It is a truism in historical and legal research that societies enact laws to deal with the problems they perceive themselves to have so, therefore, one can tell what really worried a society by the laws is enacts.

Last winter I drafted this proposed act and, according to my computer, I last modified it in mid-February.  I know I've pulled pieces from it once or twice in the past few months and included them in comments here or elsewhere, but I've never put the whole thing up.  Let's see how prescient my analyses of the problems the Admin is causing, was.  Please give your thoughts.

Since I haven't re-read it, really, since I drafted it, I'll be going through it with a pretty fresh outlook.  I'll put my comments after each section or subsection, in italics.  

The headline above crystallized yesterday while in the produce department, though I've had this burbling around my head for the last day or two.  The greengrocers have a whiteboard where they write their specials du jour, and a saying. Yesterday's saying was a quote they attributed to Ambrose Bierce: "Loyalty is a trait of dogs." That quote was just thrown out there, no reference or anchor to anything, next to the list of specials.

I'm probably not the first person to notice, but sometimes I wonder. Yesterday, on the Fourth of July, I was on a bike ride with my son shortly before the sun was ready to set in the west. My son is five years old and really has not had any experience with fireworks in his conscious memory. I'm not much of a fan of watching explosions with the accompanying colorful patterns spilling across the night sky. It just never appealed that greatly to me, even as a child.

We pulled into our driveway on our bikes just as our neighbors began to set up their fireworks display on our road. My son wanted to watch, so we sat down in the grass and I watched colorful sparks, bright lights, amongst intermittent explosions as the smell of smoke permeated the air. We were treated to this display by our neighbors son, Eric and his friends. Eric is a 22 year old male, who floundered around after high school and couldn't find a job after failing several tests to become a union employee for heating and air conditioning installation and maintenance. He joined the armed services a year ago and is waiting to be shipped to Iraq this September. He seemed unusually poised, mature and calm as he answered my sons questions before lighting the next display. I am sure he spent a few hundred on this 25 minute fireworks performance that gave him only minimal pleasure as judged by his reaction to it.

Perhaps, I am reading too much into his temperament as he readies himself to go to Iraq where explosions will be commonplace and the "rockets red glare and the bombs bursting in air," will give proof to nothing more than horrible maiming, killing and destroying of his comrades and the Iraqi population.

For a nation that constantly trumpets calls for peace in the world and holds a self-image as a civilized country where democracy rules, it is strange that we have such a fascination and a glorification of that beastly human construct called war. From our national anthem to the annual fireworks display that are supposed to remind of us of our independence, we hardly place freedom, democracy, peace and humanity on the same pedestal we place war and the destruction that accompanies it.

My son watched with fascination as the display continued while my dog huddled shaking in his kennel from fright. When my son was two, I was coaxed to attend a fireworks performance on the fourth at a small town in Minnesota by family and friends. As the performance began my son ran quivering into my arms and buried his face in my chest as he cried inconsolably. Last night, at five, he was visibly excited to watch this much smaller display. I could not help but wonder what he was being conditioned to as Eric bent over to quietly light the next firework with his cigarette, knowing this won't be the last, and assuredly not the most spectacular, display - but it might be his last fourth of July

The entire debate about NOT funding the occupation of Iraq and George W. Bush's Iraq and Mid-East Debacle revolves around one piece of propaganda that has been sold to the public in one of the most heinous aggregations of misperceptions, disinformation, and outright lies ever foisted on a public that cares for the lives of the American troops sent into Iraq, of which there are huge mis-perceptions and an incredible amount of disinformation, i.e. lies, spread by republicans and democrats and trolls.

The Bush Administration, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike, repeat almost daily that they will not defund the troops, with both sides vying for public support with the same bullsh*t.

It's the biggest load of crap there is.

The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.

[Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing, and TalkLeft.]

Harry Reid on Bush's commutation of the Libby sentence:

The President's decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence is disgraceful.  Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War.  Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone.  Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security.  The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President's Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law. (emphasis mine)

[Cross-posted from ProgressiveHistorians.]

So Ezra and Matt don't like Anne-Marie Slaughter, whose new book, The Idea That Is America, has just come out.  I haven't read the book, but like Ezra and Matt, I've met Slaughter and heard her speak.  I'm generally a huge fan of her ideas and approach to foreign policy, which is distinctly Wilsonian internationalist in the sense that Wilson meant it (i.e., creating alliances and strengthening international organizations rather than "spreading democracy."

