Things like this scare me...

Just what the title says.

Pondering Patriotism...

The 4th of July stands for many great things in our Nation's history. One of the many is national pride and unity, in a simple sense, patriotism. I got to thinking about that word yesterday, and I started to realize that I am not very fond of the way it's thrown around these days. Many things can be considered patriotic, but at the same time many things are, by their very definition, not. The hard part is attempting to define patriotism from a libertarian perspective. The very nature of fealty and liberty conflict in a manner that makes the mind ache. How can one be free but believe and support so whole-heartedly the force that threatens liberty? Therein lies the constant struggle which creates the inherent instability of democratic political systems. But the question remains, can there ever be a liberated patriot, an American Patriot in our democratic system? To answer the question, it's necessary to mix certain metaphors and, to some extent, acknowledge incoherent logic.

Democracy is a dangerous business. As Adam Michnik noted, "As a rule, dictatorships guarantee safe streets and terror of the doorbell. In democracy the streets may be unsafe after dark, but the most likely visitor in the early hours will be the milkman." However, understanding the volatility of the system fails to explain the nexus between liberty and patriotism. Abbie Hoffman's perspective sheds some light on this point. In his view, "Democracy is not something you believe in or a place to hang your hat, but it's something you do. You participate. If you stop doing it, democracy crumbles." Dwight D. Eisenhower would probably agree with this point. Here is a President who helped bring a nation back together after World War II. No small feat considering the state of the nation at the time (millions dead, outrageous national debt from war, the beginnings of ideological struggles with communism, etc.). From his perspective, "[p]olitics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage." Democracy, therefore, lives and operates through action in or about the system.

However, Democracy exists as more than casting a vote. The government system exists to (theoretically) promote protected freedoms. Liberty and the operation of the governmental system grate against one another in a manner that would otherwise bring a fluidly operating society to a halt. Protecting rights, by the very operation of government, means creating limitations on liberty, where liberty would be the absolute freedom from such restrictions. As the Federalist Papers point out, "[i]f men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." This points out the tension between the people (their freedom) and government, and the requirement that when out of balance, would seemingly destroy the system. There has to be some counterbalancing force, something pushing against the force that makes freedom seem evanescent. This force has to be something more than the passive act of casting a vote, it creates the instability of the democratic system. This force is the exercise of rights that create the limits on government. Like any system, government needs support. This support would come from those devote themselves to the existence of a country and, correspondingly, the operation of its government.

Patriotism under a democratic government is, by its very nature, paradoxical. Merriam-Webster defines patriotism as "love for or devotion to one's country." This kind of sentiment assumes a measure of unity. Social unity breeds acquiescence when those subordinate to government fall in lockstep behind its leaders' policy and action. Henry Steele Commager cogently makes this point, "[m]en in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive." This cannot work in a democracy since its very operation is action by the people, the exercise of rights that operate to limit the breadth of governmental power.

If government and liberty are at odds, and the common place notion of patriotism provides support for government, then liberty and patriotism are similarly opposed. This conflict creates the need for a new definition of patriotism, one that fits more readily the conflict between freedom, government, and patriotism. Otherwise, patriotism would cause the destruction of a democratic system. Commager's words provide some insight on how to recreate the definition of patriotism. In a democracy, patriotism must be the antithesis of blind support for leaders and government policy. This opposition must be voiced in some manner, and the most effective manner would be in a way that balances the dangers government presents to liberty, i.e. the corresponding exercise of our protected rights. Most notably and most importantly, the right to speak since the exercise of this right serves to influence others, adding to the very operation of democracy in its representative capacity. As Wendy Kramer aptly states, "[p]atriotism does not oblige us to acquiesce in the destruction of liberty. Patriotism obliges us to question it, at least."

Patriotism under the rule of a democratic government, then, must be the exercise of its subordinates which questions the validity of the government's, and its leaders', actions. Even though this act can be dangerous, it's necessary to insure the proper operation of American government. After all, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

To answer the question, patriotism under democracy is not the act of being blindly lead by the elected, but to question their actions, and hold them to the constitutional standard to which they are obligated. The most vociferous dissenter, then, may be democracy's greatest patriot since it is her love for her freedom and country that bring her to question the policy of its leaders. As James Baldwin once said, "I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."

Adding it up...

I am always remiss to see the current Executive use broad, and sometimes oppressive, language as a rallying cry to their cause. Since September 11, 2001, this rallying cry has been in the name of the so-called "war on terror." For example, "...the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk." Or all of the controversy surrounding the recent disclosure of the government's collection of bank records. Just as a quick aside, Congress had no idea what was going on until the Times broke the story. That is kind of an indication that the Times is doing what it's supposed to be doing, and should not be subject to unjustified attack for doing its job. Regardless, now it seems the rhetoric applies to the Supreme Court, too, for doing its job. Namely, putting a check on what appears to be abusive use of power. Apparently, someone forgot how the government is supposed to work.

Finally, more evidence for what can happen without net neutrality.

Some good, Some bad

Today, we finally see positive results for internet user rights because a Senate committee has struck down House amendments to the upcomming telecommunications legislation. Michael Wiesman of the Seattle Times provides a good explanation of why this law is so important.

