|
8
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by Even the most stalwart liberal must recognize the need for improvements and reform in national security to address the needs of modern threats. Some will argue that measures like the Patriot Act go too far while others claim it's not far enough. There is always the crazy balance to consider between personal freedoms and privacy against the protections offered by "police state" security and invasiveness. Such an axiom has long been a part of American heritage as Ben Franklin once said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Take it as a given that the Cold War is over (ignoring for a moment Russia's present actions that may bring it back) and that it is no longer a world of democracy versus communism. There are no clear lines to draw in the sand to delineate where malice, evil and hatred lie. The fact of the matter is that those who would do our society and way of life harm walk amongst us, hidden in plain sight. For a moment, put aside opinions about the current executive administration, the legislature and the deployments of soldiers.
Food for thought:
- Tightened border control
- More authorizations for access to perform data mining on voice and data networks
- Increased judicial review of evidence prior to permitting counter-terrorist operations
- Allowing different levels of government access to intelligence - e.g. state governors or city mayors are privy to relevant information from the NSA/CIA/FBI
- Engage the public to participate through television and reward programs
- Increasingly stringent identification requirements on a national basis
- Expanding national intelligence to incorporate more local resources - e.g. EMS responders that "see inside homes" make reports
- Improving public training on awareness - e.g. teaching public servants (like EMS) what to look for or teaching threat awareness in high school
- Media campaigns designed to "convert" in-country sleeper cells away from their cause
- Reduced time restrictions for Freedom of Information Act releases to permit public scrutiny
From an ideal perspective, what sort of solutions would offer positive gains in bolstering the security of America without turning the nation into gestapo-esque police state? Furthermore, even if a solution is an effective counter-measure to domestic terrorism, why is it a bad idea to implement it?
Add a Comment (39)
Email This
Message Author
So I figure I'll go ahead and kick the discussion off with some loose thoughts. Bear in mind, I'm "thinking out loud" at the moment so this may be very Faulkner-esque in it's stream of consciousness.
In a small country, it's very neat and tidy to wrap counter-terrorist operations into a dedicated government agency. So you have a Utopia with a Utopian CTU headed by concerned citizens Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris. Let's say there is a hypothetical terrorist threat to bomb Gare de Nord transit station during the height of rush hour which will cave the system in and kill roughly 5000 people while causing incredible infrastructure damage. What factors go into detecting and stopping this event?
First of all, our Utopian society is small. While even a nation the size of France or Korea is large enough to have distinct cultural differences between the geographic regions and urban/rural populations, they are still not big countries. What do you get with smaller countries? Homogenizing. People tend to be the same within their locale. Those people that are different, stand out and draw attention to themselves. Thus, in terms of finding sleeper cells or active agents, unless they are culturally identical - they're just easier to physically identify. Homogenization also provides the incentive that if the government passes a bill regarding behaviors that everyone already adheres to ... well, nobody cares. An added bonus of a small nation is that there less borders to patrol and immigrants are easier to track because there is less area for them to disappear into.
So assume that a terrorist cell did successfully infiltrate into the Utopian society and lives amongst the citizens. How next to root them out? At this stage of the scenario, observable behavior must be ignored as they appear to be functioning members of Utopia. They won't do anything particular that draws attention for neighbors Bill and Mary-Anne. This is the stage at which Jack and Chuck become useful. Short of the terrorist making a mistake and getting into a car accident where the explosives fall out of the trunk ... the only agency capable of identifying their actions as hostile are those of the government. But why?
Take bank records and money laundering as an example. A good criminal/terrorist will cover the movement of their money using various money-laundering techniques. While AML [anti-money laundering] detection systems exist at various institutions, due to privacy matters and keeping banking strategies secret, no bank is going to willingly share it's transactional data with another bank. The government, however, can force multiple banks to provide transactional data about particular parties. Separately, the data is inconclusive. Together, the money laundering effort is evident. Chuck Norris goes in and roundhouse kicks the terrorists.
Now look at communications. In a smaller nation, it's much easier for the government to get into bed with the telecommunications industry because in many cases, it's already nationalized as opposed to being a competitive privatized system. So you have the classic movie paranoia where a system of supercomputers scrubs phone calls, e-mail and SMS looking for patterns of keywords (very easy given that phone networks have been digitized for decades). Using the NSA's old directive as an example, Utopia sets up its listening stations at the telecommunications borders - satellite uplinks and ingress/egress routers. This ensures that all communications monitored involve at least one foreign party since one leg of the conversation is outside Utopia. In a small country like Utopia, its somewhat reasonable to believe the commands are coming from an external location since too many terrorists within the borders makes it harder to achieve cultural invisibility. After enough "evidence" is gathered about a particular individual, Jack Bauer goes in, shoots somebody in the thigh and finds out where the rest of the bad guys are so Chuck Norris can roundhouse kick them.
And surveillance? It's much easier in a smaller nation like Utopia because travel that deviates from normal behavior is more obviously an outlier. Even having a smaller infrastructure (trains, buses and highways) essentially constrains the mark such that following movement and recording their behavior is much easier. Tailing does not require as many agents and is less obvious which allows the mark to remain both oblivious and let their guard down. Ultimately, smaller size provides less options for hiding, less options for evading and less options for executing which dramatically simplifiy the surveillance requirements by Jack and Chuck. This allows the agency to simply be better at what they do and focus on weaknesses rather than continually play cat 'n mouse while either neglecting other weaknesses or incurring agency bloat from having to hire additional agents to fill the gaps.