With that in mind, let's dispense with Matt's objections first, because they're the easiest to dismiss.  Matt thinks Slaughter is "soft and gentle," and he doesn't "have confidence that she's willing to make the tough decisions to deal with the rogue immoral elites that are destroying the planet."  Well, I've got news for Matt.  In academia, if you've attained tenure by age forty-four, that's quite an achievement.  But at age forty-four, Anne-Marie Slaughter had gotten herself named Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of International Relations at Princeton -- while being a woman in what is still largely a man's field, as well as a wife and mother.  Let me tell you, any woman that can attain that high a peak in that little a timespan in that closed a field is not "soft and gentle," she's ambitious and tough as nails.  So Matt fell for her disarming "gentleness," which I saw too when I heard her speak -- she was saying how she needed to talk fast because her kids would miss her if she didn't get home soon -- but that doesn't mean Mahmoud Abbas and Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad aren't going to realize very quickly that this lady can put the kibosh on them really fast if they don't shape up.  When you think of Anne-Marie Slaughter, don't think of Condi Rice, think of Madeleine Albright -- and then imagine her bombing the heck out of Serbia, and you'll get a pretty accurate picture.

We know that Oklahoma intends to execute today a man terminally ill with cancer.  I've done a quick analysis of the opinion and provide it below.  

Here's the link to the opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' own website.  

They're the ones who decided it's ok to execute a terminally ill man with less than a year to live.  You can read it in full yourself - I reference it only to show what kind of wingnut justice one can expect from the Oklahoma State Courts.  You should also note that they note that Mr. Bland almost died from reactions to his chemotherapy but that, because he was revived, he's fit to be executed.  

I suppose by the time I get this diary done and posted, Oklahoma will have had its way and Mr. Bland will be dead.  May he rest in peace.  I hope his death is not in vain, though I believe his blood will not quench the lustful thirst for revenge driving the State, Judges and (in this case) family of his victim to demand his execution.  The thirst for blood is one never quenched by blood.*

Internet discussions and debates often begin with facts. If someone presents his or her facts, others will often ask for links. We are supposed to be getting clear direction from the plethora of links, facts, and information readily available on the internet. Unfortunately, what often happens is we become ignorantly well-informed. By this I mean we trust the consensus determination of experts without being able to verify these determinations ourselves.

I have to admit to being slightly uncertain of my convictions. For the most part I am not sure of much. What gets my ire is when anyone proclaims something that they are certain of or dismisses something because it is preposterous and violates some notion they have about the ways of the world they are certain of. Usually this certainty is not the result of worldly experience, but rather a certainty born from trusting the advice of experts they have read in newspapers, journals, the internet or seen/heard on the evening news.

The only thing I am certain of is that nothing is certain. Of course, that statement contradicts itself and the weight of certainty can be lifted from one's shoulder simply by shrugging and saying, "Who the hell knows?"

I don't want the polar ice caps to melt, but do I really know if man is causing global warming? Who the hell knows? I am in favor of some regulations reducing the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere because I don't like the idea of burning fossil fuels and lowering the Earths storage of non-renewable energy versus using the annual supply of solar energy and renewable resources. I read Buckminster Fuller as a youth in the 1970's and he always made sense to me.

Here is where we are all confused and lost in this conundrum, in my opinion, though. We expect someone else to solve the big problem facing our increasingly global economy. Science tells us that the Earth is warming and CO2 is the likely cause. There is a consensus. I don't have the equipment or the know-how to verify if this is true or not, so I am just supposed to trust the experts. Fine, in this case I do. However, the experts in science have been wrong on the consensus views in the past. How do I know that this is not also one of those cases?

In today's world we are beholden to the experts. Our education does not teach us to verify the results of scientists, but rather to trust the experts and the work they produce. We are fed these results in the media and by journalists, whom we are supposed to trust can verify the results of the scientists, when, in fact, all they are really doing is reporting the conclusions of experts. We are left with an elite group of experts making our decisions for us and arguments or debate usually is opposing sides spouting facts from each side at the other. We leave for the experts to reach a consensus, then we scream at our opponent, "Science says!" How is this different than appealing to the Priests and the religious icons in the past to settle debate?

I think we often come at debate wrong. Many people think it is ignorant to begin with an opinion as opposed to having facts on hand. I disagree. I think one should begin first with an opinion that is based on ones experience and socially formed morality. For instance, I start most political arguments with a few basic opinions that reflect my morality.

   1. We should have concern and compassion for our fellow human beings.

   2. War is bad and should always be avoided in almost all instances.

   3. We should preserve local resources and strive for a sustainable economy.

   4. We share the Earth with other species and we should have some reverence for all species on Earth.

   5. We should not take ourselves too seriously.

   6. Love is universal and is the closest thing to an absolute humans can experience

There are others, but I begin with these opinions that are not backed up with scientific fact or religious ideology. However, when I meet my interlocutor, I must attempt to understand the opinions that inform his or her views. Once the point is reached where we each understand the others viewpoint, then we can reach for facts on hand supporting out views and work toward common understanding.

