Ring Out Wild Bells To The Wild Sky

It's traditional to use this last day of the year to collect one's thoughts, and reflect on events, ideas and important moments of the dying year before ringing out the old. While Tennyson, whose poem inspires my blog post title, may have dreamed of ringing in an era of peace, I am less sanguine  - I suspect we will see more of the thousand wars than the start of a thousand years of peace. One hopes, at the very least however, that each year finds us further ahead in our quest for improvement.

This was a year dominated by three major geo-strategic events, viz. the fall of several long-established despots in the Arab world, the general changes in the political map of the middle east and the stutter dance of the Euro zone leaders struggling to find a voice and policy in the face of stubborn economic depression and the rise of a new counter culture against the Establishment and power of the oligarchy in America. The big stories sometimes obscure other less visible, but equally important trends and the challenge for an amateur student of geo-politics is to identify those obscured threads and understand their significance in the wider picture.

By far the greatest story has been the continued turmoil in the Arab world, with the fall, and death of Col. Qaddafi in Libya, the elections in Tunisia and Egypt, both won by religious parties, the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq and the continued squabbling between the Iraqi leaders and the war of words between Iran and the world. But by far the most important story from this part of the world is the increasingly bloody civil-war-in-all-but-name in Syria. While the violent civil war in Libya absorbed American attention far more, mostly because of the involvement of American military forces, the events in Syria may have far greater ramifications. Libya certainly had a lot of involvement in the affairs of her neighbors, but compared to Syria, Qaddafi was a model of non-interference. Syria not only dominates the political scene in Lebanon, but also housed the leadership of Hamas and was locked in an unresolved state of war with Israel. Less spoken about but equally important is Syria's role in stability in both Iraq and Turkey, involving Kurds in both countries as well as Assyrians in northern Iraq, a role that greatly increased after the end of Saddam Hussein's government and the influx of refugees including Iraqi Baathists into Syria. And of course, Syria is an unapologetic ally and conduit for Iranian pretensions, especially vis-avis Hezbollah. While the government of Bashir Assad has seemingly lost legitimacy, at least in the eyes of the western world, it's worth recalling that the government has never had any greater legitimacy in the past, and if it survives this challenge to it's survival, the world will happily forget this phase and bestow upon it all the blessings of legitimacy again. And while the Obama Administration is reportedly working with European allies to plot an exit strategy for Assad and his coterie, the greatest fear is a collapse of Syria into chaos, a fear of the unknown that animates not just Washington and Brussels, but also Ankara, Tehran, Baghdad and Tel Aviv, and likely terrifies Beirut. No one really knows what would happen should Syria collapse: how would that affect Lebanon, how would their government and Hezbollah, a state within the state, react to Hezbollah's loss of both patron and critical supplier? how will the Palestinians react to the loss of their patron? will they stand on the sidelines, or will they choose to join in? will the loss of sanctuary push Hamas into  accommodation and compromise, or will they hew to a more hardline stance? will a flood of refugees into northern Iraq destabilize an already unstable arrangement between Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians and Sunni Arabs? will Kurds from Syria flood into Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan, challenging tenuous arrangements in both countries? and most important, faced with the loss of power, will the Baathists around Assad seek to divert attention by confrontation with Israel, a tactic they may have already tried once before this year? Most importantly, we know very little about the Syrian opposition, just as we knew little about Libya's rebels, or the thousands who flooded Tahir Square to confront Egypt's Mubarak. We believe they are secular and likely friendly to us, but the longer the violence continues, the more radical groups will replace the moderate voices. The Arab Street has so far confounded all expectations, but the stakes in Syria are greater than anywhere else, and managing a soft landing in Damascus may be the greatest challenge to the world going in to this new year.

Europe's financial woes are well documented and analyzed past comprehension; it is not my intent to try and add to the discussion, especially in a subject I barely understand,  but the long drawn-out struggle has exposed and exacerbated other wounds within Europe that make a highly intriguing story as well. Most attention has focused on the economic problems, the austerity measures and the wealth disparities between north and south Europe, but there has been relatively little discussion about the social fissures in almost every European nation. It's a fairly accepted fact that extreme economic problems feed radical and often xenophobic political movements; Europe has a rich history of such movements, and plentiful targets in the numerous ethnic minorities that reside in, but have not become a part of, their societies. The past sixty years have been largely peaceful, and one may argue that it's not due to just the massive destruction and dislocation of two world wars, but the security of their welfare states that tamped down the historic urges to lash out in violence against outsiders, both within and without their borders. Now the safety net is fraying, and Europe's anger is likely to be unleashed again. So far that anger has been focused on the governments pushing austerity on the middle class, but it is only a matter of time before the anger turns towards the "outsiders" as a society wrenched from the comfortable life they'd come to regard as a birthright seek easy targets for their sense of disenchantment and grievance. The only good news is that Europe has been softened by easy living, to a point where they are less danger to the world than ever before, with a shrinking native population (and xenophobia makes it a lot harder to harness the energy of their immigrants) and atrophied armies that are mere shadows of the Grand Armee or Wehrmacht of yesteryear.

