What Federal Branch most embodies the American People?

Consider your day to day living, and your surrounding social community, and then think which federal branch best represents the soul of the American people... would it be the ability to execute, the ability to discern, or the ability to communicate and work together for something bigger than anyone of us can do alone? While our history has its threads of self-reliance and independent frontiersman, these attributes have only been sustained and even allowed to thrive through a common agreement that this is good thing to promote as community, not the other way around. The power of many overcomes the power of one, or the power of unity overcomes division. In other words, under the power of a community authority we granted the authority to the individual to be an individual and to have his or her own identity.

The soul of our nation is not in the executive branch or in the supreme court, but in our legislative branch. The ones we love to hate, the ones that we say are ineffective and the opposite of "progress". Our inability to appreciate looking in our congressional mirror and see our own selves, but a bunch of "them" instead, has caused us to not appreciate the truth that congress as a whole collectively contains. While we often love our own state's senators or congressional representatives, we despise the collective bunch of them. It makes no sense, or rather we like the part but not the whole... for there are other states who hate our senators and house representatives as much as we may dislike theirs. As a result, the pressure builds for congress to not deal with our differences within their public forum, but to hand them over to another in the name of efficiency and to some extent security. However in so doing, we hand over our nation's soul to the executive branch, whoses purpose should be to administer and not derive the will of the people. Maybe we should look at our presidents a little more as wise managers or stewards, than as visionary leaders who are willing to go it alone, which leaves congress to being some sort of anemic board of directors.

When congress with its public forum decreases its role in protecting and defining individual freedoms to gain the efficiency of one individual's office in a private setting then soon it becomes this one person's authority and responsibility to grant individual freedoms.

Physician Heal Thyself

"America's image was not significantly damaged by Newsweek; it was damaged by the lack of a prudent administration who should have been making public real efforts to hold itself accountable."

Many proverbs come to mind on hearing how the US administration is chastising Newsweek (see White House bashes Newsweek report on Koran - Yahoo! News) including this one:

"How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Good judgment is a scarcity in this administration as they show no hesitation to influence and distract public opinion by reprimanding a specific media organization against their standards when they do not keep their own; it's the oversized kettle calling the littlest pot black.

Don't get me wrong, Newsweek and other media should be accountable for poor judgment but if this particular Newsweek report was the spark that set off tragic consequences in Afghanistan [1], how could we then ignore the pre-existing explosive gas that has been building up within room. This dangerous gas leak was not the fault of Newsweek, but the present US administration. Either by their tragic ignorance (but how could they not smell the 'rotten egg' odor), or their incompetence (how could superpower leaders be so weak in administrative jurisprudence), it is they that have allowed the American image of justice to tarnish. (Using my version of Hanlon's razor, I am leaving off the table a third possible motive: maliciousness)

The Abu Ghraib tortures has damaged the American image in the Middle East for several generations to come, and the US's anemic attempt at justice does nothing to alleviate it. We have lacked the disclosure and higher-level administrative accountability needed by both ourselves and the rest of the world. In America's corporate world, executives have lost jobs for doing far less damage to their corporation's image. Unfortunately, this administration is not run like a good transparent public corporation, much less like an administration of a liberal constitutional tradition, and instead loyalty to partisan ideology is fiercely protected and dissension is stifled. (Again, we can take a cue from Wall Street , where the days of the all-powerful, overly image conscious CEO has ended, in favor of corporate executives who can lead, execute and deliver well... but that's another story).

One year later we lack visible high-level administrative accountability, not even the proverbial scapegoat has been offered by the administration, rather activities and processes regarding Guantanamo are as secret as ever. How can the rest of the world not doubt the sincerity of the US administration in seeking justice? This is the explosive gas that has been allowed to leak profusely for over a year, and the rest of the world recognizes that rotten egg smell and awaits new information with little surprise. From the earliest days that the prison tortures became public news, the administration has declared that they are "outraged" (see my blog of a year ago) but little to no action has been publically forthcoming. As the first trial date for a low-ranking guard at Abu Ghraib was announced, a calm, reasoned Richard Perle appears on CSPAN indicated that it was now time to move on and that we have a media that is "focused exclusively on violence and bad news” and not on the good things happening in Iraq. Even if that was somehow a good argument which I think it is not, its not just the US Media... because the Middle East really watches Al Jazeera. Did Perle and the current administration really think they can influence Al Jazeera to focus on something more complimentary to the administration's policies? Of course not, they were only worried about American opinion and therefore American media, remember it was an election year. A prudent administration of a hegemon nation would take responsibility and know how to speak to the Arab world and if not stop the gas leak, at least open the windows and doors in a sincere effort to clear the air.

So here we are a year later, the gas has built up and the uncontrolled spark happened and no significant work was done to release the gas. Until now the administration had closely guarded against further disclosures of the "prison abuses", remember Rumsfield saying there are even worse pictures to come. The desecration of the Koran story was a spark not because it happened or did not happened (and there is no proof that it didn't happen or something similar to it [2]) , but rather because it has become so reasonable to believe that it did happen. And that was not the fault of Newsweek.

