1.05.2005
SECRECY AND THE STATE OF THE UNION
Information is the bulwark of an effective democracy or republic. Democracy as governance is premised on the notion that the citizenry needs to be informed in order to effectively deliberate on the issues of the day and make educated decisions as to the order of the state. Enlightenment thinkers shifted decisonmaking from the king or queen to the populace, who was considered the best able to vote for what their kingdom needed. One of the primary debates between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton was whether the public, as such, could be tasked with the responsibility to stay informed of relevant government and social issues and send competent leaders to Congress based on being informed. Could the public be trusted in the aggregate to make wise decisions? Would this same public be subject to demogoguery and mob rule absent a desire for information?
Clearly, these issues have been resolved. Public leaders and thinkers of all philosophies generally agree in democracy's necessity for information as a predicate for informed decision making. Unfortunetaly, the last four years have been marked by an abrupt escalation away from this principle. It is a trusim to say that the Bush administration is one of the most secretive preseidencies of the modern age. This adminsitration has flouted the premise of the Enlightenment that democracy is only effective with information, by enacting numerous policies restricitng information. A Google search in this area will easily find a host of non-conspiracy websites examining a diversity of restrictions across every area of government. As political theory has attempted to take Foucault's advice and "cut the head off the king" in order to analyze the nature of power relations in a state, we are forced again to revisit well-settled issues of philosophy and governance so that the United States does not return to an oligarchical, monacrchical, or as Bush has been trained, a corporate governing entity.
As one of his first acts in office, President Bush expelled the American Bar Association from advising the White House on judicial nominations as the ABA was considerd to be too "liberal" an organization. A collective of attorneys and academics from all areas of legal practice was replaced by an small, exclusive White House staff. This staff could better advise as to who might be the proper judical nominee. While this was not an act of overtly restricting information from the public, it was the first indication that decision-making and advisory entities outside the White House were not welcome unless directly in tow with the Bush ideology, despite the ABA's use by former Republican pressidents.
In the wake of the 911 attacks, the Department of Justice openly declared that it would not recognize an attorney-client privilege when it began monioroing the conversations of all detainees and their attorneys, arguing that this right was only afforded to American citizens. In March 2003, President Bush amended Executive Order 12958 to narrowly redefine classification standards so that more information dealing with homeland security could be restricted. A year later, the White House allowed National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to publicly testify pursuant only that the 911 Commission not use this as precdent to call future White House officials and that the Commission not call other White House officials to testify.
These three instances headline a long list of information offences aganist the electorate. While always citing legal theories and national security justifications, the Bush administration on perception alone demonstrates that information is not necessary to an informed citizenry when it is advantageous to the wings of the White House. Noam Chomsky has consistently shown that issues of national security can always be restrcited and kept from the public as such information by its own definition was power. By cloaking information in terms of "national security," a government could effectively still the public from gathering the necessary knoweldge it needed to effectuate democratic decisions. By taking away attorney-client privilege from a suspected terrorist, one takes away protected secrecy by right on an ad hoc basis in the name of national security. On the other hand, invoking arguments for secrecy in the affairs of the National Security Advisor despite creating a Commission to investigate the 911 attacks, the Adminsitration sends contrary signals that information should be protected, or at least limited to public questioning, when it is, again, in the interests of national security. The good of the goose is not the good of the gander.
National security has always been subject to the perils of secret information. Governments consistently argue that the citizenry have no rights to this information unless that government wants support for going to war.
Herodotus wrote of the early Persians that access to the king and his chambers was restrcited so that the masses would not envy the riches of the rulers. The king war and peace. This same tradition has been passed down whether the government be divinely inspired or democratically elected. And despite that we live in the chaman "Information Age," whereby early commentators declared a new Enlightenment, information is as precious a commodity as oil, diamonds, or even drinking water. More patents, copyrights, and trademarks have been filed than ever before. Intellectual property law is one of the highest salaried law firm jobs upon graduation. The last 100 years could be viewed from the perspective of U.S. hegemony by might or economy. Now, it appears that the current executive mandate is power through the control of information.