There have been many other stories this year, from the Occupy movement and the discordant yet passionate reaction to the excesses of capitalism and the power of the oligarchy represented by Wall Street, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the weakening of the original al-Qaida coupled with the rise of many more radical Islamic groups inspired by but not affiliated with bin Laden, the earlier than anticipated change of guard in North Korea with all the unknowns that entails. But for my money, the biggest under the radar story is the changes in China. Things are changing fast in the Hermit Kingdom, and how the Chinese government manages the slowing growth and increasing expectations in a world that is harder to control will shape the future of the world. I've argued before that China's facade hides many structural weaknesses and that the fundamental political flaws in an undemocratic society make it harder to navigate through difficult times. An aging population, increasing competition in low-level manufacturing as wages rise, lack of a social security net and healthcare system, unrest amongst ethnic minorities, a rising demand for higher quality of life - the list of demands facing China is extensive, and the government while seemingly aware of the dangers has not always shown that they know how to address them successfully. Recent rebellions have illuminated both the cracks in the structure and the uncertainty in the ruling circles about how to respond. Above all China is flirting with danger as they stoke nationalist fires to keep society behind the government, for those demons once released are nigh impossible to control. China's government has a critical year looming, and their success or failure in addressing the challenges before them will largely shape the chances for peace in the region and the world.

Wither Innocence

One of the great concepts bequeathed the world by the British was the revolutionary idea that every man, no matter the crime of which he was accused, was presumed innocent until he was proven guilty. This concept is now accepted if not practiced in nearly every country, and life without this critical bulwark against government totalitarianism is unthinkable in our bastions of liberty. And yet the idea is in fact under attack, in many different forms, and for myriad reasons. When such a vital freedom is threatened, it would be normal to expect the attack to come from some covert and secretive cabal, seeking to extend their power over the population for their own aggrandization. It is almost scarier to find that these protections have been willingly, even eagerly if unknowingly ceded in an attempt to assuage our fears. And while some of those fears are understandable, a fear of the unknown, fear of that that is beyond our ken, fear of the outsider and the stranger, we are also driven by a fear of the darkness that lurks within ourselves, a fear of what we dare not face and which can be hidden only in the deepest dungeons, and if the presumed innocence of our fellows must be the sacrificed to silence the demons within our breast, then we appear more than willing to pay that price.

Over the last few months, two cases have revealed our slide away from the heights of liberty. These cases while providing an almost ridiculous counterpoint to our slower descent into self-imposed serfdom, nevertheless reveal much about our indifference to the principles that are our greatest shield of liberty and freedom. Earlier this year,  a woman was accused of killing her own child in a selfish attempt to trade the burden of single parenthood for the carefree party-filled life she'd once known and seemingly craved once more. There was an outpouring of anger towards this young woman, and she was tried and convicted time and time over in the media; yet when finally brought before a jury of peers, she was found innocent of her crime - the prosecution could simply not build a case that established her guilt beyond doubt. While few people doubted that she'd lied many times and to nearly everyone about the facts of the case and her role in and knowledge of the events, in the end there was no compelling evidence that she had actually killed her own daughter, and the jury, I believe, did the right thing when they chose not to convict her. Her guilt, and the actual crimes she may have committed, distract from the more worrying issue here; the public trial of and later the threats against this woman were a sad violation of the concept that every accused criminal is innocent till proved guilty. When the freedom of a person, or their life even, hangs in balance, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

The second case, still at a pretrial stage was part of an earlier discussion, and is somewhat personal to me by virtue of the effect it has had upon my Alma Mater. Jerry Sandusky has been accused of molesting and forcibly raping young boys, a crime that if proved will likely see him spend the rest of his natural life in some form of imprisonment. But the key fact is that right now we have accusations and a Grand Jury indictment, not a conviction. The man, no matter how much his crimes may appall, is entitled to his day in court, and the presumption of innocence till proven guilty. And that proof of guilt must come in court, when he has the chance to face his accusers and challenge their evidence. However, few commentators afford him this curtsey; to be fair to them, perhaps Sandusky has done all he could to destroy his own credibility as an innocent man through his own interviews, and the general population when confronted by crimes of which he stands accused largely react with a lack of rational thought.

