The Separation of...Everything


A dire danger lurks and it is not terrorism

Just Because There's Snow on the Roof...
Before getting serious, I will start with a random thought about men's hair-care. As you can tell from the picture that presides above, I'm pretty gray; some would say prematurely, though I'm nosing up on 50 and in caveman days, I would be dead by now (and probably skinnier). It's generally genetic; the maternal side of my family grays very early, the paternal does not, but guess where I get my genes? I have not seriously thought about coloring my hair (coloring my scalp, now that's another possibility), but, since so many people do it--probably, what, 90% (or more) of the women in this country--the fleeting thought has occurred to me.

However, I began to consider how much money Arnold Schwarzenegger-Kennedy must have...and then, on top of that, how much Sir Paul McCartney must have. Put their fortunes together and it would, I'm guessing, be equal to the GNP of the sixth or seventh largest economy in the world. But have you seen their hair color? William Shatner's toupee looks more natural! Is that the best coloring available? Oh well, guess I'll stick with the gray. You'd think they would have perfected Grecian Formula by now... it's probably been a few thousand years.

The Madness of King George
Of course, the right-wing gets upset when left-wingers refer to them as fascists or nazis. Just so we all have a common point of reference, can we agree to label this administration a "repressive regime?" I'm open to debate on that, but I don't see how anyone can realistically debate it. They do not encourage personal freedoms (unless it is the freedom of corporations to do what they please). They are against abortion; personal sexuality choices (unless you're heterosexual and married); freedom of religion (though you're free to believe what they believe); state autonomy over drugs, medical care, education and so on; open-minded scientific research; and I'm sure a ton of other things I'm forgetting. Oh, yes, dissent. They claim to want to bring the country back to basics--and they are. Back to the days of the Puritans.

The debate rages on in my mind about George W. Bush. I'm convinced, as many are, that he's fairly ignorant. A definitional thing here, ignorant vs. stupid. Ignorant means uninformed: not well-read, not exposed to many differing views, not open-minded to consider other options. I won't even get into stupid. Then there is also evil or with malicious intent. Is he undermining the country, the economy, and democracy here in America intentionally or because he doesn't know any better? Can't be sure about those either, or at least not sure enough to document in a blog. And independent-minded. That's a big unknown: whether the President marches to his own drummer at all--or even hears one--or if he's manipulated by others such as Karl Rove and the bionic Dick Cheney. (It's getting harder to tell Dick Cheney and Darth Vader apart--at one time you could probably rely on a X-ray, but I don't think you can anymore.) So let's just go back to ignorant--especially of basic American principles. Separation of church and state (he's proven to either be unaware of that principle, or to completely disregard it); separation of military vs. civilian control.

It has been four years since the tragedy of 9-11. Bush convinced the country that he was a "strong leader" and would undertake preparations to safeguard our people in the event of another tragedy. That grew more doubtful over time, as Osama Bin Laden settles back to watch another season of HBO's Larry David, and the American casualty count in Iraq nears 2,000 (any estimates on the Iraqi numbers? Close to the numbers racked up by Saddam Hussein yet?). So with the emperor's clothes rapidly becoming invisible--or at least very sheer--the President's latest proposal is to give the military more power domestically, though increased Pentagon sovereignty is couched in the pretext of "disasters." I've got nothing personal against the military. But the founders of this country--and even pretty much the rest of the government for the subsequent 225 years--believed that the military has quite enough power and they should not be used domestically without the consensus of congressional and state officials. (It's scary enough that the military can be ordered into invading a foreign country by, essentially, one party.)

What is so dangerous about giving the military additional domestic power? Again, this brings us one step closer to becoming a third-world country where soldiers in boots patrol our neighborhoods. What would be the effect on personal freedom, on dissent, on justice as dispensed by the civilian courts and "a jury of our peers?" Doesn't that, then, push the overriding philosophy one small step (but one giant leap) over the line from repression to fascism? Seems to me it does. Case in point:

Our government, abetted by the military, is practicing extreme censorship to keep citizens from reacting with their hearts. There has been a veil of secrecy over how we treat political prisoners in Guantanamo (pretty handy to put a military prison off the coast, where our laws of freedom and fairness don't pertain) and how we treat Iraqis in their own country. The government has also restricted (and the military enforces) photographic documentation of the casualties we are suffering in Iraq--you haven't seen pictures of almost 2000 caskets of American soldiers returning home, have you?

Today a district court ordered the release of pictures of detainee abuse taken at Abu Ghraib. The chilling portion of that story is that Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, represented the government's view that such pictures should be censored because it is too dangerous to show the reality of how American soldiers have treated Iraqis in their own country. That is the prevailing U.S. government view--that showing reality is too dangerous; we need to be protected from the truth.

But more dangerous than that (if possible) is that the government and the military have also restricted pictures of the dead in domestic situations such as hurricane casualties in the Gulf Coast. CNN actually had to go to court to reinstate freedom of the press that allowed them to photograph the dead as the flood waters began to recede. Even with court order in hand, newsperson Anderson Cooper had to confront a soldier (remember, not paid or trained for independent thought nor to make reasonable decisions, but paid and trained to follow orders), who refused him access to show the casualties. The government argues that it is simply respect for the dead. But Cooper raised the point that soldiers and rescue workers had walked and driven past corpses tied to lampposts and street signs for the better part of a week or more; what kind of respect was that? No matter what you think about the quality of journalism these days, you don't reform it by restricting its access to the truth.

This is one problem with giving the military more power domestically. It allows government to circumvent checks and balances... perhaps that of the Congress and of State authority--as well as the judicial process. Generally military matters are settled by military courts and tribunals, not a jury of your peers or a civilian judge. And you may have noticed how military courts rarely convict officers or even men (especially in cases of sexual harassment or rape).

I do not know where the President's idea sprang from--whether his own ignorance of the importance of safeguarding the civilian population and democratic process from military rule--or if there is something more sinister about it. It does violate a principle we've had in this country for about 125 years. And, to be fair, most government officials are against his idea. But not all. Some Republicans have spoken in favor of it.

More than ever, American citizens need to be vigilant. As I've said before, not against foreign terrorists, but to make sure our government does not grab unprecedented power that cannot be restored to the people. This is not heresy; it is patriotism! To uphold Constitutional principles. To keep a fair separation and balance in our government. And if we, the citizens, fail, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Don't let the tactics of fear cause us to surrender what is dear to us. When rulers use fear to control the people, you do get horrors such as Nazism. This is neither an exaggeration nor a huge stretch. In fact, it can happen more quickly and seemingly benign than most people think.

Posted: Thu - September 29, 2005 at 11:23 AM          

©