He had a conscience, he just didn't feel compelled to use it

On the Rachel Maddow show Tuesday night, Philip Zelikow discussed his lone memo of dissent among all the pro-torture memos that floated around in the Bush administration.

At the time he was counsel for Condoleezza Rice. When he saw the torture memos (courtesy of The Huffington Post), he was of the opinion that they represented a "distorted view of the law" (shocking), and felt compelled to do something about it. And what was his grand gesture? Another memo. Forget the fact that the operation was classified, so only a few people even knew of its existence, so that only a few people would see the memos in the first place. Zelikow was so bothered by the twisted representation of the law, that he wrote down his own version. I don't exactly picture Jerry Maguire's midnight mission statement that turns up in the mailboxes of his entire company. I picture a few sheets of paper on government letterhead, sent to a select group of people.

In all fairness, Zelikow says that the administration tried to squash his attempts to shine the light of truth into the murky Bush darkness. But when Rachel asked him if he would have done something more drastic, like resigning? No, he said. It wasn't like that, apparently. It was really just a cordial disagreement between some lawyers who interpreted the law (for which there was really no precedent) differently.

And then we have House Minority Leader John Boehner confirming that the "harsh interrogation tactics" (or insert other euphemism of choice) are really just torture techniques. Boehner disagrees with the decision to leak the documents. He thinks that those unfriendly to the US could take advantage of this information:

When it comes to what our interrogation techniques are going to be or should be, I'm not going to disclose, nor should anyone have a conversation about what those techniques ought to be. It's inappropriate. All it does is give our enemies more information about us than they need.

So... we should just not talk about the illegal things we're doing? Well, that mindset certainly works in other areas of our government, not just our defense agencies. At least we're keeping it consistent.

Our fearless leader helps us out. Sort of.

In the midst of our non-recession, and even as he signs away more of our tax money to a social program, our president decides to throw us a bone. And what is that bone? He's cutting out $100 million from his budget.

Brad from The Liberty Papers illustrates for us:

Well, the Tea Partiers must have had an impact, because Barack Obama is about to go on a cost-cutting spree. With this quick 90-day window to identify $100B of cuts to make across his cabinet, he’s showing that he really does hear our pleas for fiscal sanity.

Oh, wait, did I read that wrong? Yep, it’s NOT $100B, it’s $100M. That’s not even enough to be a drop in a bucket!

Reason puts it in perspective:

Imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

Expect petulant politicians, like spoiled children, when these “cuts” are identified, to scream and whine — “But we wanted our latte!”

How kind of Obama to help us out and cut some money... only to spend it again, and more, on a social program that would be better off having private funding.

Breaking News: Banks May Have Used Fraud to Get Government Handouts

I'm sure that at the beginning, the Cabinet sounded like a good idea. I'm sure the colonists were keen on the idea of the President having some buddies around him to counsel him and take care of the little things like the military, the money, the people, etc. Our first President, George Washington, was aided by a cabinet of four- Jefferson, Hamilton, (Henry) Knox, and (Edmund) Randolph. It was a different animal back then. Things were a bit more awkward, far from the well-oiled machine that cranks away today. Inevitably, what began as a pretty good idea spiraled out of control and grew into the monstrous affair we now know- fifteen (many potentially superfluous) positions accountable to the citizens only through confirmation by the Senate.

Today, one member of our esteemed cabinet, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner testified before the Congressional Oversight Panel (full video here via C-SPAN). According to panel member Damon Silvers, it is the first time a Treasury representative has testified before the panel. I suppose that's fair. Geithner's got a lot on his plate. So much, in fact, that it's perfectly understandable that he didn't have time to correctly file his tax returns. I'd like to say that our founding father, Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, would have disagreed with Geithner, or at least with the goings on of late. But alas, I don't know that that'd be the case, considering his Report on Public Credit.

Anyway, Geithner testified before the COP today, defending his policies that he's implemented to help save the economy. He attempted to explain his brilliant plan of a public-private partnership (using the Treasury, the Fed, and private investors) that could dig us out of the hole we're in. Or, at least spend $2 trillion in the process. Considering the current national debt is rapidly approaching $12 trillion dollars, that seems a bit extravagant.

Now, I don't profess to know that much about economics. Even as I decry the overbearing taxation levied against the citizens of this country, I realize that I have no supplemental plan to use instead. But I do believe in taking responsibility for my consequences. For some reason, it doesn't sound quite right to me that our federal government has taken upon itself to solve the economic woes of our country (and tacitly, the world), by handing out money to corporations, by subsidizing loans, by nationalizing banks. That seems counterproductive to me.

If only there was some type of measure by which our legislators were held accountable to the citizens and taxpayers, some way to make them answer for their actions. Oh, wait...

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. – Ronald Reagan

another reason not to fly

As the country is readying for Thanksgiving plans, the government is getting ready to deal with the swarms of holiday travelers passing through airports. And as usual, it looks like it’s going to be a sub-par job.

Back in July, a local news station discovered that for almost 5 hours, the security checkpoints at Sky Harbor airport in Phoenix, Arizona were unmanned, except for one minimum wage earner who was often caught sleeping. At the end of September, fellow libertarian Citizen X waited at the Indianapolis airport for five hours because the TSA neglected to clean up after itself following a training session and closed down the airport when “bomb-like materials” were found (which, of course, turned out to belong to the TSA). There are accusations flying around that the TSA has tipped off airport security screeners about covert testing, to warn them so that they pass the tests. It doesn’t seem to help, though, because the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says that 19 airports have failed to notice testers with bomb-making materials slipping through checkpoints.