I have observed that many people, even a majority perhaps, react with great vehemence when forced to confront crimes against children, be it murder or rape. Perhaps it stems from outrage at such an injustice towards the most defenseless and innocent section of society, perhaps it is driven by an idea of the moral outrage that is expected in the face of these crimes, perhaps it is a fear that to not denounce the accused as a monster deserving of immediate lynching will suggest a sympathy for the alleged criminal and his actions. Whether the desire to bypass the path of slow justice is prompted by our inner angels or demons is moot; it weakens our greatest protection against capricious injustice and imprisonment, and the fact that it's done in the name of swift justice makes it even more dangerous. We do not react, in general with the same bloodthirsty fervor to man who might steal a trifling amount to keep his children from starving. But we cannot reserve our justice for the criminal who arouses our sympathy. Every person, good or bad, is and should be afforded the same protection before the law, and if we would suspend it in cases where the accusations appall us, inevitably we will find ourselves at the receiving end, convicted without trial and summarily punished, guilty by virtue of being accused.

While warnings of danger to our entire civil society may sound like the rantings of Cassandra, it's worth recalling that Cassandra's dire warnings were proved accurate when it was too late to prevent the destruction of Troy. And the writing is on the wall, if we would only stop to read the signs. When the agents of al Qaida brought down the Twin Towers, their actions launched the War on Terror, a nebulous poorly defined fight with an undeclared enemy. And in the name of security we imprisoned people on suspicion of terrorist actions, and ten on suspicion of terrorist plotting, and even on suspicion of sympathies towards terrorism. And since the people we arrested were "foreigners", from countries that hated us, we turned away while they were imprisoned in secret prisons in remote corners of the world and we pretended that they were being arrested because they were guilty. We were unfazed by the fact that they would not be tried, not even before military tribunals but would be left to rot in dungeons till the undeclared undefined war was over; after all they were not like us, and the fact that they were in jail was all the proof we needed to satisfy ourselves of their guilt. Now, a new law is proposed that would extend those same possibilities to all US citizens, complete with provision that would empower the government to hold anyone suspected of terrorist sympathies without trial till the end of hostilities. Imagine for a moment if this concept was used in the War on Drugs, which has been underway for over thirty five years with no end in sight. The War on Terror, with no clear protagonist and hence no real way to have an ending, may drag on as long or longer.

I have never embraced the libertarian concept that the government is some alien entity to be feared and destroyed. I believe that the government is nothing but our collective civic bargain, and that it can and will be anything we want it to be. But a government, like an soulless entity is programmed to increase its power, unless we actively remain a part of it. And when we abdicate our civic responsibilities and allow our prejudices to trump the procedures and principles of law, no matter how noble or fearful our motives, we move a step closer to a day when we will no longer have those procedures and principles to be our Aegis in our moment of need.

Bleeding Blue and White

It's not been an easy week to be a Penn Stater. As the University grappled with its mistakes, the criticism mounted, some of it well directed, and those of us who are normally so proud to claim State as our own had to bow our heads in shame for the failures of those who should have known better. Let me say at the outset that if Jerry Sandusky is guilty of any or all the crimes of which he has been accused, he deserves no sympathy and all the punishment due under law. And similarly the University administrators, including President Spannier will deserve the fines and/or other chastisement coming to them if they are found to have failed in their duties, to the school and the wider public.

But let us understand first that these crimes must be proved in court of law, not the fickle and easily swayed court of public opinion that cares naught for facts but twists and turns with the tides of emotion. The Grand Jury indictment seems extremely clear, and there seems little doubt. But due process is just that. Sandusky, no matter the crimes he's accused of, deserves his day in court and his guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a jury of his peers. For the University, there is less to quibble over - whether Sandusky is convicted by a jury of his peers, or walks out a free man, the administration needed to act on suspicions and allegations, at least to the extent of involving the police. Unless they can show that they did, they stand guilty of misconduct.

