What if it was the 2nd Amendment?

What if the recently passed FISA bill (H.R. 6304) addressed the Second Amendment? What if the President claimed that, in order to defend us from terrorists, he needed the power to remove all guns from any home in America? Now, he wouldn't say it that way in press conferences and speeches. He would instead say that he needs to have the capability to disarm terrorists and that this capability needs to be flexible and all encompassing to effectively combat the threat. He would say the terrorists are fighting a new kind of warfare and that the old laws don't work anymore. He would remind you that terrorists are trying to kill you and that disarming them is vital to the interests of the nation. And he wouldn't be alone in saying it. There would be a host of administration officials, pundits, operatives, and supporters giving rationale and voicing their support.

If you look closely, you may notice that the actual law allows for people who have done nothing wrong to lose their guns. You may notice that the administration can confiscate anyone's guns without telling anyone why they are doing it, or even whether they are doing it or not. If you spoke up about this, you would be told that you don't understand the nature of the terrorist threat. You will be told that unless the president can take away anyone's guns at any time, the terrorists will strike again and again. They will have already won. You would be told that innocent people who have nothing to hide needn't worry, because even though the administration could take away your guns, they won't. You would be told that you are putting our troops and law enforcement officials in harm's way by your ridiculous requirement that they stop off at the nearest court house to get a judge's order before they can say "Drop your weapon!" to some cornered criminal. When you point out that the existing law never required that, you will be told that the existing law was written a long time ago and things have changed since then. If you point out that the Second Amendment is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, you would be told that your idealistic and naive ideas can't work in the real world, and you are enabling our enemies. You will be told that you care more about the rights of terrorists than the safety of your own children. You will be told that when the terrorists go on a killing spree in the local mall, well, you'd better be ready to accept responsibility for it. And you would be called unAmerican.

Americans of all stripes should and would be up in arms about this. The outrage would be loud and clear and would overwhelm the fear-based arguments of those backing the law. But it's not the Second Amendment this time around. It's the Fourth. The loss is not so tangible. You can't hold it in your hand like a gun. For example, you would know if federal agents came to take away your guns. You would know if a Democratic administration confiscated the guns of all registered Republicans. With surveillance you don't know. The current FISA legislation is actually more insidious than any legislation targeting gun ownership. Every one of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights is precious, whether we can hold it in our hands or not. Every one of them was put there specifically to protect the innocent and that guarantee of protection for individuals has been the source of strength for America for hundreds of years. Weakening them in the face of a threat weakens us as a nation. And if we weaken ourselves, well, the terrorists have already won.

See what others are writing The Huffington Post.

My FISA Lament

So many have already said it so much better, but I may as well add my voice. The recent passage of the bill to "modernize" FISA (H.R. 6304) is being cheered by conservatives as a Bush victory, and panned by liberals as a blow to the Constitution. The conservatives are right, it is a Bush victory. But the liberals are right, too, which is why I lament the passing of the bill. The two big talking points of the bill are telecom immunity and expansion of the warrantless surveillance program.

Telecom Immunity
The question is "Why?" It's pretty well established that the earlier NSA surveillance program broke the law. Even knowing that, I would be okay with the telecom immunity provision if the administration could give a good rationale for it. They haven't.

President Bush says that immunity ensures the cooperation of the telecom companies in future information gathering activities, but that makes no sense. When law enforcement or intelligence agencies approach any business with a legitimate request for information, it is against the law for that business to withhold the information. It's called obstruction of justice. So, since these companies must comply, how does retroactive immunity help? Another reason may be to protect these companies from the expense of law suits. That doesn't wash. These companies have deep pockets and the standard defense in a civil law suit is to use your deep pockets to bleed the plaintiff dry. The last possible reason is to prevent details of administration activities from being released during the trials. Names would be named and specific (possibly illegal) actions pinned to them. Political futures are at stake. This is the only rationale that I'm not seeing an argument against.