Information is the bulwark of an effective democracy or republic. Democracy as governance is premised on the notion that the citizenry needs to be informed in order to effectively deliberate on the issues of the day and make educated decisions as to the order of the state. Enlightenment thinkers shifted decisonmaking from the king or queen to the populace, who was considered the best able to vote for what their kingdom needed. One of the primary debates between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton was whether the public, as such, could be tasked with the responsibility to stay informed of relevant government and social issues and send competent leaders to Congress based on being informed. Could the public be trusted in the aggregate to make wise decisions? Would this same public be subject to demogoguery and mob rule absent a desire for information?
Clearly, these issues have been resolved. Public leaders and thinkers of all philosophies generally agree in democracy's necessity for information as a predicate for informed decision making. Unfortunetaly, the last four years have been marked by an abrupt escalation away from this principle. It is a trusim to say that the Bush administration is one of the most secretive preseidencies of the modern age. This adminsitration has flouted the premise of the Enlightenment that democracy is only effective with information, by enacting numerous policies restricitng information. A Google search in this area will easily find a host of non-conspiracy websites examining a diversity of restrictions across every area of government. As political theory has attempted to take Foucault's advice and "cut the head off the king" in order to analyze the nature of power relations in a state, we are forced again to revisit well-settled issues of philosophy and governance so that the United States does not return to an oligarchical, monacrchical, or as Bush has been trained, a corporate governing entity.
As one of his first acts in office, President Bush expelled the American Bar Association from advising the White House on judicial nominations as the ABA was considerd to be too "liberal" an organization. A collective of attorneys and academics from all areas of legal practice was replaced by an small, exclusive White House staff. This staff could better advise as to who might be the proper judical nominee. While this was not an act of overtly restricting information from the public, it was the first indication that decision-making and advisory entities outside the White House were not welcome unless directly in tow with the Bush ideology, despite the ABA's use by former Republican pressidents.
In the wake of the 911 attacks, the Department of Justice openly declared that it would not recognize an attorney-client privilege when it began monioroing the conversations of all detainees and their attorneys, arguing that this right was only afforded to American citizens. In March 2003, President Bush amended Executive Order 12958 to narrowly redefine classification standards so that more information dealing with homeland security could be restricted. A year later, the White House allowed National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to publicly testify pursuant only that the 911 Commission not use this as precdent to call future White House officials and that the Commission not call other White House officials to testify.
These three instances headline a long list of information offences aganist the electorate. While always citing legal theories and national security justifications, the Bush administration on perception alone demonstrates that information is not necessary to an informed citizenry when it is advantageous to the wings of the White House. Noam Chomsky has consistently shown that issues of national security can always be restrcited and kept from the public as such information by its own definition was power. By cloaking information in terms of "national security," a government could effectively still the public from gathering the necessary knoweldge it needed to effectuate democratic decisions. By taking away attorney-client privilege from a suspected terrorist, one takes away protected secrecy by right on an ad hoc basis in the name of national security. On the other hand, invoking arguments for secrecy in the affairs of the National Security Advisor despite creating a Commission to investigate the 911 attacks, the Adminsitration sends contrary signals that information should be protected, or at least limited to public questioning, when it is, again, in the interests of national security. The good of the goose is not the good of the gander.
National security has always been subject to the perils of secret information. Governments consistently argue that the citizenry have no rights to this information unless that government wants support for going to war.
Herodotus wrote of the early Persians that access to the king and his chambers was restrcited so that the masses would not envy the riches of the rulers. The king war and peace. This same tradition has been passed down whether the government be divinely inspired or democratically elected. And despite that we live in the chaman "Information Age," whereby early commentators declared a new Enlightenment, information is as precious a commodity as oil, diamonds, or even drinking water. More patents, copyrights, and trademarks have been filed than ever before. Intellectual property law is one of the highest salaried law firm jobs upon graduation. The last 100 years could be viewed from the perspective of U.S. hegemony by might or economy. Now, it appears that the current executive mandate is power through the control of information.
10.26.2004
In the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon notes that the 3 blessings of a capital are:
1. Order
2. Plenty
3. Public Amusements
I think he's right on. Man isn't some sort of social creature or political animal in the Aristotelian sense. Humans, rather, tolerate civilization because it offers the 3 blessings. Toleration is not based on a social contract whereby we enter into this a humanistic agreement to obey rules in exchange for governmental protection and suppliance. Instead, the agreement is thrust upon each of us irrespective of our social conditions. Humans live together and participate in politics so that the 3 blessings may be furthered. Civil discord occurs when one of the blessings is out of array (or underfunded as in today's Beauregard America).