But what of the others, those who acted according to the letter of the law, but now have their lives shattered in the frenzy and madness of the national outcry that erupted this week. Coach Joe Paterno, a man who seemed to epitomize a bygone world of honor and conduct, was summarily sacked, as the University sought to deflect the dogs by throwing them the red meat they sought. If I sound bitter, it is because I am. People outside Penn State have watched uncomprehending as students have rallied in support of our icon, while they, filled with moral rectitude of the highest order have declaimed on the many reasons that JoePa had to go for failing to stop what was happening. Based on national frenzies past, I seriously doubt that these critics have much interest in anything beyond the story, and the moment in the spotlight it affords them. For all their pontificating about the defenseless children, I would wager that most of them have no real interest in the victims, and the shriller they are, the less they care. I don't say that they are bad people, far from it. I'm sure that there really is a sense of revulsion and outrage, but they are so obviously focused on simply ensuring that someone, anyone pays, and pays immediately, that one cannot help but feel that they protest too loudly.

Critics of JoePa tend to fall into two or three categories. The loudest, and most influential group is the myriad columnists and op-ed writers with their generic "Why Joe Must Go" articles. Their basic position is that Joe must be sacked because he failed to do anything beyond what the law required. Quite apart from the questionable standard here - a law is clear and defined, while action beyond that is purely subjective - it conveniently skips past the fact that Coach Paterno did exactly what the law required him to do, and the Grand Jury recognized that when issuing indictments of his supervisor. To contact the police on his own, based on hearsay would have been wrong; it was the responsibility of the Athletic Director to move on those issues, especially after meeting with the graduate student who witnessed the incident at the center of this scandal. Yet, critic after critic has piled on, declaring that JoePa should be held to a higher moral standard.

Much of this stems from outrage that the victims here are children. The editors and columnists, in common with numerous people chipping in to join the conversation have insisted that they would have acted differently. I have no doubt that all of them would like to think that they would have risen to those lofty moral heights, but the fact is they do not know what they would have done. It's easy to declare exactly how we would behave in any given situation, but reality belies our hopes. There has been much criticism of the graduate student for leaving the scene and calling his father, instead of intervening or calling the police. The criticism is not unfounded, but in fact the spirit is usually willing but the flesh all to often proves weak. The student behaved, well, like a human being. He panicked, but panic and human frailty are not crimes. Now there are people who want to see his head on the spike beside his mentor's; threats have ensured that he will not fulfill his coaching duties at the next game, and his career may be well over before it even began. Does such treatment inject iron into the spine of the next person faced with this situation, or does it suggest that seeing and hearing nothing may be easier on one's health? Had he said nothing at all, no one could ever say that he had in fact witnessed anything. But he did act, he did report it, and for acting as well as he could he is now demonized and taunted.

Finally, there are those who insist that JoePa should have asked more questions and not rested till he'd gotten results. These ignore the human weakness in all of us. It is incredibly hard to believe bad of people we like, and our minds can rationalize almost any situation. It is easy for us sitting at home to insist that we would have acted differently, but we fail that test everyday, if we would only look critically at our own actions. It is no coincidence that many child molesters are family or friends of the victim's parents, that the molestation continues for long periods before it's finally detected. There have been cases where parents have flatly refused to believe their own children, such is the power that affection for the accused can play. To cite just one simple example, look at how political allegiances can affect reaction to similar accusations against Herman Cain and Bill Clinton. We can all hope that when tested on something major we will rise to the test and pass, but a little humility would be well placed when passing judgement on others who have faced that test. Jerry Sandusky had been JoePa's colleague for nearly four decades - only those who have had to act against their best friends can begin to comprehend what that means. The rest of us should simply hope that we never face that nightmare, for I doubt any of us would cover ourselves in glory. In discussing this with a colleague at work, he began with the common argument that Joe should have done more, but then recounted a tragic and all too common tale. Serving on a jury, he had heard first-hand testimony from a woman who aided and abetted in the molestation and sexual abuse of her own daughter by her then husband (the girl's step father) till her marriage hit the rocks and she reported his years of child abuse to the police. Think about this for a moment: a woman allowed her child to be sexually assaulted, refusing to listen to the child's complaints or recognize what was happening before her eyes (or at any rate behind her back) till her faith and trust in her husband and the rose-colored vision melted away in the heat and acrimony of a divorce. Yet we expect that Coach Paterno, a man from a different day and age, to suspect his friend and lead a vigorous investigation of that man. In all honesty, would we believe if someone accused one of our close acquaintances of such a crime, or would we shrug it off and insist to ourselves that no one we know and trust would ever be guilty of such actions? Do we really know how we would react? Why then do we demand that someone else be held to standards of which we would likely fall short ourselves?