On game day itself, Utopia's agents have the advantages above giving them a leg up on the mark in efforts to thwart the action from occurring. All the while, the common citizen really doesn't need to have any knowledge that this is transpiring around them. As Agent K spoke in the movie Men In Black, "There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they Do... Not... Know about it!" Such is the bliss of a small nation. And if Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris fail? Well, things are catastrophic and everyone is proportionately affected by nature of their proximity (both physical and emotional) to victims of the incident.
Sooooo ... where does America fail in this? We fail because we're enormous and diverse with a penchant towards liberty. Let's take the previous examples for Utopia and contemplate why these successes touted by little countries as examples of their greatness simply do not apply to any nation that span multiple time zones.
We're not homogenous. America has little pots of homogenization based on geography, but on the whole, no. And while BFE, Oklahoma might be homogenous, frankly, they're simply not a terrorist target because they're in the middle of BFE. Take your major metropolitan cities, however, and you might find a homogenous urban culture but that's about where the similarities cease. You can walk through sections of Manhattan and not hear English (or Spanish) for blocks at a time. If Osama bin Laden himself were standing on the corner selling Sabrett's hot dogs or falafels, you'd pay him your money and walk along without batting an eye. Our nation by nature lends itself to disappearing amongst the people. Furthermore, we have such a phobia of having people in our personal space that build walls and elaborate privacy mechanisms such that if your next door neighbor were cooking fertilizer bombs in his garage, you'd have no idea. People tend not to even realize there are drug labs in their neighborhoods. Combine this fact with the ease with which Mexicans and Canadians infiltrate the Rio Grande and North Dakota ... it's pretty much a given that if a terrorist wants to come to and operate out of America, it's going to happen. Our controls pretty much keep honest people honest and force the real devious people to use a little (but only a little) ingenuity. Jack Bauer is going to need a lot of bullets and a lot of people are going to be shot in the thigh before he comes up with anything legit.
Let's roll financial transactions and communications into the same problem for America. The very beauty of capitalism is what makes it next to impossible to get a handle on what's going on. The money-laundering and communications-monitoring examples still stand. But magnify the problem by the sheer number of options. If I want to launder money in America, I will make use of the many mechanisms at my disposal from foreign currency exchanges, front businesses, legitimate investments, etc - but scatter them across the myriad of cash vehicles. Even better, I'll plan my strike such that all my materials will be purchased within a few days of gameday so that I can use credit cards offered to my stolen identity for free ... the actual event will be paid for on credit that's going to default anyway. Unlike drug cartels that need to continue operating - a distinct terrorist operation is a one time deal. There is simply too much private competition for agencies to be able to have a legitimate chance of catching a well trained operative. Jack Bauer only shoots people in the thigh - he doesn't do complex SQL queries and database optimization. The same thing exists within the communications space in terms of the volume of opportunities with which miscreants can utilize. With a population like America's, communication volume makes finding the cells from scratch a needle in the haystack operation unless complete domestic monitoring is permitted. We're so large, that sitting at the international gateways is fruitless as you can put the entire operation within the continental United States and conduct all communications domestically. Chuck Norris simply doesn't know who to roundhouse kick in the ear.
Surveillance? Seriously. There is soooooo much space here that if a cell got wind they were under surveillance, they can pack up and move to another state to finish the operation. Add in a little state-to-state jurisdiction nonsense and they'll be back for gameday while Chuck Norris waits at City Hall for a meeting with somebody that's out to lunch. The surveillance teams themselves will probably stand out more than their subjects. If anything, neighborhood watch will call in the suspicious surveillance van and have local cops detain them in yet another pissing match of jurisdiction and authority. Frankly, this has to be federal operation. It is a waste of limited budgets to train local police for the types of counter-terror training that might be necessary (chemical environments, bomb dispoal, digital forensics, etc. to name a few) which will require "special teams" that focus on these skills to come from a common pool. The sheer size of the country makes moving these teams around difficult, expensive and inevitably, their identities will also be compromised. While it can be done, it's just not as smooth and effortless like surveillance in a small locale.
Game day. Even today, people believe 9-11 was a conspiracy or even a hoax (there was some poll a few months ago that 1 in 5 Canadians didn't believe it happened). When you have a country so large that many people will live their entire lives without going more than 500 miles from home, events that transpire 4000 miles away simply do not affect certain citizens. Without that "personal touch" - the counter-measures themselves to prevent further incidents are more intrusive than than the original event. As such, opposition stirs, emotions rage and battles ensue over security vs liberty. America's citizens choose statistical improbability as its principle line of defense.
None of this, however, answers the question - what can America do to thwart future terrorst acts without infringing upon the liberties with which we are accustomed?
First, you've done an excellent job in summarizing the problem; so much so that I'm fairly convinced there is no total solution, except the pie-in-the sky one where the U.S. becomes so beloved by the entire world that no one wants to hurt us in any way. (I guess there's actually some merit to that dream.) Until then, defenses must be implemented.
Here's the thing for me with the whole 'losing our liberties' argument when confronted with some of the intelligence gathering ideas that are floating around. If I could be assured that the people who want to implement these things are as dedicated to only that task of protecting me and mine as Agent K was, without some other agenda for further manipulation and control that comes with these increasingly powerful tools, then I might not mind being oblivious to their activities. But we all know what power does to some people at all levels. (Just think of the last over-zealous mall security guard you witnessed.) We all fear the slow, creeping Orwellian 1984 scenario, really; where agencies in power begin to self perpetuate the reasons for their own existence.