I once had a conservative friend in college. We used to go round and round on many issues. Over time we came an understanding. He believed that each person was only responsible for his or herself and his or her family. If everyone would just take care of his or herself, the world would take care of itself just fine. This view contradicted one of my fundamental starting points that we should have compassion and concern for the well-beings of others (#1). He believed that my views often led to people being worse off. For example, the welfare argument that giving a helping hand to someone promotes laziness. Well, we differed in our fundamental beliefs, but we had a starting point for a discussion. After awhile, we would begin an argument over any issue and in a short time we would conclude, "been, there! same argument. You believe we are only responsible for ourselves, I believe we have a responsibility for the welfare of others." Neither of us was going to change the fundamental beliefs informing the other's view, but I did have to take into account the possibility that my compassion could lead to dire outcomes. I had to ask the question "What if I am wrong?" This is what leads to healthy discussions. If all we have is facts at our disposal when we go into a discussion and repeat the thoughts and ideas of experts with the facts they have provided us, we may be well-informed but we cannot have a discussion on important issues that will lead to productive results.

So, I think we should value opinions over facts and stop with the links. That's my opinion, at least.

All this talk about defunding the war and asking the democrats to do it. Turns out, we can't continue to fund it anyway. Michael Ventura has another interesting essay on the state of America called Superpower? Really?

Look at our debt.

It's been widely reported that we are, by far, the world's biggest debtor nation. The Week (June 8, p.20): "Including unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security, and federal retirement programs, U.S. taxpayers have a total debt of $59 trillion. That's $516,000 for every U.S. household."

Who holds that debt?

Which brings us to China, our primary banker. The New York Times (April 14, p.C3): "Last year, when Treasury debt increased by $184 billion, almost half of that amount ... was provided by lenders in China. ... China [is] the largest source of funding for the United States government's deficits." The article reports that our Federal Reserve bought 20% of "our newly issued bonds" and that "only 4% of the [total] money came from American investors and institutions" (my italics). Which totals only 24% coming from American sources. Without the present level of foreign investment, especially Chinese investment, America would be in very bad straits.

Why are they doing that? Why are they financing our war?

It's in their strategic interest to finance a war that drains America's financial, military, and leadership clout. They're paying for us to screw ourselves. It saves them the trouble. However, given the irresponsibility of America's military adventures and the equal irresponsibility of the American electorate in elevating someone like George W. Bush to power, why would China and the other investing nations finance the rebuilding of America's military might? How could that possibly be in their interest - especially now that the euro has overtaken the dollar as a viable medium for world exchange? Hence China and others are making obvious moves to invest differently. We're about to be left behind.

And that leaves us...

We're still dangerous, with all our bombs and missiles. But we won't be fighting another ground war anytime soon, and everybody knows it. Financially and militarily, we're no superpower anymore - though no presidential candidate can say that. Whether we recede from center stage gracefully or destructively, we'll recede. We already have. It doesn't look that way on TV, but we already have.

Oh my. We are irreparably broken. Our military is in shambles.

Colin Powell, quoted in Time (April 16, p.30): "The active Army is about broken." The Washington Post (March 19, p.1): "Senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge ... that it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a 'death spiral,' in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40% of their total gear, wearied troops, and left no time to train. ... The U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises. ... The vast majority [of Army units in the United States] are rated 'not ready.'" The Post article reports the reactions of several congressmen to a classified military briefing. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Texas: "I have seen the classified-only reports. And based on those reports, I believe that we as a nation are at risk of major failure, should our Army be called to deploy to an emerging threat." Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C.: "This nation has got to replenish and fix what is soon going to be broken." Finally, the Post goes on: "Under current ... plans, it will take two to three years after the Iraq war ends [my italics] ... to restore ... equipment levels. It will take five years and at least $75 billion for the Army to increase its active-duty ranks [as planned] up to 547,000 soldiers."

What are we going to do? What will become of us? I know I'm not counting on money to save me. Just trying to find some land to take care of and some friends and community to hang with. Don't look to America to save you anymore. America is broken.

I used to be a habitual reader of Paul Krugman in the New York Times. As a graduate student I taught an Introductory Economics course to undergraduates and required the students under my tutelage to read and then write their comments on each of Krugman's two columns per week. Now, that the New York Times Websites charges a fee to read his column online, I no longer am able to read each one of his columns. This weekend my local daily ran a Krugman column in its editorial section. I learned that Americans are getting smaller.

There has been some discussion about whether and to what extent Mike Nifong can be sued for the harms his conduct caused in connection with the Duke Lacrosse case.  The short answer is:  its like putting a camel through the eye of a needle* - not too likely to succeed.

*(Even if "the eye of a needle" is a local nickname for a very narrow gate in the wall of the old city of Jerusalem.)

Wynona is an immigrant from Belize, once undocumented, whose son served twice in Iraq. Wynona reminds us that many, many people serving in Iraq are native US citizens who are children of undocumented residents, or are themselves undocumented and are serving and dying in order to gain expedited citizenship.

Wynona is currently riding on the dream train. You can get on board too (virtually speaking).

Watch her on YouTube.