Equally significant, while the sharks circle Penn State and her former Coach, the people actually appointed to watch for these issues receive a free pass from scrutiny. The Second Mile charity that allegedly was the primary vehicle for Sandusky's actions was in close contact with the children who became the alleged victims. This was an organization dedicated to working with troubled children, and yet they saw nothing to arouse their suspicions. And yet we demand that an elderly man far removed from the children, with no special training in working with children, with no interaction with those children, should have suspected wrongdoing and intervened. The State Police investigated Sandusky and cleared him of all charges once before - they seemingly had no reason to suspect that they had missed anything or that they should continue to keep an eye on the man; yet none of those so incensed with Coach Paterno have demanded that heads within the police hierarchy roll or that anyone within that organization be held accountable for fouling up an investigation.



I wish this had played out differently. I, too, like everyone caught up a situation not of their making, wish that more questions had been asked, that Joe had followed up his report with a bit more pointed queries. I wish that the gatekeepers at Penn State had been more farsighted when they sought to hush the matter, I wish they'd simply followed the law. I wish that Jerry Sandusky had never acted in a way that led to this. But most of all, I wish that Joe was there, leading us out the tunnel on Saturday. He was and is a great man, and now his career and life have been destroyed by the actions and inaction of his friends and the blood sacrifice required whenever a scandal is discovered.

Occupying Left Field

Since my last blog, I've been following the Occupy Wall Street movement with a little more interest, fueled in part by segments on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and last week's series with Citizen X in Doonesbury. While I had an instinctive sympathy for the protesters from the start, the cacophony of messages and disparate agenda made it harder to understand their aims. But once I delved a little deeper, and read a little more about them, I realized that these protesters, for all their reported elitist demeanor, are driven by the same angst that animates all of us. they are everyman, in a sense.

I suppose, though I still cannot understand them, that the Tea Party tapped into the same deep anger. Of course, one would have expected that anger at the economic mess that President Obama inherited would have been directed at the architects of the financial system's collapse. Yet strangely enough, the Tea Party galvanized opposition to the president, and in truly unfathomable twist, made the Affordable Healthcare Act the central point of their campaign against Big Government as personified by him, even as they rallied in defense of his perceived attack on Medicare, the epitome of Big Government, one would say. Stranger yet, the men elected with the support of the Tea Party wish to balance the budget by slashing Social Security; surely if Medicare is sacrosanct and not to be shrunk, especially by the government, the same would hold true for the other pillar of the Great Society.

Perhaps, the one lesson the Tea Party has taught us is that logic and rationality in the message are far less important than passion. That should enthuse the Occupy Wall Street movement, since passion is in no shortage amongst them. Their critics may watch the early snow storms and gleefully hope that the protesters will disperse before winter's iron fist, much like the Grand Army. But the fact is, whatever the message, most OWS protesters have a genuine grievance and are less likely to turn and limp away, when they have little to return to. Conservative critics may lampoon them as over-privileged over-indulged kids who don't want to work; the reality is that no matter how willing both spirit and flesh may be, there are precious few jobs on offer, much less to graduates fresh out of college with no work experience or those who have fallen victim to the recession and been out of work for months on end. Franklin Roosevelt could put America to work building the infrastructure that transformed a nation but today there are no comparable programs to absorb those thousands or millions of unemployed. Where then shall they go?

And the common target for that popular anger are the barons of Wall Street. Though many of the worker bees of Wall Street may not quite fall into the 1% category, their general refusal to accept their role in destroying the wealth of a generation marks them for dislike, loathing and even hate. I fully expected that in 2008, as the extent of their malfeasance came to light that we would see, metaphorically, mobs with torches and pitchforks. I misunderstood the power and extent of the control Wall Street exerts over the levers of government. Not only did the President and his advisers do much to avoid demonizing them (and still drew shrill rebuke for any remarks that were less than flattering to those titans of finance) but more importantly, the bailouts were tailored to protect their investments and profits at the expense of the taxpayer. It's instructive that Europe's negotiated bailout over the Greek debt involves a fifty percent write off by the banks. Contrast that with the hundred percent return that Wall Street was guaranteed on their poor investments and one may begin to understand the frustration and anger that's building amongst those who have seen their lives destroyed by clueless wizards waving their monetary wands and causing billions of dollars to vanish in the blink of an eye.