I think the idea of using EMT's, mail carriers, pizza delivery people, etc. might have some effect on noticing odd stuff worth investigating, but it also carries the risk of vigilantism, especially in the case of having a public reward system. I also know that if I was planning a major terrorist attack, I would have a P.O Box, die rather than call an EMT and definitely pick up my own take-out. It seems like as soon as one thing is solved at the possible sacrifice of liberty, the ones who want to harm us just switch tactics and the whole thing is like the clown trying to sweep up the moving spotlights.
On the other hand people already are trying to help on their own. With all the heightened awareness our response teams are getting their exercise.
It seems having more independent states would bring the United State's situation closer to a bunch of Utopias (in the sense of your example). It would mean sacrificing much of the state-to-state convenience we now have, however. (Imagine every inter-state trip or business deal being equivalent in hassle to an international one...)
Until technological developments put massed forces at an advantage over the individual once again (an advantage that dissipated with recent transportation and communications developments), I would say that American options for a foolproof defense against terrorism remain limited. My best hazard at a strategy would require us to take two steps:
A) Keep anyone with the capability of reaching domestic soil (either personally or via weaponry) happy.
B) When A cannot be achieved (since nothing will keep everyone happy simultaneously), ensure that unhappy campers cannot reach you.
This is likely impossible. However, if we narrow our specification in B from 'unhappy campers' to 'unhappy campers who are likely to kill you,' feasibility increases dramatically.
Since the principal technologies responsible for the empowerment of terrorist groups (for planning, operations, recruitment, etc) are transportation and communications technology, denying 'unhappy campers who are likely to kill you' access to such resources, should, if I am correct, effectively accomplish B. In order to do so, I imagine that the following becomes necessary:
i) Establish a geographical zone where access to the global communications grid (via satellite, microwave, cable, or any other medium), as well as aviation and maritime transportation assets (including trade) is prohibited. Seal any land borders of said zone.
ii) Enforce prohibitions with force.
iii) Emplace 'unhappy campers who are likely to kill you' therein.
Would the current jail system not ideally meet your criteria in i, ii and iii?
Ideally, sure. Unfortunately, ideals do not take into account the massive cost of prisons. In my opinion, it would be a whole lot cheaper, and more effective, to simply cut off Southwest Asia from the rest of the world and dump your overtly aggressive types therein (sort of like Australia, except that most of the inmates are already there).
From an ideal perspective, eh? Well, okay, but you asked for it...
From an ideal perspective, the best solution to ensuring the security of any nation is a radical commitment to peace, truth, and kindness. (yeah yeah, stop laughing already, it's true)
This means building relationships--not just between politicians--but between entire cultures, so that there is listening and understanding. In other words, asking everybody in the nation to learn everything they can about other peoples and nations, and asking them to think instead of surrendering to fear.
A commitment to peace of course means standing up for yourself (you don't just roll over), but it also means setting limits for yourself in how you respond to threats. It means going to enormous lengths to understand why anyone would want to do you harm in the first place, and listening to their criticisms--even if they have already attacked you. That listening might even mean adjusting your own way of life, or at least making very sure that your way of life isn't impacting theirs. And it means accepting different cultures--regardless of the injustices we see in them (i.e. helping them change by pursuasion, not by force or manipulation).
And that means fostering a culture of listening at home and abroad--but especially at home--going all out to heal internal divisons, abandon adversarial politics and worldviews, to erase economic and social inequalities--no matter how justified they might seem to be. It means checking your ego. In short, it means a hell of a long road, but it also means that when you've been on it for a while, nobody will want to attack you, and even if they do, the nation does not react out of fear, but has the courage and presence of mind to say: alright, you hurt us, now what seems to be the problem?--instead of bombing the crap out of them, which only perpetuates the "might is right" mentality. Only when peace is more important than our lives and ambitions will we ever truly attain it.
By the time something like a 9/11 happens, the nation has already failed countless times to understand the person who has become the enemy.
Well, that's what would work from an ideal perspective. Unfortunately it seems like fear/hate, ignorance, and greed (on various sides) usually stand in the way of ideal solutions.
I took a training course at work called "Crucial Conversations" (based on the book of the same name) about how to carry out critical conversations effectively. I think some of the principles I learned there are applicable here.
If you break down relationships in search of peace (whether interpersonally or internationally), a large factor is (perhaps obviously) whether or not those involved feel safe. When both parties feel safe, then they engage in healthy dialogue. They may not always agree, but they are at least in a place where they can communicate and come up with effective solutions. When people don't feel safe, they engage in either "silence or violence." These prevent healthy dialogue and, therefore, effective solutions.
There is a lot more to it, but I'll forgo the details for now and just say I think this is one of President Bush's biggest weaknesses: The ability to communicate with people (and nations) in a way that helps them feel safe.
Absolutely--he can't make people feel safe or open if it's always his way or the highway.
I am what some people might consider an a**hole. This is generally not a problem, I get along well with others of a similar bent and even non-similar bent. These relationships I foster are predicated upon the other person not killing me if they take offense if I express an opinion or thought.
Sorry for the emotional hot button but targeting children at a soccer field or getting ice cream might be culturally acceptable within certain contexts but I balk there.
We were attacked by a limited group of well connected people. Granted we should try but no matter how many sit down sessions we have, grievances will always exist. (We seem to outright disagree here.) I assume a grievance is inevitable and short of blood, the opposing culture is unwilling to forgive a grievance what's to do?