1. Order
2. Plenty
3. Public Amusements
I think he's right on. Man isn't some sort of social creature or political animal in the Aristotelian sense. Humans, rather, tolerate civilization because it offers the 3 blessings. Toleration is not based on a social contract whereby we enter into this a humanistic agreement to obey rules in exchange for governmental protection and suppliance. Instead, the agreement is thrust upon each of us irrespective of our social conditions. Humans live together and participate in politics so that the 3 blessings may be furthered. Civil discord occurs when one of the blessings is out of array (or underfunded as in today's Beauregard America).
10.20.2004
I'm now up and running on trying to write in this damn blog every so often. It was intended to be a more thinking, thought-provoking blog like all the other pseudo-intellectual ones reserved for grad students and law professors. Instead, it's a mix of rants and thought all rolled up into one. I'm now making conscious effort to write, everyday.
What ever happened to the concept of statemanship? Do we now refer to all office holders as politicians? What happened to the the statesmanship of Cicero, Roosevelt, Washington, Justinian, Reagan, Constantine, or do I daresay, Lenin? What happened to the folks who defy elected politics and rule like the monarchs of the past? Elective politics dampens the spirit the leadership particularly in the years of administrative regulation.
The concept of statemanship is DEAD, extinguished like so many flames of light caught in overpowering wind. Statesmanship was defined by a universal definition of leadership, one in which leadership was timeless. Now, leadership is much like replacing the transmission in a sports car, something the populace does once every 100,000 miles, not because they want to, an inconvenience, but because there is no alternative but to constantly seek a stronger piece of engineering because the last piece couldn't handle the driver, the people.
What ever happened to the concept of statemanship? Do we now refer to all office holders as politicians? What happened to the the statesmanship of Cicero, Roosevelt, Washington, Justinian, Reagan, Constantine, or do I daresay, Lenin? What happened to the folks who defy elected politics and rule like the monarchs of the past? Elective politics dampens the spirit the leadership particularly in the years of administrative regulation.
The concept of statemanship is DEAD, extinguished like so many flames of light caught in overpowering wind. Statesmanship was defined by a universal definition of leadership, one in which leadership was timeless. Now, leadership is much like replacing the transmission in a sports car, something the populace does once every 100,000 miles, not because they want to, an inconvenience, but because there is no alternative but to constantly seek a stronger piece of engineering because the last piece couldn't handle the driver, the people.
10.18.2004
In an online world dominated by sophisticated blogs espousing the ramblings of pseudo intellectuals and the every day jautings of the masses, I struggle to just piece a few words together or even get the motivation to sit and write. I decided today that the county in which I live, Orange County (the OC to my DC peeps), is not a cosmopolis. It is the antithesis of it. There's a shortage of political discussion outside the realm of presidential politics and debate. There's a general lack of recognized existence outside the Crystal Cathedral of sun, fun, and fantasy that OC offers. People here even hate the rain despite being surrounded by desert so camouflaging with green grass, golf courses, and cookie cutter housing, a manufactured climate thirsting for precipitation.
Yes, I've decided today that my OC is not a cosmopolis in the sense of Merriam-Webster's "international sophistication." I see more folks willing to slam beers and check out chicks than wax intellectual in some spirited debate broader than whether Bush, the Boy King, will kill those "terrorist bastards."
But hey, how can I argue with biological directivity.
On the debates, it's still surprising how Kerry can win all of the debates and still be behind Bush in the polls. Granted, substance should preside over style, but Kerry, despite his perceived wafflings kept the Boy King on the offensive and demonstrated the President's failed political policies in the Middle East. But, I don't think that folks who viewed the debates and thought Kerry won would vote for Bush. Bush will receive a lot of votes from folks who didn't watch him and still think he's a man of conviction and resolve when it comes to war and protecting this country. I still think he's a weenie . . .
But really, the more philosophy I read and the more history I delve into the more I don't have a treatise or ideology to profess. I aspire to be like Montaigne, free from certain abstract dogma, a recognition that the rule of law often equates to the rule of man, and a mental determination to not write treatises. And maybe, just maybe, a desire to pontificate in the countryside or by the beach, sipping wine and reading some fucked up postmodern book on how life doesn't have any connections other than those recreated on a Lite Brite screen. Manufactured.
