That takes national leadership, and our national leadership is Barack Obama. That's the bottom line.

I remember George Bush saying that he wasn't going to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, even though he'd promised to do so in his campaign for President. He said it would be too hard on the economy.

What do we think is going to happen to our economy when New York City is under 20 feet of water?