Well--obviously there are limits--past a certain point, perhaps a certain level of violence is inevitable. The trick, however, is to prevent it from ever getting to that point--doing everything possible to prevent grievances in the first place.
Once someone has such a grievance, it's that much harder to be civil. All you can do then is to leave the other party alone, but keep your eyes open. I think a big part of the problem is that the people that might have caused these attacks saw American policies as interfering with their way of life--and for all we know, it was. We don't really know what the grievance is--or that one even exists--until we learn to listen to each other.
Now I agree that in an ideal world that such a stature ought to work in principle. But it also assumes the your counter-party is operating from the same social-serving perspective as opposed to a self-serving perspective. But modern Africa alone shows how self-serving will reign supreme unless a social-serving entity with guns is willing to be temporarily self-serving.
But I digress. I think in terms of social behavior, the more successful approach is to be #2. And what I mean by that is to allow some other guy to be perceived as the world hegemon and attract the eye of greed, scorn and distaste. In my own well-traveled opinion, I think much of the hatred against America is actually spite and subconscious jealousy.
It's basically playing the Canada card. You're big, you're successful, but nobody cares about you because you're not the big man. So you build upon the "statistical improbability of attack" by layering yourself in the social obscurity of the "every-country".
While I still don't think such a solution is truly viable (who wants to strive to be #2 anyway) ... it would be more doable than becoming the great nation of communicable altruism.
Now I agree that in an ideal world that such a stature ought to work in principle. But it also assumes the your counter-party is operating from the same social-serving perspective as opposed to a self-serving perspective.
On that, I agree completely, and on that score people will always need to be able to defend themselves. But they also need to be able to meet even the worst enemies with understanding--we can never lose sight of the humanity of the enemy. If we demonize them, there's no way to make peace.
I think on the whole, human beings are reasonable if given half a chance; and that the only time most people are unreasonable is when they feel cornered in some way; whether culturally, economically, or militarily.
I think in terms of social behavior, the more successful approach is to be #2. And what I mean by that is to allow some other guy to be perceived as the world hegemon...
But that's assuming that dominance hierarchies are the only way to organize nations and international relations. I think radical commitment to peace includes overcoming the dominance hierarchy as the primary form of social organization. This has occurred in a small number of societies, so it's definitely possible, even if it is rare.
In my own well-traveled opinion, I think much of the hatred against America is actually spite and subconscious jealousy.
I have to disagree there. It can't just be jealousy and "hatred of freedom" and that sort of thing. While it's possible to resent someone simply because they seem better off than you, I think more often resentment arises from legitimate concerns. I've lived my whole life in North America, I'm as white bread as they come, and I find a lot that's distasteful about American and North American policies and culture. That wouldn't normally be a problem--I prefer to "live and let live," but there are times when certain aspects of American culture are (or seem to be) forced on people. If I've felt that way, then I have no doubt at all that people in other countries have felt that way too. American style economic & trade policies, for example--something that leaders of other countries may adopt for one reason or another, but which many of it's citizens might find destructive or imperialistic.
While I still don't think such a solution is truly viable (who wants to strive to be #2 anyway) ... it would be more doable than becoming the great nation of communicable altruism.
That may be true, but one of the first steps to becoming the great nation of communicable altruism would be overcoming the need to be #1 all the time. I dunno--something to think about.
While Nomad Soul's utopian solution of communication and understanding is extremely attractive in principle, I think it is not compatible with the American character. We are competitive by nature and culture. That means climbing over others to get what we want.
We are too big, powerful and bombastic to play No 2, even if we may smell like it at times.
I prefer to "live and let live," but there are times when certain aspects of American culture are (or seem to be) forced on people.
Absolutely! For example, although abortion is legal in the USA, we will cut off our financial aid to countries that allow it. Same thing with certain narcotics for cancer sufferers.
911 was a shocking tragedy, but on a much broader times scale the USA has had very little trouble (except for our native peoples and blacks in the south) with terrorist acts since the Boston Tea Party. Even the perpetrators were surprised by their success in bringing down those icon towers in such a spectacular fashion.
I think we have allowed this to scare us too much: and into an over reaction. We are the home of the brave so I think we should be able to handle such a thing by reacting in a more calm and focussed fashion. The president probably felt that he had to react strongly for his image, and for him this meant saying things which heightened our fears and paranoia. It also meant finding a target rich environment to attack.
I think there was an element of " How dare these pathetic rag heads hurt the mighty USA like this?" We were insulted and we reacted like a hot head youth. This is forgivable given the human tragedy. The world understands that and has cut us some slack over it. However we must get over it and resume acting like the intelligent, careful and responsible nation that we are.
Something like 911 may happen again. Our leaders must prepare for it and we must allow them reasonable access to the surveillance tools that they need to catch the bad guys before they act. However we know that these powers will sometimes be abused and we need to protect ourselves from such abuse. Americans do not want to live in a Stalinist society where their every move is tracked and there are informers around every corner. We must find the correct balance, and the way to do that is to oppose the intelligence agencies as hard as we can. They can look after themselves very well with their inside path to government. We need to organise and resist the expansion of their powers beyond what they can prove that they need. We won't win on everything, but where we have to give we can impose legislated constraints like time limits, warrants, penalties and reporting so that a reasonable balance will be achieved.