Expanding Wireless Surveillance
This bill expands the ability of the Executive Branch to spy on American citizens in the United States without oversight. It contains some legalese requiring reporting to the FISA court and periodically to Congress, but there are loopholes big enough to drive a telecommunications truck through (See Common Dreams article.) The grace period for spying without permission expands from three days to seven and doesn't have to stop if the court denies the request (it continues through the appeals process). Worse, spying activities and rationales against specific individuals need never be disclosed. It weakens the 4th amendment requiring warrants before search and seizure. The only check that balances the increase in power is to trust the President to act responsibly. That's not how a "Nation of Laws" is run.


Agreement
This is sounding like a slam on the administration, but that's not the point. The bill is a bad bill regardless of who is in power. We can agree on a few things. Our government was designed so that no single branch has too much power. In the case of domestic spying, the executive must work with the court system. The intent is to limit domestic spying to legitimate uses. This bill weakens that particular check and balance.

Currently liberals are distressed, while conservatives are cheering the gain of a tool against terror for the current President. But there is a strong possibility that Obama will be president. Will they cheer that he has this power, too? What about future presidents? Power corrupts and this bill gives the kind of power that Nixon could only dream of. Instead of relying on a group of amateur plumbers, some future power grab may be made with all the sophistication and resources of the NSA. Do we really need to do this to defend ourselves against a terrorist threat? There will always be threats and there will always be someone telling us that our safety requires that we give up some of our Constitutional guarantees. Don't listen to them. In the long run, losing our identity by chipping away at the Constitution is always the greatest threat.

This post was edited July 13th, 2008 for clarity.

Reading the News

If We The People are ever going to run this country as intended, we need to know what is going on. It isn't easy. People know of the "Fog of War," which is the haze of information preventing a military commander to see a situation clearly. Military commanders have access to a vast array of information, most of which is irrelevent, dubious, or deceptive. The most important information may be deliberately hidden. You and I are surrounded by a "Fog of Politics," which prevents us from seeing what is going on around us clearly. Thanks to the internet, we have access to a vast array of information, most of which is irrelevent, dubious, or deceptive. The most important information may be deliberately hidden.

Relying on the news media alone is not the answer. Corporations exist to make money and news corporations are no different. You already know this because you've seen the endless hours of coverage devoted to Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, or the latest missing (attractive, female) college student. You've noticed the distinct absence of air time devoted to details of the latest omnibus funding bill, or proposed revisions to the tax code, or in-depth pro and con discussions of US policy toward...well, toward anything. Paris, Britney, and the missing girl bring in the viewers and the ratings are the single most important thing. Things that really affect you are, oddly enough, not interesting enough for you to watch. There is a chicken-and-egg effect here. The networks provide us salacious stories masquerading as news in the belief that we'll watch and we confirm the belief by watching.

When real news is covered we are hardly better off. Coverage is kept at a top-level and the information is presented by advocates for one position or another instead of independent analysts. Their goal is to convince you, not inform you. We are forced to rely on the news anchors to "ask the tough questions" to "keep them honest." Of course, if they do ask the tough questions then notable guests would no longer appear on the show and ratings would plummet.

This is by no means a new discovery, but a reminder. And a twist. The inadequacies of the mainstream media is actually something liberals and conservatives can agree on. At least they can if they choose to. Liberals say the media is controlled by and voicing only conservative talking points and conservatives claim the media is filled with left-wing operatives spouting liberal positions. Conservatives claim that George Soros is the evil mastermind pulling the strings behind the scenes. While liberals claim that Rupert Murdoch is the evil mastermind controlling the messages we are allowed to hear.

What liberals and conservatives can agree on is the need for trustworthy, unbiased sources of information. Maybe we should stop arguing about who's side the news is on and demand with a unified voice news that is not on anybody's side. That means educating ourselves a bit. Fact-check stories, even ones you agree with. Consider all stories, even ones you don't agree with. Watch channels and read online sources you normally wouldn't. It really doesn't take much effort; a quick google almost always does the trick to get a fuller picture of a news item. Waiting a few days for the news cycle to catch up with the facts can help, too. If a false story is ripping its way through the internet, post a polite (can't emphasize that enough) note and link to more factual information. It may mean voting with your feet to show that anything less is not tolerated.