Now, instead of Perle, we hear the White House Spokesman directly say that "the [Newsweek] report had real consequences. People have lost their lives. Our image abroad has been damaged." So another proverb comes to mind:

"You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

America's image was not significantly damaged by Newsweek; it was damaged by the lack of a prudent administration who should have been making public real efforts to hold itself accountable. One can only be dismayed, troubled or cynical when hearing the Whitehouse spokesman say that "It's puzzling that while Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story, I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met and in this instance it was not." What is puzzling is this adminsitration's lack of prudence and sincerity. Once again rather than deal with their own "plank sized" problem in their eyes, making them unable to see reality, they turn their ire on the "speck" in Newsweek's eye. So what now? Are we to have weeks of discussion on journalistic accountability, rather than on administrative accountability or when does loyalty in the administration end and justice begin? Sadly there is one other proverb that came to mind, that has implications rarely discussed for the future of Americans and it is:

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you".

All of us will do well to not only pray for the American troops today but also for the American troops that will fight in the next war. Specifically let us pray that these men and women will receive mercy at the hands of those who may capture them... asking that our enemies not give what they might call the "American" treatment.

---
[1] However the NY Times reports "Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had said that the senior commander in Afghanistan believed the protests had stemmed from that country's reconciliation process."
[2] The source said he could no longer confirm seeing it in the report. However, it has been earlier reported that a major Guantanamo prisoner hunger strike over the US's mistreatment of the Koran were only ended when the commander issued an apology over the loudspeaker. Former Briton inmates reported desecration of the Koran including being kicked around and thrown in the toilet.

A Case for Uncertain Faith?: What makes for a bad vision.
Photo Cover of Rees' book

I was haunted by a thought when I heard Laurence Nees (NPR : 'Auschwitz: A New History') describe how Nazi followers passionately shared their leader's vision, and how they organized and operated around that vision. He described a Nazi organization that in many ways resembles the type of distributed, self-motivated, and innovative leadership that many businesses and organizations endeavour to achieve today. Most Nazi followers did not follow orders in fear. Assuming that such a vision operational model is neutral for evil or good, then my thought was what makes for a good vision versus a terrifying one? Or how does one not get swept up in such a nightmare? Because as the Nazis demonstrated visions are not only a powerful motivator, but can lead to inexpressible tragedy.

Nees has surprisingly fresh insight on Nazism and Auschwitz that developed since new information from former-Soviet countries became obtainable (e.g. Goebbel's diary, progressive set of building plans of Auschwitz camp while run by the Nazis) and as more candid interviews were held with former Nazi members who were no longer risking their post-war careers.

Nees states that for the most part Nazi followers carried out their grisly tasks because they felt it was the right thing to do and it wasn't out of a fearful obedience, (as opposed to what was occurring in two other totalitarian regimes of that era: Stalin and Imperial Japan). What struck me the most was how the Nazi vision and faith was so shared among its followers and therefore together they were so horribly constructive to deliver on their vision's ends.

The language used by Nees to describe this powerful use of vision and faith reminds me of the language so often sought in today's businesses, nations and religious organizations. He describes people who were inspired to come up with creative answers and even competing with one another. No one was known for losing their career in the Nazi Party because they came up with something too far-fetched but rather they feared to say that it could not be done. They would managed by objectives rather than top-down directives; telling regional leaders to carry out the "Germanization" of Poland in whatever manner seems best to them without fearing the need to answer the Fuhrer on how it was done at a later time. The Nazi party was effective at empowering and mobilizing their followers toward their vision's goals.

Nees commented that within a decade a nation that while economically depressed was otherwise a comparatively strong, liberal constitutional democracy without any anti-Semitic laws could quickly be turned in to such a killing menance. Being asked whether he had learned what most holocaust scholars seek which is an explanation as to why all this happened, Nees responded that while it is still elusive to him, he now has a fear of people or communities who hold to an absolute or certain faith. In the past, he thought this could be good, but now he is not so sure.

What makes for a bad vision? Is there a good vision? Is there a case for being absolutely certain on anything?

Certainly how a vision encompasses both means and ends is essential, and then ultimately what comprises the value system. What cannot be compromised? What is worth killing for, or I think better suited what is worth dying for? What is worth living for?

Sugar and Cream and Everything Smooth

One can argue that since colonial days, our coffee drinking habits became an icon for the "will" of the American people. After the tea was dumped in Boston Harbor, England banned commerce with Boston, but then other colonial cities responded in solidarity by holding their own tea destruction parties, eventually leading to the revolution. In order to not finance England's largest global corporation, the East India Company, American colonists sought after coffee from their pan-American brothers.

The American determination represented by coffee habits carried on into our wars agaist facism and totalitarianism. Such is seen in WW II era movies and books, where strong cups of percolated Joe were consumed to keep the body awake. Often the liquid was colorfully described to reflect its bitterness, and mud-like properties. But it matched those difficult and dark times like being on the bridge of a destroyer searching for subs. Sugar and cream was left for occasional Sunday tea parties.