On a completely different note, over the last several days have seen interesting developments in the seemingly age old conflict between Isreal and Palistine. It started with Isreal massing troops and getting ready to attempt a rescue of a a kidnapped soldier, followed by the attempt. Then, heretofore unconfirmed counter attack by a militant group. Today, Isreal took more more direct military action. The most interesting part of this debacle is the lack of any kind of comment by the Bush administration, or other nations that support Isreal. A while ago, I commented in a post that this conflict and the rise of a Hammas government could result in the third world war. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Something to make you physically ill.

Too funny not to get its own post.

Hearsay Exceptions

Thanks to Goalkeeper for brining some humor to bar review.

They did something right?

Can Congress actually do something right? Can they be correct in their determination of what is best for the country? On occasion, yes. Yesterday, one vote in Congress struck down the creation of a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would permit states to create anti-flag desecration statutes. Essentially these laws would prevent flag burning as a form of protest. While Congress passing the resolution wouldn't create the Amendment on its own (it requires ratification by the states to become an amendment), the mere proposal of this amendment indicates the disdain some of our leaders have for hallowed rights protected by the Constitution. The practical affect of this amendment would be to create a constitutional limitation to free speech. Fundamentally, the amendment operates to overturn the United States Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson by Congressional fiat. There has only been one historical example of a constitutional amendment that limited individual liberty, eventually we learned out lesson. Amending the Constitution can be the most devastating blow to our personal liberty because it gives the people no recourse against government action. If it's in the Constitution, the government can do it, and no one, not even the Supreme Court, can stop the resulting oppression. Passing such an amendment would be irresponsible government. Its refreshing to see Congress acting responsibly for once, even if it's only by one vote. This is especially true considering their brazen attempts to limit speech in other venues. Can we say Bill of Attainder (Art. I, Sec. 9)?

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the President. These kinds of conditional signing statements are a legal absurdity which disregards concepts of comity, the separate powers, and the system of checks and balances. It's no wonder he wants the line item veto so bad. It's one more step towards greater authoritarian control by the President. With the line item veto, the President could reject substantive portions of laws restricting his powers to act, or, in striking a portion of a law, greatly expand his powers. This is executive legislation, and is not permitted under the doctrine of separation of powers. It's no wonder the Supreme Court struck it down the first time.

For your amusement:

Rush Limbaugh has a new line item on his resume: sex tourist.

Jerry Falwell thinks that everyone in showbiz but him is a pervert. Just for clarification: Pervert.

Supreme Court Update:

Looks like Republicans win regarding Texas voting district gerrymandering. (full opinion) One thing I noticed is that this is a plurality, so it won't necessarily restrict future situations like this in other states. Also, the court made no mention of Bush v. Gore or the concept of one person one vote. It's 112 pages long so it may take a day or two to figure out what this means for voters and dangerous politics. Just an update with the New York Times's analysis of the decision.

Stepping Closer and Closer...

Apparently, the House committee on Homeland Security is pushing the Bush administration to file criminal charges against the New York Times for publishing information of the government's domestic surveillance programs. This is just one more indication that the leaders of this country want to slip closer and closer to a fascist regime of total executive and military control. When the government wishes to sacrifice the most important civil liberty protected by the Bill of Rights in favor of protecting their own violation of those fundamental principles demonstrates the willingness of the government to disregard our freedom, and destroy the social fabric of this nation. This kind of irresponsible government should not be tolerated by its people.

Another interesting perspective.

Scary Comments from the Government

Apparently, General Michael Hayden, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, doesn't know what the Fourth Amendment says. Just for reference, the Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Contrary to the General's statement, the Fourth Amendment does have a warrant requirement, and the police/government must present probable cause to obtain a warrant. The requirement operates as a check on the Government's police power by establishing a threshold for reasonableness. Techincally, the General is on to something, in that the law requires warrantless searches be reasonable to satisfy the strictures of the Fourth Amendment, provided it's within an exception ot the warrant requirement (see generally Terry v. Ohio and Maryland v. Pringle). It is nice to know, though, that those in power have no idea what the Constitution says, espeically since it's the document that controls the operation of our government. Don't get me wrong, I can probably tell you most of the important ones off the top of my head, but when you are the director of the intelligence agencies for this country, you should, at the very least, know what the Fourth Amendment protects if not have it memorized word for word, even if he isn't a lawyer.

The White House responds to the New York Times article from last week publicly disclosing teh program.

Interesting letter from XM radio to musicians.

Government that Works?

I got a perverse laugh while surfing the Huffington Post this afternoon. It is nice to know that the President wants to protect the ownership of real property. At least, that was first reaction. Then I read the entire thing. First, it only stops actions by the Federal government, but we know how they have been lately. My laughter didn't get particularly uproarious until the very end of the order:

This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

For those watching at home, this order is a nice way of saying that the President wants to protect your right to own real property over a Supreme Court decision from last year, but that doesn't mean you can actually enforce it against the government. This means the entire thing is nothing more than dicta with more responsibility attached to the attorney general.

I snorted pretty hard at what Treasury Secretary John Snow said about the CIA Bank Records Program today too. From the ABC News Report:

"responsible government, it's effective government, it's government that works."

I think Mr. Snow's concept of pragmatic constitutionally responsible government differs from mine just a little bit, but I could be wrong.

No More Privacy...

From the executive agency charged with making sure you know the Fourth Amendment provides you with no protection from abuse of governmental power comes a story from New Jersey were a librarian is being chastised for preventing police access to library records without a warrant. Notwithstanding the evil PATRIOT Act, this is exactly what the head library should do, and she satisfied her devoir to the library's patrons. She is protecting the rights of the constituents of the local municipality, she should be commended not punished.