While Nomad Soul's utopian solution of communication and understanding is extremely attractive in principle, I think it is not compatible with the American character. We are competitive by nature and culture. That means climbing over others to get what we want.
You may be right about that. What concerns me is that being so competitive will always lead to conflict. Competition is rooted in fear. People don't like being climbed over, and they will react violently when it happens. That means only two possible outcomes--an ongoing war of attrition and the oppression (at home and abroad) that comes with it, or a more cooperative, more courageous outlook must take root.
I am afraid that you are probably right about that Nomad.
It is nice to find a kindred spirit. The old hands on this site call me a 'bleeding heart liberal' for expressing the view that with a bit less aggression, more compassion and communication this would be a better country shaping a better world.
You think like my wife - and I agree with the principle. But it only works if, and I quote myself above, "your counter-party is operating from the same social-serving perspective as opposed to a self-serving perspective."
Without an equal commitment from the other side ... frankly you're just spinning your wheels in the sand.
That's definitely true, but I think you'll find that if you can show the other side your motives are honourable, they'll be more willing to adopt a social-serving outlook as well. Most people want to be able to trust each other. The problem is, Western motives are not always honourable. A self-serving ideology forms the core of Western economic doctrine; it's practically sacred.
I guess what I'm saying is that until we make our own commitment to a compassionate society, we can't really expect it to catch on elsewhere.
I should note that by compassionate society, I don't mean a weak one that can't defend itself; just one that almost never needs to defend itself.
You think like my wife - and I agree with the principle.
She sounds like a smart lady.
I agree with your principle as well, but I think it is not a bi-lateral relationship, The USA has to deal with the whole world at the same time. We can't hope to do that with the expectation that they will all mirror our social responsibility. The only way to approach it would be to consistently project a set of American values in the areas of justice, fair trading, honesty, human rights, strength, determination to defend ourselves and our allies, and sense of humour.
It is nice to find a kindred spirit.
Same here :) As for being called a bleeding heart liberal--I haven't had quite that experience here, although I often wonder how many people I'm annoying with my big mouth and radical ways. I think the concern is that a compassionate society sounds weak to a lot of people. But I like to believe a compassionate society would be like a skilled martial artist--somebody who can most definitely defend himself, but who is committed to peace and self-assured enough to keep calm even in the worst situations--someone who has overcome his own ego. I don't know if a society of martial artists is possible (it seems unlikely, doesn't it?), but perhaps we can still aim for one.
Most of the guys who run this site seem to be conservative, my country right or wrong, pro gun, anti welfare, low tax, pro Administration, Christians - as well as being intelligent, educated, well travelled and articulate. Fair enough, most of my friends and colleagues are like that. It is, however, a very unbalanced group for debating public policy.
I have avoided the right wing label because it is fairly meaningless, but I think you know what I mean.
They make an effective sounding board because they are easily provoked into predictable emotional reactions, but it would be wrong to take it personally, and they do make you think hard about your own opinions.
I suspect they aspire to the John Wayne archetype, you know: tough, patriotic, dependable and down on anyone they consider to be un-American.
Like John Wayne, I think this is a little sad. He was a talented character actor for a particular type but he denied himself the opportunity to explore a broad diversity of characters, both good and bad, which is the sign of a great actor. This was his often-stated policy. He seemed to confuse his own character with those that he played - he knew that simple people in his audience did this so he took it into account. I guess if you have to grow up with the first name of 'Marion' you become pretty tough.
Personally I find much more admirable those who can portray weakness as well as strength, and who have some flaws in their own character. In public policy debate I look for understanding and compassion for the reality of what it means to be poor in this rich nation. I also look for an understanding of the real role that America needs to play in a troubled world. Mostly we get the familiar knee jerk about how much we do so much more in providing military and financial support to certain countries than does those dastardly Europeans. The UN is a hopeless institution because it gives an equal say to underdeveloped countries that hate America, and we should have tax cuts because giving to the poor only makes them more welfare dependent. Freshman notions!
I hope we can raise the standard a little.
Most of the guys who run this site seem to be conservative, my country right or wrong, pro gun, anti welfare, low tax, pro Administration, Christians - as well as being intelligent, educated, well travelled and articulate. Fair enough, most of my friends and colleagues are like that.
Not quite as much as you think (at least me and I think I can speak for a few of the others I know) ... just very cynical about the process. All too often you see somebody just walk over Utopias or the passive.
The ninja society was an interesting description. In a sense, though, until Iraq that is what America's military always was.
It is, however, a very unbalanced group for debating public policy.
This is what bugs me too. We'll get a view from the other side every now and then ... but they don't stick around to defend their point of view. I think you and maybe another are the only ones we can rely on to come back and keep opposition perspectives around. For that - thank you!
For that - thank you!
That is good to hear. This is a great site and it is a privilege to contribute.
I started here about a year ago with a deliberately provocative anti-gun blog and was thoroughly whipped for it by the local inhabitants. This forced me into the position of having to respond to those who are seriously afraid of home invasion and the impossible argument that they should not be permitted to have a gun for self defense. I was accused of being a coward for not wanting to defend myself with a gun, which is a paradox. We just could not get past this to the deeper issues.
This experience almost put me off, but I persevered and I am glad I did. I sometimes find links to omninerd in Google searches on various topics, so I am always conscious that we are on show to the world. We do not seem to get much input from other countries and I am afraid that this may be because reading some blogs on our site could give the impression that we are a bunch of self indulgent red necks.
The ninja society was an interesting description. In a sense, though, until Iraq that is what America's military always was.