The Tea Party rode their passion to a huge Congressional victory, and today shape the future of the nation as they walk the halls of government. So far the OWS movement shows no interest in turning into a political beast. That is both its strength and ultimate weakness, for the soldiers on the frontline of this struggle will never know when the fight is over, much less will they reap any benefit personally, even when they force change as in the case of Bank of America and its now-aborted attempts to levy debit card fees on their customers. Those of us on the sidelines will win much as the OWS movement shapes the public discussion and hopefully nudges the spectrum back towards the middle and towards sanity. But they, the protesters who took to the streets of the financial world seeking to shine a light on the great disparities and twisted realities of the American Nightmare will fade from view and be forgotten. For them, victory will bring no success -  I only wonder if they know it. And how we will look upon them as this saga plays out. With nostalgia, with mild surprise, or sideways at them as we stand beside them in the trenches?

Occupy and Change

This weekend, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement went national, even international, with protesters taking to the streets in cities across the world in sympathy with the original activists in New York. I very nearly did go downtown to watch and gauge the movement firsthand after a I met a fellow fay spirit while lunching at my favorite Scandinavian bistro. As it happened, I did not head down to see the activists, so my information about their aims remains dependent on the mixed messages reported in the news media.

One of the interesting things about this mixed bunch is their lack of leaders and unified message. In that sense they are not so very different from the Tea Party activists who seemed to appear out of nowhere in a short period of time to oppose a host of President Obama's policies, starting with the healthcare reform bill and growing into a potent political force that dragged the Republican party strongly to the right and changed the conversation profoundly in the run-up to the mid term elections. The OWS protesters coud not be more different in outward appearance, or tactics, and despite some liberal hopes that this ragtag army will restore equilibrium to the political world, I strongly doubt it. First and foremost, the Democratic party has not really decided what to do about this movement, just as the GOP initially hesitated in their approach to the Tea Parties. It's true that Nancy Pelosi has expressed some support, as has Al Gore, but they are certainly far less on the fringe than their counterparts on the right who rode the Tea Party wave; Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House and currently Minority Leader and Al Gore, former Vice President and ex-Senator are a far cry from Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Critically, the protesters have not targeted any political party, but seem more inclusive in their approach - if they have a common ideal it is the power of rich corporations to control the political process. And that power of corporations is exercised through minions in both political parties and corporate dollars flow into the coffers ot all politicians. This group of economically disenfranchised activists is wary of all politicians; even if they probably dislike the GOP more than the Democrats, it is only a matter of degree.

While the liberals tended to disparage the Tea Party - for one, we could and still cannot understand why they would oppose policies that succored them in favor of the corporations that seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors, or rant against the government being involved in healthcare while vociferously defending their Medicare entitlements - the right wing press has naturally attacked the motives, methods and hygiene of the OWS activists, while also portraying them as losers who wish to deny the titans of Wall Street their honestly won wealth. In this, they are joined by the citizens of Wall Street, one of whom mocked the protesters with a sign in his office window. And yet, that single act might do more to galvanize this protest and turn it into a surging movement - Wall Street and its financial companies haven't just nearly destroyed the world economy, but they do not understand or accept the mistakes they made nor the debt of gratitude they owe the US taxpayer. They have been bailed out from their own mess with billions of tax dollars, yet they have paid not a single cent in return. Instead they have reaped massive profits even as the rest of the economy has sputtered. Their fancy derivatives have protected their profits (when guaranteed by the US Treasury), but not the actual assets, the houses and the people who own them have continued to sink into a sea of debt and the same banks that created this problem have reacted with incredible myopia and insensitivity. And in many cases, with less than legal or at least ethical methods. They have taken our money but given us nothing in return. Now the OWS movement demands that the system be straightened out and the balance between workers and management be restored. In many ways the situation today is not so very different from the days of the robber barons, minus the Pinkertons with rifles. But we have a system where all the profits are kept by a small sliver of the populace, though all of us suffer their losses. Corporate power has grown to ridiculous levels, and controls all aspects of life. Not in a sinister "Big Brother" style, but certainly very completely. We can no longer trust any news outlet without wondering what their motives are - Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, NBC by GE, ABC is part of Disney Corp. These companies are not inherently evil and do not actively censor the news. But they are amoral corporations dedicated only to maximizing their short term profit and the media they own will naturally reflect their preferences.

Human costs simply do not enter into the calculations of corporations, and in the end that recognition is all that OWS needs to achieve in order to be considered successful. But getting their message across to the wider public while opposing the very organizations that own the media is definitely going to be a challenge. In this respect, the diffuse system of leadership, or lack of central leadership to be more honest may actually be an advantage. Speaking with a million different voices, espousing many messages, some that match and some that seem rather diverse, actually makes it impossible to block sans a concerted and illegal operation by many different corporations. And the corporate world while united in profiting on our dime, is no single entity capable of mounting such an exercise. Millions of opinions and messages flowing across the many social media cannot be stopped or controlled, except by heavy handed and ultimately counterproductive actions, a la Egypt's Mubarak. And with the activists standing loosely allied, and beholden to no single political party, the message itself, of equality and fairness, cannot be easily subverted or subsumed into a short term election agenda. This message will endure, no matter the outcome of the US elections, no matter who is president and who controls Congress. And ultimately, one hopes, a more equitable world will emerge, as it did back in the 1930s through the New Deal.