I’m not a big fan of airplanes to begin with. Going to school in Chicago with my parents’ living in Cleveland has meant quarterly plane rides to visit. It is an hour, hour and fifteen minute flight at the most between the two cities, but it has not been uncommon to spend four to five hours on a single trip, which is almost the amount of time it takes for me to drive the distance. Further, any people who cross onto the property of Midway airport via car are subject to having their vehicle searched, just by being at the airport. It’s as though airports are a 4^th amendment-free zone. This is, of course, nothing surprising. There has been a steady decline into complacency. Travelers accept that they will be subjected to government intrusion, and feel that it is worth it, that they will be protected in case 9/11 happens to repeat itself. (I wonder how many fellow travelers share Mr. Tancredo’s sentiments.) Donald Kerr tells us that we need to forget about our old concepts of privacy, that “privacy can no longer mean anonymity.”

Back in 2001, my political science teacher told the class that we wouldn’t know whether or not the terrorists of 9/11 had succeeded for several years. It wouldn’t be until we lived in constant fear of it happening again, that we’d see their plan of terror had worked. I guess it’s worked.

[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. – Edward Gibbon

commercial Christianity

Every Christmas, Americans are inundated with propaganda from stores and outlets and people peddling services. Radio stations begin playing Christmas music all day starting November 1. Today, during a welcome lunch break from law school, my friends and I discussed the sudden onslaught of Christmas-themed commercials. Apparently, the real meaning, according to Hallmark and its ilk, is giving. Giving, I suppose and by default, its reciprocal, getting. Gone are the days of wishing a happy birthday to Jesus, whose name we derive the popular holiday and season. As a libertarian, I do not mind the secular take on the holiday. As a Christian, it's frustrating to see how every passing year, a sacred festival is hi-jacked further down the road to populism.

In high school, I first heard of the fight to remove nativity scenes from the lawns of government buildings. The Ten Commandments are no longer welcome in courthouses. I think Ohio's motto, based on Philippians 4:13, was ruled unconstitutional, but to my knowledge it has not been replaced.

I am not sure where I stand as regards the leaking of Christian principles into American government. Conservatives loudly claim that our country was founded on Christian men who recognized the power of the Almighty. Liberals counter that the establishment and free exercise clauses, as well as the intent of the Framers, translate to the oft-used phrase "separation of church and state." I think conservatives hold so strongly to keeping Christ in the government because they do not believe any other religion or lifestyle can beget a moral life. But atheists are quick to say that they can still act ethically.

It seems as though Christianity is only a means to an end for those who advocate its necessity. For liberals, Christ was a man who fed large crowds with only a few fish and loaves of bread, but where was He when women are free to kill their unborn children. For conservatives, Christ was a man who said that marriage was only to be between one man and one woman, but were was He when political prisoners are being tortured for the greater good?

A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion. – Hugo Black

the good kind of bomb

This Monday, November 5th, the website ThisNovember5th is sponsoring a money bomb for Ron Paul's campaign. The idea is to gain 100,000 subscribers and have those people each donate $100 on the one day, thereby giving $10 million to Ron Paul. Some have questioned the sensibility of choosing November 5th as the date for the money bomb. November 5th is a special day in England, celebrated for two reasons surrounding one event. For those who have seen V for Vendetta or are familiar with the comic book series, you understand the rhyme, "Remember, remember the 5th of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot."

But for those who don't, a little trip through late 16th century England.

Guy Fawkes was an explosives expert during the reign of King James I of England (and VI of Scotland). Fawkes was introduced to a group of men in late 1604, early 1605 who were plotting to overthrow James and put his nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, on throne. Following the initial plan of blowing up Parliament, the men would then incite a rebellion to install a Catholic monarchy. They slowly burrowed under the ground toward the House of Lords, stockpiling gunpowder in various locations. By March of 1605, 36 barrels holding about 1800 pounds of gunpowder lay concealed under the House of Lords. Unfortunately, some of the gentlemen had consciences that would not let acquaintances be harmed in the explosion. They sent letters to warn several fellow Catholics, and word of the plot got out. On the night of November 4th, a search of the space under the House of Lords revealed Guy Fawkes. He was arrested and taken to the Tower of London to be tortured. The plotters, who didn't deny their actions, were found guilty at trial and sentenced to die by hanging, drawing and quartering on January 31, 1606. At the execution, Fawkes jumped off the gallows, breaking his neck.

On Guy Fawkes Night, celebrated November 5th, people in England and formerly British colonies light bonfires and watch fireworks. Some celebrate the plot's discovery and the continuance of the monarchy. Some celebrate the valiant attempt to destroy it. This is why some American commentators have debated the soundness of having the money bomb on November 5th. It wouldn't be a good idea for Ron Paul to be associated with anarchist plots to overthrow the government.

But maybe we can look on Guy Fawkes and his compatriots a little more gently. Maybe, instead of seeing that their plot was borne out of perceived religious persecution, we can think that they dared to dream of a time when life could be different, when the monarchy wasn't overbearing, when they could have the right to do as they pleased.

No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation. – General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964), Supreme Allied Commander, General of the U.S. Army

a little taste