I am not sure what you mean by this but it seems like it might be an interesting point. Secret assassins does not sound like our army to me. CIA perhaps?
If I was looking for an ancient model I would choose the Germanii. The Romans were never able to conquer the German tribes because every time their legions tried to cross the Rhine they were stomped on. And yet the Germanii traded all over Europe and were respected.
And yet the Germanii traded all over Europe and were respected.
A looooong time ago when I was visiting Norway, I was getting the history lesson of the Vikings in one of the museums. According to the Norwegians, they were "peaceful merchants on their [w]essels." I suppose peaceful meant they left other traders in peaceful pieces. :-)
I can't help admiring the vikings.
Rape, pillage and burn! What a life - so long as you do it in the right order.
All too often you see somebody just walk over Utopias or the passive.
Yeah--some of the most peaceful and compassionate societies in history (I'm thinking mainly of Aboriginal Australia) enjoyed very long periods of stable prosperity, but they didn't stand a chance when more violent people arrived. The question of a peaceful but strong utopia is a constant preoccupation...
The ninja society was an interesting description.
I was thinking more Shaolin monk or Okinawan commoner than ninja--but depending on your vision of ninjas, that might fit too. There's something to be said for being too invisible to attack. And those laser eye-beams rock too!
According to the Norwegians, they were "peaceful merchants on their [w]essels."
I guess everybody sees themselves as peaceful--which I suppose is why international relations are so complicated. Given the recent protests, China's policy on Tibet is a good example--I can't figure out if the Chinese government actually believes they liberated Tibet, or if that's just the party line. Maybe it's just cognitive bias.
We do not seem to get much input from other countries
I'm Canadian, if that counts.
I would say your nationality is highly relevant. You do not have the power drug that affects us south of the border.
Yes the aboriginal Australians are very interesting. The clash with Europeans mostly took place in the 19th century when industrial revolution Brits made contact with a stone age society that had stayed the same for at least 40,000 years. This was the greatest cultural clash that the world has ever seen (although a similar thing may have taken place in Terra del Fuego).
I think that given the harshness of the convict settlement and British attitudes to native peoples at that time (which may have been better than that of most Europeans) a bad outcome for the natives was probably inevitable. I admire the way modern Australians are coping with it even though there are bound to still be serious cases of apparent neglect in very remote areas.
Those peoples had their wars too. They lived in groups of only one hundred or so, mostly related, and were very territorial. When they confronted other groups there was usually a lot of shouting and spear waving until someone got hurt - then they calmed down. If the incursion was due to a lack of water or food they would come to a temporary sharing deal - very civilised.
They were serious communists in the sense that there was no private ownership and everyone shared everything -even children and wives.
I have spent some time in Tonga and Samoa. The Polynesians are much more advanced culture; similar to Native Americans. What I found most interesting was that when a group visited another island they were treated to a ceremony which involved a display of aggression by the locals after which they sat down for a cava party. If they had been drinking alcohol these tough warriors would probably have then killed each other, but the cava has a dramatic mellowing effect causing both sides to calm down and accept each other. I often feel that it is a shame we don't have that tradition. The stuff should be handed out at borders.
I don't really agree that everyone sees themselves as peaceful. I have come to believe that every country acts in its own perceived interest on every occasion regardless of pacts, treaties, or standing agreements. The problem is correctly perceiving what is our genuine long term interest. The USA often allows its businessmen to determine the national interest in terms of shareholder profits and then its political system allows this business interest to become policy and even law. The war in Iraq is a current example.
On Tibet, I think that after half a century of propaganda most Chinese now genuinely believe that Tibet has always been a part of China, and that the Tibetans are no more than another agitating internal ethnic group led by religious fanatics. They have had no opportunity to learn otherwise. Even the Dalai Laama seems to have accepted that Tibet has not future outside of China and he is merely agitating for some independence within the Chinese system. Propaganda myth has assumed the mantle of fact and that can't be changed.
I think the ninja were cults that specialised in assassination using unique martial arts. Not very nice guys at all.
So there are another batch of Occams' unsupported opinions for the pedants to complain about.
I would say your nationality is highly relevant. You do not have the power drug that affects us south of the border.
We have a few power-hungry people up here, too; but there's some things they know people won't give up--like healthcare. But certain governments have tried to privatize things--it's a constant battle. The current federal conservative government would be doing more to attack it, but luckily, it's a minority in the legislature--and healthcare is a provincial matter.
The Aborigines are certainly an interesting case. They may be the oldest continuous society on the Earth. The archaeological tool record for Australia actually gets simpler over time--so at some point they had more advanced technology than they do today. They seem to have willingly given up higher technologies in favour of a simpler existence.
When it came to politics, I'm sure there was some variation between groups. The groups my old prof lived with didn't have a word for war and really couldn't imagine groups of people fighting over land or resources. This seems to be because they developed a system of interdependent resources--if an area was abundant in, say a certain type of fruit, or a kind of fish, that resource became the totem of the group, and they were forbidden to use it (it would be cannibalism to eat your own totem). But members of neighboring groups could use it freely--so everyone had to depend on everyone else for resources and cooperation became very important. On the other hand, the boundaries were very important, and one often needs permission to enter another group's land, which might have been a possible source of conflict.
They were serious communists in the sense that there was no private ownership and everyone shared everything -even children and wives.