I think that the Cosmopolis is one found in London, DC, New York, Paris, and every other major city not composed of a mere compilation of communities like San Diego and the OC. On the other hand, those folks in small communities and suburbs and other sprawled, non-connecting townships might declare that the cosmopolis is the source of agnst and despair, crime and punishment, delinquency and death. Cosmopolis is the reason why the affluent and the thriving middle-class fled the cities to begin with, why more esteemed universities lie outside the thought capitals, and why average, everyday consumers can find sustenance in Levittown than in LA. In some rationalistic Taoist conception, the rise of intellectual and artistic and creative thought has also led to more extreme forms of inequity other than what capitalism has produced.
Yes, I've decided today that my OC is not a cosmopolis in the sense of Merriam-Webster's "international sophistication." I see more folks willing to slam beers and check out chicks than wax intellectual in some spirited debate broader than whether Bush, the Boy King, will kill those "terrorist bastards."
But hey, how can I argue with biological directivity.
On the debates, it's still surprising how Kerry can win all of the debates and still be behind Bush in the polls. Granted, substance should preside over style, but Kerry, despite his perceived wafflings kept the Boy King on the offensive and demonstrated the President's failed political policies in the Middle East. But, I don't think that folks who viewed the debates and thought Kerry won would vote for Bush. Bush will receive a lot of votes from folks who didn't watch him and still think he's a man of conviction and resolve when it comes to war and protecting this country. I still think he's a weenie . . .
But really, the more philosophy I read and the more history I delve into the more I don't have a treatise or ideology to profess. I aspire to be like Montaigne, free from certain abstract dogma, a recognition that the rule of law often equates to the rule of man, and a mental determination to not write treatises. And maybe, just maybe, a desire to pontificate in the countryside or by the beach, sipping wine and reading some fucked up postmodern book on how life doesn't have any connections other than those recreated on a Lite Brite screen. Manufactured.
I think that the Cosmopolis is one found in London, DC, New York, Paris, and every other major city not composed of a mere compilation of communities like San Diego and the OC. On the other hand, those folks in small communities and suburbs and other sprawled, non-connecting townships might declare that the cosmopolis is the source of agnst and despair, crime and punishment, delinquency and death. Cosmopolis is the reason why the affluent and the thriving middle-class fled the cities to begin with, why more esteemed universities lie outside the thought capitals, and why average, everyday consumers can find sustenance in Levittown than in LA. In some rationalistic Taoist conception, the rise of intellectual and artistic and creative thought has also led to more extreme forms of inequity other than what capitalism has produced.
11.17.2003
11.09.2003
continued . . .
where I come from, philosophy is a 4 letter word. it denotes the will to dorkdom, a purgatory between geek and freak. any attempt to decipher the intelligence or will behind the world that isn't housed between your legs after 3 or 4 drinks is shunned. being smart isn't cool.
where I come from, philosophy is a 4 letter word. it denotes the will to dorkdom, a purgatory between geek and freak. any attempt to decipher the intelligence or will behind the world that isn't housed between your legs after 3 or 4 drinks is shunned. being smart isn't cool.
11.08.2003
On the death of truth and salvation
there isn't any point in mentioning the word philosophy anymore. the word's been relegated to the provinces of political ideology or stifled as an academic exercise in mental masturbation - some narcissistic objectivity. it appears that disciplines are better respected if "science" follows their title.
truth is ever-abundant in the halls of adolescent learning. everyone has their take on how a teenager should live his life. there are plenty of cliques, teachers, parents, friends of parents, and counselors willing to explain the overarching metaethic of life. most preach of the necessity of living up to one's potential. i just look for survival.
love is coltrane jazz- inconstant and jumpy yet soulful and foundational.
there isn't any point in mentioning the word philosophy anymore. the word's been relegated to the provinces of political ideology or stifled as an academic exercise in mental masturbation - some narcissistic objectivity. it appears that disciplines are better respected if "science" follows their title.
truth is ever-abundant in the halls of adolescent learning. everyone has their take on how a teenager should live his life. there are plenty of cliques, teachers, parents, friends of parents, and counselors willing to explain the overarching metaethic of life. most preach of the necessity of living up to one's potential. i just look for survival.
love is coltrane jazz- inconstant and jumpy yet soulful and foundational.