Rights of the Children of Ham

This past week has been eventful, to say the least, from activists massed in New York protesting something regarding Wall Street to further rumbles in Greece portending the collapse of Europe's dream of unity to the latest blow against al-Qaida when an aptly named Hellfire missile met Anwar al-Awlaki halfway and sent him on his merry way to discover in person the truth of stories of paradise and dozens of virgins. It is the latter topic that forms the burden of my song, for matters economic are harder to understand.

After a few days of quiet exultation, the dissenting voices began to be heard questioning the legality of executing al Awlaki. Amid the liberal voices was an unlikely protester in the person of Dick Cheney, demanding that the President recant his criticisms of Bush Administration policies. Perhaps nothing spurred me to think this over quite as much as our former vice president; it's usually a safe bet that we will be on opposite sides of near any argument. And as I listened to the debate, a sense of disquiet stole over me. True, there was much questioning of the legality of the strike, which executed an American citizen without trial or due process. And therein for me, lies the dilemma. I fully appreciate the concerns of the liberals, but inherent in their dissent is a suggestion that trial and due process should be extended only to American citizens but foreign nationals who we have identified as enemies may be eliminated by any means necessary.

To be fair to my liberal brethren they likely are not comfortable with our actions against non-citizens but must choose their battles with care, given the general mood in America. Public opinion is firmly in favor of muscular response to any perceived enemies and such niggling problems as lack of evidence and reasonable doubt are blithely brushed aside in favor of security over freedom. I've argued before that we need to heed the maxim that forsaking liberty for security oft leaves one with neither, but this is beyond pragmatic arguments. The overriding issue for me is moral: do we have the right to execute, without trial, anyone who we declare to be our enemy? Does it really matter if that person is an American citizen or not? From a narrow constitutional focus, the citizenship question is paramount, but the wider question should be if those guarantees of due process are meant only for those born within these blessed shores. We are not bound to uphold the rights of any foreign nationals against their treatment by their own government, but when their freedom and liberty are held forfeit by us, our actions should be constrained by the same constitutional fetters that protect citizens. It is no coincidence that any resident of the US enjoys all civil rights as an American. But when fear blinds us, we are happy to pretend that those rights are complimentary, to be withdrawn at our pleasure in the name of national security.

If, as I argue, non-Americans in the so called "war on terror" should enjoy the same protections as US citizens, one would argue that we would be hobbling ourselves and depriving ourselves of any chance of striking at our enemies as they plan attacks upon us. Some, including Christopher Hitchens argue along those lines basically that since al-Awlaki is evil and our enemy, actively engaged in attacking us we have the right to execute him, be he a citizen of USA or not. But this is a false argument, because it conflates two different issues; I do not gainsay the evil or enmity of al Awlaki, but that is no justification for executing anyone. But al Awlaki's engagement in attacking us is a very different matter - this is specific, concrete action that opens him to retaliation or even preemption. But what  I would prefer to see would be a clear policy declared by the government of who they perceive as enemies, what actions constitute a threat to America, and how the US government would respond. Transparency has been sorely lacking in government response to terrorism for the past ten years. Advocates of this secrecy might argue that we cannot reveal our knowledge to our enemies. But it is unlikely that bin Laden or al Awlaki expected anything but death from us, and President Bush was fairly clear that he intended to "get bin Laden, dead or alive". We do not have to reveal our powers, but it would be in everyone's interest if we tried these terrorists in-absentia if not in person. Once we have a conviction against them, their killing is simply an execution of sanctioned punishment. And if we cannot obtain a conviction of a terrorist when they're not even available to mount their own defense, then we really need to re-think our policies and ask ourselves if we know who our enemies really are. But most importantly, as a nation, we need to ask if we know what our policy truly is and once we declare our policy, are we comfortable with the ramifications. I cannot state for sure what policies I would support or oppose, but knowing those policies would be the first step along the path of decision.