It's hard to say whether they shared wives the way we would think of it (i.e. sexually)--when an Aboriginal man uses the English word "wife" he might be talking about his romantic and sexual partner, or he might be talking about any of her sisters. Still, marriages are arranged, and so there's a sort of tolerated level of adultery that goes on. As a result, they never totally abolished murder, although it is rare.
The USA often allows its businessmen to determine the national interest in terms of shareholder profits and then its political system allows this business interest to become policy and even law.
Yes--there's many things I admire about the US, but that isn't one of them. I guess I'm more dismayed because there's people in Canada who would like to see that happen here. I'm not exactly sure what it hasn't happened yet--but I think it's harder for business to directly influence the government.
Even the Dalai Laama seems to have accepted that Tibet has not future outside of China
He's very pragmatic. I think he understands that realistically, total independence isn't likely to happen--and that if it eventually does, it will happen in slow steps. I really admire a man who never speaks ill of the people who invaded his country and killed two million of its people. He knows it wouldn't be constructive.
I think the ninja were cults that specialised in assassination using unique martial arts. Not very nice guys at all.
I'm not sure if they were cults, but they probably weren't very peaceful. One version of the story is that the ninja were members of mountain villages who were frequently oppressed by corrupt samurai warlords--so they used a lot of martial arts and various tricks to convince the samurai they had supernatural powers, so they were afraid to attack the villages. Of course, some of these ninja would then hire out their skills to other warlords for spying, theft, and assassination--presumably to earn money for their villages. So, they may have been peaceful within their own communities, but very violent to outsiders.
Yeah--the shaolin are probably a much better example of the peaceful warrior.
In the early 1980s I spent three years at a US base near Alice Springs, Central Australia. The base community was generally well insulated from the local people but I managed to do some exploring and socialising. The main impression that I had of the native people was that they had adapted to live in the harsh desert country, which would seem to be quite impossible to us. The main tactic they used was the same the animals used. The requirement to conserve energy dominated every action. With very little water about and a harsh sun that could kill an exposed white fella in one day, their technique was to lie under a tree, emerging at dawn and dusk to forage or hunt. Even the hunting was energy saving - light a fire and wait for the animals to run out. Don't skin the kangaroo just chuck it on the fire and cut off bits to eat.
I think energy conservation explains the behaviour of the modern aboriginies of the centre. You see them all over Alice sleeping, drinking, talking, and sometimes fighting under the trees. If food and clothing are provided there is no need to spend energy doing any work, and if money is available, spend it on alcohol. Share everything! So if you get a job, your income belongs to me too. Let's buy some grog. This may sound racist of me, but I feel that it is true and very sad.
As you move north the climate becomes wetter and the natives become much more active and enterprising. In the islands north of Australia the natives are like another race - closer to melanesians and polynesians. In New Guinea they are warriors with a relatively sophisticated culture and technology - formerly cannibals and head hunters.
Each group had a different dialect and there were literally hundreds of discrete language groups that are mostly not documented and now are disappearing, so it is fairly meaningless to talk about the aboriginal word for anything. Similarly with their technology. They use what works best to conserve energy in their location. Nowhere did they ever learn to capture or carry water, cultivate a plant, or husband animals. Native Australian animals are unable to be domesticated so the only one they had was the dingo which was a recent immigrant from Indonesia. There was no ancient form of wheat available to lead to the development of agriculture, and that would take too much energy.
Now they are offended by being called 'stone age' but are equally offended if you say that they were living the same way for less than 40,000 years before the white man came. They have a point because their art and law was much more advanced than what modern anthropologists attribute to stone age Europeans. We could learn a lot from them about what humans need to do to survive in a hostile environment. I am sure they would advise us to suppress warfare, share everything, and not to waste energy. Sounds to me like a charter for the United Nations.
The area my prof talked about was in the North; Groote Eylandt and the surrounding area, so I imagine that many things are different to more centrally located cultures.
Alcohol is an almost universal problem in post-colonial indigenous cultures; it's a big problem in Canada, too. The alcoholism and suicide rates are many times the national average on native reservations. I think it's a fairly natural response to having your culture almost wiped out--people just have to escape. There may be evolutionary reasons too. I remember reading about a native community in Northern Alberta where the diabetes rates are incredibly high. The explanation is that Europeans had lived with agriculture for generations, and had become used to a high starch/sugar diet, whereas the natives hadn't, and can't live on massive amounts of bread and potatoes like the white man does. Maybe they are unused to the effects of alcohol for similar reasons.
We could learn a lot from them about what humans need to do to survive in a hostile environment. I am sure they would advise us to suppress warfare, share everything, and not to waste energy. Sounds to me like a charter for the United Nations.
Absolutely--they've certainly had more experience at running a society than anybody else. What I found really interesting was the way that Aboriginal spirituality, politics, and economics all lined up. The metaphysics seems a lot like Taoism & Buddhism: a flowing, impermanent reality, and an economics and ethics that goes with it. If your life is a temporary condition, you shouldn't hold on to anything--especially resources that could be shared.
Yes indeed, Sad but true.
I agree that different races seem to have a different tolerance for alcohol. I don't think I have ever seen a group of drunken rowdy Chinese.
I think also that native peoples are of the present time. They don't see much point in saving money or getting an education, or even planting a crop because those things do not give immediate rewards - waste of energy again. Alcohol does give an immediate reward and the penalties are in the obscure future. This is also a reason why the threat of prison for breaking the law has little impact. Even basics like hygiene, sanitation and immunisation seem pointless. They only want medical treatment when they are sick. No doubt this orientation to the present is a major hindrance to them in getting their share of wealth in the modern world.
