There have been countless articles dedicated to the similarities between America's growing imperialism and ancient Rome's. The similarity, of course, is too pronounced to ignore, though its accuracy and degree may reasonably be debated.
Now we have taken yet another step in Rome's direction. The Roman Republic had, as part of its governance structure, the emergency office of dictator which could only be held for six months in states of emergency. The dictator was just that: an authoritarian figure whose pronouncements carried the force of law. The office had such a short term limit because it was designed to free up impediments to solving an immediate crisis, and once that crisis had been resolved, the regular rule of law was supposed to resume.
Of course, that's not the way it always worked. The dynast Sulla managed to install himself as dictator indefinitely. And, importantly, Julius Caesar's demand that he be made dictator for life was the final nail in the coffin of the Roman Republic.
There are plenty of cases where authoritarian regimes come to power in times of national emergency, and this was clear to our Founders. Nonetheless, they never created a constitutional office of dictator even in cases of severe national distress precisely because they were so acutely aware of what that provision had brought about in the Roman Republic. And yet, here we are now. Our president has created the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive which effectively gives him dictatorial control of our branches of government for the duration of:
any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions
I wonder how long our republic will last.
Labels: 'merica, george-bush, history, politics, rome
The incredible gall of James Zumwalt's op-ed contribution in today's New York Times strains the limits of shamelessness. He claims that six Muslim imams who were singled out by "concerned passengers" (ostensibly because they looked "suspicious," i.e. Muslim) are intimidating good, honest, terrorist-fearing 'mericans by bringing suit against both the airline and the passengers who were clearly spooked by seeing "ragheads" onboard their plane. This is classic blame-the-victim rhetoric in which obviously the imams were asking for it! Far be it from to defend any religious leaders on grounds that they are "holy" men—but, come on! Really?
Witnesses described conduct that suggested something ominous might in fact be in the offing. The imams, the passengers reported, prayed loudly in the open terminal before boarding, sat in different seats on the plane from those assigned, positioned themselves near exits, asked for unneeded seatbelt extensions (which they then placed under their seats) and, most disturbingly, made anti-American comments.
This is all hearsay, but let's go through the list, anyway:
- They prayed loudly? Must be terrorists.
- They sat in different seats on the plane than those assigned? Only terrorists make mistakes when boarding planes. Or perhaps only terrorists prefer the better seat that seems to be unoccupied.
- They positioned themselves near exits? Only terrorists prefer the roomiest seats on a plane. (See tip 2 in that link.)
- They asked for "unneeded" seatbelt extensions? I got nothing for this one. Perhaps we could ask them why they needed these. "Unneeded" is a little presumptuous: I'm pretty sure Mr. Zumwalt wasn't there to confirm that they did not, indeed, need the extensions. Besides, what can you possibly do with seatbelt extensions that you can't do with a common belt, anyway?
- They made anti-American comments? Never mind, that's the clincher. If you don't like everything 'merica does, you can just get out! We'll bring democracy to your country soon enough anyway.
Let's be reasonable. Suppose there were terrorists on a flight and they planned to hijack the plane or crash it into something.
Would they dress up as Muslim clergy and behave in an attention-grabbing way? Or maybe our citizen-heroes just saw past their clever disguises and their subtle terrorist tactics. With a nation full of Jack Bauers, I think we can all rest easy and fly the safe blue skies.
Labels: 'merica, airlines, sham, terrorism
Regarding this statutory rape case in Britain, involving a 20-year-old man who had sex with a 10-year-old victim, Jessica from Feministing is up in arms that the defendant is getting off without any jail time. The circumstances of the case seem to be that the girl looks over the age of consent, asked to have sex, and was outside a pub at the time. The prosecutor in the case sympathizes with the defendant's claim that he honestly believed the victim was old enough to consent. But apparently intent is not a factor in Jessica Valenti's calculus.
No prosecutor ever wants to be in a position that makes it appear that he condones sex between an adult and a 10-year-old. The judge in this case characterizes the situation as "wholly exceptional" which makes me think that perhaps this particular 10-year-old actually does reasonably appear to be old enough to consent to sex (this being a statutory case and not an aggravated rape)—especially given the setting of the encounter. Otherwise, it seems completely unbelievable to me that any judge or prosecutor in Britain would be willing to put his professional and public reputation on the line in favor of somebody who had sex with a ten-year-old.