Agreement on these kinds of issues may seem trivial, but it is important. People who have something in common are more apt to listen to each other, respect each other's views, and work together on the harder issues.

And for what it's worth, I have always been impressed with Christian Science Monitor news (link at left).

No Other Side

When I first started reading online forums and blogs I sought out conservative sites. I did this because I was opposed to many of the actions of the Bush administration and wanted to understand where "the other side" was coming from. I was not impressed. Most of what passed for discussion was simply name calling. John Skerry. Demonrats. Dumbocrats. After a while I started to read liberal blogs and forums. Again, not impressed. John Asscroft. Rethuglicans. Freepers. People would post furious blasts about how awful the "other side" is. Communists. Fascists. Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!

The funny thing is that, underneath it all, both sides have very much the same goals. I'm not talking about individual high-profile political and business leaders, but about the everyday people these leaders are trying to appeal to. Everyday people the world over have the same underlying goals. They want a stable job, ability to care for their family's needs, a safe place to raise their family, and want to leave the world a little better off than when they found it for their kids. Even though there may be vehement arguments about what "better off" means, those fundamental goals are the same for the vast majority of people.

On political forums, you usually have to look to see it. First, strip away all of the posturing and name calling. That leaves policy positions, which still seem to be in opposition to each other. The advocates must therefore be opponents, right? Dig deeper. Set aside the policy details and look at the goals, they are almost always the same.

Health care is an easy example. Some want federal government supported health care, and some don't. Are they in opposition? Not so much. Ultimately, both "sides" want all Americans to have access to affordable health care. Can you believe that any sane American watches a school bus go by and offers up a silent prayer "Please, God, please let some of those children have illnesses their family can't afford to treat!" Everyone has the same goal of universal access to health care. They are merely differing on how to achieve it. Specifically, they are working out how much support should come from the federal government. Some conservatives will respond "Zero!" With a little more thought, these same people realize that the Federal government already does supply health care in some cases, and with their consent. Veterans clearly deserve, and obtain, federally funded health care. Federal employees also must be offered health care plans as part of their compensation packages so that the government can hire competitively with industry. Providing health care to prisoners in federal penitentiaries is also accepted. And what of MediCare, MedicAid? Many accept these programs as playing a positive role.

So the federal government is already providing health care in a big way. Recognizing this changes the question significantly from "Should there be universal health care?" to "How much health care support should come from the feds?" It's a big change. The first question is all or nothing, and set up for confrontation and division. The second recognizes the underlying goal (everybody gets health care) and provides common ground to begin the discussion as to how we, as a single people, can achieve the goal. By the way, I have no idea as to the answer! I am merely pointing out that changing your point of view on the question helps come to a solution that most of us will accept in the long run.

Mainstream news media is another easy example. Conservatives claim the media has a liberal bias. They claim the media unfairly attacks the current administration. Liberals even have a Demon, George Soros, pulling the strings behind the scenes. Liberals claim the media has a conservative bias. They claim the media unfairly kowtows to the current administration. That the conservatives have a Demon, Rupert Murdoch, pulling the strings behind the scenes. Underneath it all, conservatives and liberals are clamoring for the same thing -- straight forward, reliable information from news services. We all intuitively sense that, if We The People are going to run this nation, we need accurate information. Now, there are all kinds of complications as to how we get truly accurate news services, but the underlying goal is the same. It is a place of common ground for liberals and conservatives to begin a discussion.


Why does it matter? It matters because it gives us a way to have political discussion in our nation founded on the basis of unity, rather than opposition. It doesn't answer the big questions, but changes the tenor from one of opposition to one of cooperation. We are stronger when we cooperate. It matters because it provides a basis for moving forward together, instead of dragging each other back and forth over the same old ground in an endless tug of war between sides. Most importantly, it matters because if We The People insist upon it, then it forces our political representatives to move away from partisan politics and begin true cooperation in moving the Nation forward.