It is all too easy to simply view them as lazy, dependent, and good for nothing, but probably evolution has made them like that for sound survival reasons.
We are being terribly politically incorrect here. Of course they are as good as anyone else and should be equally treated in every respect.
Yes definitely--we really need to understand the ways different cultures think. In that way, we can pick and choose the aspects of our own culture we'd like to keep, and which we'd like to change.
There's certainly plenty of examples of indigenous people who have gone to school and/or become successful in the modern world. But their cultures aren't set up to handle things like alcohol. Then again, there's lots of white people whose lives are damaged by the same issues of substance abuse, sanitation, etc.
Mostly we get the familiar knee jerk about how much we do so much more in providing military and financial support to certain countries than does those dastardly Europeans.
Don't we?
The UN is a hopeless institution because it gives an equal say to underdeveloped countries that hate America
Or because it gives an equal say to oppressive, tyrannical, human-rights abusing regimes and has done little to assuage any of the world's bigger problems. We're usually the ones giving money to underdeveloped nations that hate us.
and we should have tax cuts because giving to the poor only makes them more welfare dependent.
Huh ... I always thought private local charities are better at giving to the poor of their own communities because they know how best to distribute money and resources as opposed to some bureaucrat in Washington. Also, I always thought tax cuts gave the working class more of their own hard-earned money back into their own pockets, as opposed to some Washington bureaucrat. Now if you want to pay more taxes voluntarily, you can. Of course, those are just my emotional knee-jerk reactions.
it gives an equal say to oppressive, tyrannical, human-rights abusing regimes
And what would you say is the alternative to that? Not permitting countries who don't like us to have a fair say in UN affairs? One vote one country is fair. How could silencing them work to stabilise the world? We have to be smart enough to work with the countries who hate us. I think it is good for those backward countries to take responsible roles in world government. The UN is not just the Security Council. It is made up of many specialised organisations having lots of brave, capable and selfless people who are doing a lot of good in the world. And, the USA, in proportion to the size of its economy and in relation to the contributions of other nations is not particularly generous to the UN.
Tax cuts are stupid at present because we are running a huge deficit and tax is the only way of compensating for excessive government spending (G-T =0 and all that). Most tax cuts disproportionately give to the rich who don't need it. If we don't recognise the plainly obvious fact that more tax is desperately needed then soon we will lose much more of our wealth in the collapse of the dollar, equities, securities etc. At least the wealthy will feel that most - along with self-funded pensioners.
Local charities are excellent at local things but Washington bureaucrats are actually the ones who know best how to balance transfers across the whole economy and to different segments of society through all the Federal and state welfare systems.
I suspect that your tired old slogans were created by the wealthy to make them feel more comfortable in their selfishness.
Or because it gives an equal say to oppressive, tyrannical, human-rights abusing regimes and has done little to assuage any of the world's bigger problems. We're usually the ones giving money to underdeveloped nations that hate us.
On reflection of your input, I suspect that actually the main problem for the United Nations is that it does not give all members an equal vote. The five permanent members of the Security Counci: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, have a right of veto. Usually one or other will exercise this veto over major decisions, particularity the dispatch of UN troops into a troubled area. The USA is equally obstructive as the other permanent members. US Efforts to talk up the invasion of Iraq were thwarted by vetoes.
As you know, efforts to help in Darfur were vetoed by China.
So the problem is not so much with the UN itself but with the constitution of a Security Council born of the power divide reflecting the outcome of WWII with the major powers trying to protect themselves from their competitors.
So the problem is not so much with the UN itself but with the constitution of a Security Council born of the power divide reflecting the outcome of WWII with the major powers trying to protect themselves from their competitors.
Which actually provides a somewhat peaceful precedent that people's will not act in a fashion conducive to everyone's improved position despite the safety of a mitigated environment.
I think the UN itself is representative of the intent for a Utopian initiative from which common good was supposed to come by a collective meeting of interested parties. The fact that the UN continues to falter - from us and from everyone else - seems to reinforce the pessimistic notion taken here that while we may want everyone to act in good faith ... they won't.
I understand what you're saying, we do seem to be trapped in a cycle of self-interest, but that doesn't mean we can't act in good faith. You have to remember that nearly all modern nations are formulated on similar principles of hierarchy and domination--that's how they became nations. Those attitudes of self-interest and domination are especially prevalent in our political "leaders"--who have worked all their lives to get into positions of power and influence.
So, it's not so much that people in general will not act in everyone's best interest--it's not beyond human nature--it's just that domination-focused people have been allowed to make the decisions and set the tone for generations. But a dominating attitude is a response to fear, and fear can be overcome with the right effort (i.e. by dealing with the fear itself, not by trying to dominate the object of fear).
To put it another way, it's the pessimism itself that keeps people from being able to trust each other, and from creating a better world. If we think people are self-interested, of course we will be self-interested in response and it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. But if we give people the benefit of the doubt--just a little at a time--then gradually we break the cycle and can slowly build a climate of trust.
nazi by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 02 April 2008
all of these things are direct violations of our constitutional rights. more people understand now that 911 was a false flag attack to make us think there are terrorists trying to hurt us. the only ones trying to hurt you are the corporations and rich people that want to make it impossible for you or your children to advanace from what we are now, slaves... well folks thats all the time i have got to go to the cotton field and play toby for a while...
more info @ www.zeitgeistmovie.com