But times do change and so did our coffee habits, and the ways we fought our wars, in particular Vietnam. First we got practical and we wanted it fast and easy. We rated diners on how fast they could get the brew in our mugs, and all the better if we did not have to ask for refills. We even attempted to trade in the percolator for instant coffee, and we started offering an option for toned down (or 'de-horned') versions of the bitter brew by extracting its caffeine. This period culminated with the broad acceptance of the automatic drip method giving the added convenience of disposable paper filters.

More recently we got romantic about who we are, and being tired of the still somewhat bitter drip, we sought fresh but ancient wisdom from our uncles in Europe who have gladly exported their culture in past centuries. From them, we learned and mass marketed with typical American zeal how to apply to our coffee what we once applied to ourselves when drinking it. We started dark roasting our coffee to strengthen it, and then we utilized steam pressure against a more finely grounded coffee. Resulting in our being able to now enjoy a richer and less bitter brew, and despite this taste improvement we found ourselves regularly adding more sugar and cream than ever before, and gasp, who knows what type of syrup.

As we continue to sugar and cream our way to an increasingly smoother coffee are we not out-doing even our uncles and brothers from the other lands? Have we grown so accustomed to convenience and quick gratifying pleasure that we may no longer be able to handle or suffer through the more bitter and murky thick times when they do come our way?

Or maybe other countries may tire of having the American will imposed upon them and will begin to start dumping American-branded coffees in their harbors. Or in ours.

Plato Knew Terrorism's Little Secret

Plato: Anti-terrorist leader?

Terrorism is violence against the soul, for in reality the terrorists who are morally weak are trying to crack the moral strength or virtue of their victims. The terrorists' "secret" is to not let their weakness be known and to gain power over their superior enemy by strategically dispensing violence to bring about an emotional fear on the victim. They seek to keep their targeted victims in an ongoing state of ominous and impending fear of loss, suffering and death. The more inexperienced their victims are with suffering, sacrifice and loss, then the better advantage they have in trying to transform their victim's moral strength to a fearful weakness. Terrorists know how to hold back physical violence as long as the culture of fear is taking hold, they are winning battles and cheering when their victims give in to these fears. They are gleeful when they see their victims respond in terror: rumors and disinformation leading to paranoia, liberties being seen as liabilities, dissension treated as treason, and otherwise ordered and reasoned means being exchanged for efficient and reckless ones in the name of security. The sad part is that when this is occurring the weak terrorists are gaining their power at little cost, which means those who allow themselves to become terrorized are literally being overpowered at little cost to themselves, in other words, being cowardly.

Within the state of fear the temptations or traps to capture the soul of a person or a community are far more effective. The desired affect of terrorism is to quietly wear away the victim's virtue (or moral strength) until the state of fear has mastered the victim. In such a case, fear serves like slowly heating water in a pot that contains a frog, where the frog sits unaware of the water's growing power over him. Too much heat (or actual violence) and the whole thing can be undone. Therefore terrorists adept at their craft are masters of suspense, timing and strategy. Ironically any actual acts of physical violence runs the risk of undoing this fear and to actually morally strengthen the victimized as they gain knowledge of what it means to suffer and experience loss, that is if they don't continue to give into an even more vengeful fear (the dangerous form of anger).

How could the actual experience of loss and suffering undo the fear of the loss and suffering? Frequently, the fear can be far worse than the reality itself. Torture techniques (used to seek something rather than some perverted joy) are most effective when done to break the spirit more than the body, and 'professional' torturers know that real physical pain applied too soon or too much may reveal a hidden strength to the victim whereas the threat of torture or violence such as mock executions are far more effective in weakening the victim. One's imagination can be far more terrifying then reality, and as a result the knowledge and experience of reality strengthens one's virtue. The more virtuous the victim, the more patient and clever the torturers need to be in order to find gaps in their victim's knowledge that they can exploit.

Plato and John Chrysostom argued 'that no one can harm the man who does not injure himself'. Their premise being that a person's value is in their holding on to virtue and not in holding possessions or socio-economic status. For these things can be taken away without one's consent, but one must consent to give up his or her virtue. A classic image of this truth is Job from the bible; who stripped of family, wealth and personal health, for which he sincerely enjoyed as gifts, realized he had one deeper gift that only he could choose to keep or lose. While Job's enemy took from him everything he could without Job's consent, the one thing the enemy truly sought was what only Job could choose to give him. But Job knew that it was of no good for a man to exchange this one thing for all that he had formerly possessed. For what good was it to gain the whole world, and yet forfeit his soul. For then he would have neither in the end.

Reacting out of fear that one may suffer or lose something, and not in the strength of virtue, is to hand over to the enemy the one thing they cannot have without their victim's willingness to let go of it. And eventually the temporal safety, peace and security sought in exchange for one's soul will eventually be lost or taken away again. Sadly, this virtuous soul was the only thing worth living and dying for, because through it one gained true meaning and purpose for living. For the battle is not about the flesh, but over the soul. And for those who eyes to perceive the Truth, this is the one battle that can be won.

Is terrorism's little secret working on you? Are you wearing away or growing in moral strength?