Introduction

Since this is our first post, we'll do a little introduction and lay out the goals and approach of this blog. We are a brother and sister team (Keith and Wanda) interested in US politics. We're interested in other things, too, like gardening, but we'll stick to political and current events in this blog. Mostly.

We read a lot. Books, online news services, blogs, and discussion boards. We've decided to add our voice and become part of the discussion. Actually, Keith's voice, while Wanda takes on the technological challenges of creating an appealing look and feel for the site. So what makes my voice different from the thousands of others out there? Overlap is unavoidable, but I differ from the majority by focusing on agreement, rather than differences, when viewing the political landscape. Most conservatives and liberals would be surprised to see how similar their goals are on most issues, if they choose to see it. I hope this approach has a few things to offer that are novel, entertaining, and beneficial.

Posts Emphasizing Similarities

Almost everyone agrees that politics has become too partisan. And almost everyone agrees that it is the other party's fault. If only those other guys would see reason and change, everything would be fine. Meanwhile, both Democratic and Republican politicians spend too much time playing gotcha and too little time trying to find the common ground needed to build solutions. We The People put up with this. Worse, we encourage it! I don't want to add to that antagonistic atmosphere. In the long run, it is far more productive to discuss information emphasizing similarities between supposedly different sides. To do so means looking past the headline, past the slogan, and trying to tease out what is really going on.

The bottom line is that a nation of 300 million moving together is much stronger than two nations of 150 million going nowhere as they pull each other apart. Believe it or not, the so-called opposing sides of almost every issue have the same over-arching goals in mind. The disagreement, like the Devil, is in the details of how to get there. I sense you're not buying this. That's ok. I'll discuss it much more in future posts.

Looking for the similarities doesn't require being a Pollyanna, and is not the same as being neutral. I understand there are conflicts in the real world, but reject the idea that these conflicts control us. I will agree with one side or another on certain issues, and disagree with many Bush administration actions. But I reject slogan politics and the blind following of one political party or figure. I also reject demonizing political figures and parties, not out of some high moral standard, but for the very practical reason that it weakens us as a Nation.

Objectivity

As I come to understand events I focus on two separate questions: "What is it?" and "What does it mean?" Many people - even Americans! - have a conclusion, and then establish facts to fit the conclusion. If a piece of news supports the conclusion, then keep it, no matter how questionable it may be. If the news contradicts the belief, well it must be false, right? Rejecting or accepting everything a person says just because they are a Democrat or Republican will not help you gain a clear picture of what is actually going on around you. By emphasizing similarities, and not buying into the belief that an opposing political party is an enemy, it's a lot easier to attempt objectivity.

The trick is to ask the two questions "What is it?" and "What does it mean?" separately. Ask "what is it?" without attempting to interpret meaning. This helps to push personal preferences aside so they are less likely to influence what I see. The idea is to establish the "facts on the ground" as they say. Once I have an idea of what is going on, then I try to determine what the effect is. What it means. Both are tricky questions, but this is probably the trickier of the two, and most prone to personal feelings getting in the way. Once more, not viewing a political opponent as a demon is helpful.

Everything has a Benefit and a Cost

Political argumentation has become pretty one-sided. Options are presented as if they will solve a problem and have no down side effects whatsoever. The truth is that everything has both a benefit and a cost. "There ain't no free lunch" doesn't just mean you can't get something for free, it means that everything has positive and negative aspects. Try asking someone advocating some solution what the down side of the action is. Many won't be able to, which means they haven't really thought through the impacts of their position. It's a very short step from being a lazy thinker to being a non-thinking ditto-head no matter what your political leanings are. In this blog I hope to show both benefits and costs of current events so you can make your own conclusions...or disagree with mine.