You Lie!

"Wait! Stop! What did you say? A deep water drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico burst into flames, exploded, and killed eleven people?"

"Yeah."

"And now it's leaking oil into the ocean at the rate of two hundred thousand gallons of oil a day?"

"Yeah."

"And the rig is owned by British Petroleum? The oil company with that cute little green and yellow sunburst logo who keeps saying 'BP' stands for beyond petroleum, because they care so much about the environment?"

"Yeah."

"And now the spill has reached the coast of Louisiana at the mouth of the Mississippi and could be the worst environmental disaster ever? Even worse than the Exxon Valdez in Alaska?"

"Yeah."

"And the blown-out well is leaking oil from a point almost a mile under water, deeper than they've ever capped a blown-out well before?"

"Yeah."

"And it may take them three months ... three months ... to get it stopped, assuming they don't make any more mistakes?"

"Yeah."

"No! I don't believe you! You're lying!"

"Yeah?"

"Yeah! I know you're lying, because the big oil companies have said that with modern technology and drilling techniques, they can drill off shore ... off shore heck, even in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge! ... without any danger to the environment!"

"They said that?"

"Yeah! So I know you're lying. Why, even Sarah Palin herself said last month, in a speech in Lousiana, that we needed more drilling, not more studies, because we could now drill off shore safely and cleanly. Drill, baby, drill! Governor Palin wouldn't lie!"

"She wouldn't?"

"No! She wouldn't! So, I know you're lying! It can not be true that a British Petroleum drilling rig blew up, killed eleven people, sank, and left a well spilling five thousand barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico, that the oil plume has reached some of the most environmentally sensitive coast in the United States, they can't contain it, and they may not be able to get it stopped for three months! No! You're just making that up! You and that liberal mainstream media. You're all just against Americans having jobs and you love terrorosts and you hate big business! So, you're just making this all up! It's all a big lie! You lie!"

"Oh."

I Might Have Been Wrong

When I wrote my January 22, 2010, article entitled "There is no 'war on terror,'" I believed that no one could or would argue that declaring a "war on poverty" meant that the government could then shoot poor people in the streets or imprison them on the accusation of being poor without a trial.

I might have been wrong.

Speaking about poor people and welfare, Andre Bauer, Republican Lt. Governor of South Carolina and candidate for governor of that state, said on Thursday, January 21, 2010, that his grandmother had informed him he should " ... quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating that problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

Apparently, Lt. Governor Bauer believes that the solution to poverty is to starve the poor people until their reproductive organs cease to function.

One may argue that I am taking his comments "out of context" or that "he didn't really mean that." I disagree. I think the comments are in precisely accurate context and that, yes, that really is what he believes, even if it isn't exactly what he said.

The notion that the idea of feeding stray animals and therefore allowing them to breed more stray animals would come to his mind when thinking about poor people fully reveals the context and opens a wide window to know how he feels about poor people. Other human beings. Not to mention hungry and homeless dogs.

According to his web site, "André is a member of Union Methodist Church." Well. I see.

Now, according to the Today's New International Version of the Holy Bible, Jesus of Nazareth told a rich young man, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."

I guess Jesus hadn't had the benefit of knowing Lt. Governor Bauer's grandmother. Apparently, she would have set the young preacher straight on what a mistake it was to give to the poor. Thank goodness she was around to help out little Andre.

There is no "war on terror"

One of the few things on which Rush Limbaugh and I agree is that "words mean something."

When a word is used divorced from its true meaning, it can create all kinds of havoc. When it is used divorced from its true meaning on purpose, it is often a lie. The speaker intends you to believe something that is not true, based on what the speaker says.

Let us be clear. There is no war on terror in the literal, military sense. There can't be. It isn't possible. That is not what the word means.

The phrase "war on terror" has been used the way a magician uses his hat. He puts one thing in, and takes something else out, and hopes the audience will believe they are the same thing.

Words have meaning. The New Oxford American Dictionary tells us the meaning of the word "war."

n a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state [emphasis added]: Japan declared war on Germany; Iran and Iraq had been at war for six years.
SPECIAL USAGE
- a particular armed conflict: after the war, they emigrated to America.
- a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups [emphasis added]: she was at war with her parentsa price war among discount retailers.
- a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant or undesirable situation or condition: the authorities are waging war against all forms of smugglinga war on drugs.

That is what the word "war" means.

Terror (or terrorism) is not a nation or a state. It is not a group within a nation or state. It is not even a person or a group of people.

Unless the conflict is between nations or states or groups within nations or states, it is not war in the literal, military sense. And, thus, it does not invoke either the rules or the law of war.

Just as a "war on drugs" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected drug dealers without trial, the "war on terror" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected terrorists. Just as the "war on poverty" does not allow the government - any government - to capture and imprison poor people until the end of the "war on poverty," the "war on terror" does not allow the government to capture and imprison terrorists until the end of the "war on terror."

Would anyone seriously argue that if the government announced a "war on bank robbery," that the government could, merely because of the announcement, shoot suspected bank robbers on sight, or keep them imprisoned indefinitely without any criminal charges and without a trial?

Terror (or terrorism) is a tactic. Like "sneak attack" or "frontal assault" or "carpet bombing."

Terror (or terrorism) may be illegal, but it also may perfectly legal.

If two nations are at war, a soldier of one nation can legally sneak into the barracks of the soldiers of another nation and blow himself up, killing them in the process. If he could succeed at that, it might create a feeling of terror among his enemies. "We are not safe anywhere!" It would be terrorism as a tactic, and the soldier commiting the act would be a terrorist, but it would not be illegal.

On the other hand, if the person blowing himself up were not a soldier, or his country was not at war with the soldiers in the barracks, or, even if they were, he walked into an orphanage and blew himself up, that would be exactly the same act - terrorism - but it would be a crime.

No one would suggest that the government could now employ its soldiers to shoot anyone that someone in the government thought might walk into an orphanage and blow himself up one day. Or even imprison them without a trial.

George Bush put the phrase "war on terror" into his magician's hat. When he put it in, it had one meaning, a meaning that did not invoke the rules of war. A metaphorical meaning. But, when he pulled it out of that hat, he had changed the meaning to a literal meaning, one that did invoke the rules of war, and hoped no one would notice. But, "war on terror" did not, does not, and cannot have that meaning. It was not, is not, and can never be a literal, military war.

And Barrack Obama is just as bad and maybe worse, because he's continued to use the phrase "war on terror" with George Bush's impossibly incorrect meaning. I think George Bush knew better, but I admit, he wasn't very good with English. I'm convinced that Barrack Obama, intelligent, educated, constitutional law scholar that he is, knows better.

And that makes it a lie.

Happy New Year

I should have done this earlier, on New Year's Day to be precise, but, better late than never. I hope.

Happy New Year! May God bless the entire world in 2010! No exceptions.

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.