The only way, it seems, that the defendant could have avoided this situation is if he'd asked the victim for identifying documents, I suppose. In America, even that would not have been enough as we have strict liability laws that define sex with a minor as statutory rape even if you meet the minor in a bar (where everybody is presumably over 21) and you check for ID (which is just an absurd proposition) and the ID happens to be fake.
Labels: 'merica, britain, law, rape
In America, we have this way of overlooking the patently obvious. What is the American public's number one concern these days? Security. More specifically, terrorism. And what country is the bogeyman du jour? Iran. But let's just consider that perception:
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with 9/11? No.
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with the Madrid attacks? No.
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with the London attacks? No.
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with the Bali attacks? No.
- Where did those attackers come from? Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt—basically Arab countries and Pakistan.
- Were any of those attackers Iranian? No.
-
Do Iranians have any reason to fear us? Consider this map:
Notice those two bright red American-invaded countries on either side of Iran. Then remember all that "axis of evil" talk. Now think back to who has once already deposed Iran's democratically elected prime minister in favor of an autocratic king who ruled until he was overthrown during the revolution of 1979 (hint:
it was us), who it was that armed Iraq in the first place (hint:
it was us), and who it was that encouraged and directly supported Saddam Hussein's war on Iran (hint:
it was us). Maybe
they're afraid of
us. And maybe they should be. Are they seeking nuclear weapons? Probably. They probably look over at their neighbor Pakistan, who has done
much more to harm American interests and realize that Pakistan is an American "ally" because it's got the bomb.
Labels: 'merica, history, iran, iraq, sham, war
While
Eshan continues to have great faith in the American ability to remain innovative, I have long maintained a much more pessimistic outlook. We are regressing: the engines of our innovation are faltering under a severe burden of ideology. In a nation where 42% of the population believes that "
life has existed on Earth in its present form since the beginning of time," and another 18% believes that evolution is guided by an intelligent being, we are compelled, then, to put our hopes in the 26% who believes in evolution via natural selection (leaving 10% who simply do not know and another 4% who believe in evolution of some sort, but are not sure what the mechanism of evolution might be). It can be argued that 26% of the population is a large enough proportion to sustain our position as a leader in scientific innovation, but the proposal seems unlikely to me. The only reason we have not yet stumbled is because we import so much brainpower from the rest of the world, but as America becomes more hostile towards science, that stream will dry up, too. Throughout much of history, science and religion have not been mutually exclusive, but as we find ourselves reaching a point in science where it demands to be divorced from religion, more and more Americans are taking the wrong side. Since nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans are "open to" the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in our schools (and 38% want creationism taught
instead of evolution), it's pretty clear that our children won't have a chance in the global market against children who are taught, I don't know,
science.
Labels: 'merica, creationism, evolution, sham
A lot of people have been arguing that our fiscal policy is unsustainable. I've been giving Americans the benefit of the doubt in many respects, but isn't it our own fault, as a nation, for voting into office a president who made it perfectly clear that he planned on spending money we don't have while cutting taxes (which by
all accurate accounts disproportionately benefited the people who least need a government handout)? "Dynamism" and "responding to change" were never considered to be our president's strong suits. And "planning for a rainy day" is something pansy liberals do, not resolute, strong, security-minded conservatives, right? So, Thomas Friedman's opinion piece today makes sense:
Besides ripping away the roofs of New Orleans, Katrina ripped away the argument that we can cut taxes, properly educate our kids, compete with India and China, succeed in Iraq, keep improving the U.S. infrastructure, and take care of a catastrophic emergency - without putting ourselves totally into the debt of Beijing.
(nytimes.com/2005/09/07/opinion/07friedman.html)
But it's not all a matter of lacking resources. Even though it would be nice to stop amassing debts that I'm going to have to pay (not to mention my children, unless we all pick up and leave America) , we
do have the capability to do a lot more than we did. Christopher Hitchens correctly diverts the attention back to the real problem:
The United States has a trillion-dollar economy and a massive and sophisticated military, which is quite capable in competent hands of combating rogue-state dictators and jihadist maniacs, while simultaneously ensuring the safety of all its citizens, at least against the more predictable acts of God or the more predictable attacks of the extremely godly. And there are billions left over after these expenditures, which we choose to waste (in my opinion) on the huge diversion of manpower and resources to the "Drug War" and to "Missile Defense."
(slate.com/id/2125741)
Labels: 'merica, economics, military
It often takes a philosopher to tell it like it is. And
this is what it's like.
Labels: 'merica, education, evolution, philosophy, sham