Not-Quite-Paradise Lost

The recent release of Dick Cheney's book just as the machinery of remembering and hallowing the victims of the attack on the Twin Towers gets underway, reminds us of just what we really lost ten years ago. We did not see a paradise crumble and fall, but we surely moved into a darker world than we'd enjoyed, closer to Mordor than Gondor, and saddest of all,we chose to do so willingly. Dick Cheney underlined just how far down the path of darkness we've come.

As when the execution of bin-Laden was portrayed as a victory for the techniques of torture, the calluses on our soul have grown so thickened that we spend our time parsing the irrelevant  - did Condi Rice "tearfully" admit Cheney was right when he advised George Bush to not accept responsibility for false information presented to the public, did Cheney take cheap shots at his erstwhile opponents like Colin Powell - while basically accepting the most disturbing assertions with nary a murmur of dissent. Cheney remains, unsurprisingly, a firm advocate of torture. I'm not sure, but he may be the only advocate who also accepts it for what it is rather than attempting to hide behind fig leaf terms like "enhanced interrogation techniques". One must salute the man for his willingness to acknowledge torture for what it is; there is nothing else in his position that I cold commend. When did torture cease to be morally acceptable?  When the accounts are finally tallied, that may be the worst legacy that Cheney bequeathed us.

Previously when torture was discussed, we talked about the "ticking clock" and how maybe, moral positions needed to be changed when thousands of lives were at stake and we could gain the information to save them with a little judicious torture. We grappled with the agonizing questions that followed - how many lives need be at risk to justify torture? How small a window did we need to justify torture above conventional means? If we were unsure of the culpability of our suspect, should we torture a potentially innocent man in hope that we may save hundreds? Cheney basically circumvents all moral questions about torture by flatly accepting the need to torture terrorists - we have the right to torture these people because they're terrorists. And we know they're terrorists, otherwise we wouldn't be torturing them! Torquemada wold have approved the logic, since it was the exact principle of the Inquisition - and how useful torture proved to be, if we have any lingering doubts about the new morality of Dick Cheney.

In the end, Cheney with his narrow antagonistic world view, where everyone is either an unquestioning and uncritical friend or an enemy to be destroyed, has succeeded in defining a new enemy to hate and fear. The terror of the Red Menace has been replaced by loathing of the green crescent. When Americans object to intrusive searches of their persons, they qualify it with a willingness to see "the others" humiliated and searched in those same objectionable ways. I've said before that the stupidest part of targeting Muslims is that most Americans have no idea what a Muslim would look like. To a majority of them, A Muslim is a brown-skinned man, maybe wearing a turban. Not only did this simplistic view lead to the tragic killing of a Sikh man in Phoenix  - especially ironic given the historic animosity between Sikhs and Muslims in the Punjab  - but it is patently false. The Muslim world sweeps from West Africa, all along the north coast of that continent through west Asia, where it splits to plunge into Central Asia and the edges of China, while the southern branch twists across India and all the way down to the Philippines and Indonesia. So every African, and Asian, and even European - for the Kurds, Turks and Central Asians are not so easily distinguished from their European cousins - may be potentially a Muslim. Names too can take you only so far - while a name that includes Mohammed is likely enough Muslim, there's plenty of names that offer little evidence either way; some of those names may be distinguishable to someone from the same area, but would likely be as obscure to the average American. And a name like Kieth Ellison and John Walker Lyndh offer absolutely no clue to the faith of the men.

The only thing that distinguishes our enemies from the vast majority is their ideology. That remains the place they must be fought and defeated, but instead in this scared new world of ours, we spend our time attempting to block the construction of mosques and passing meaningless laws banning Sharia - all we do is alienate the as yet, liberal pro-America Muslims who live amongst us. emphasizing that they are not part of our country, that in a land that celebrates the freedom to follow any religion, the exception is theirs. The debts and economic inequalities of the Bush era will pass long before this legacy of fear, hatred and distrust that is the poisonous gift of Dick Cheney even as he robbed us of a part of our very souls, leaving us morally crippled and blind to the Furies he unleashed in our hearts.

This Thing of Ours

Today is India's Independence Day, a day when a nation newly minted stepped forth into the community of free people and prepared to address the critical question of just what kind of government it should adopt. The word is instructive, for India chose her form of government, and while it often leaves much to be desired, and can drive its people to near insanity with its Byzantine forms and methods, it still is the government selected by the people of India. It is a day when I find myself musing on the nature of government itself, and its role in our life today, especially here in the United States.

In my current domicile, faith in government, tenuous at best is dropping once more, driven by a disgust at partisan gridlock and our elected representative's Nero-esque mastery of fiddling and fed in part by a strange delusion that it is American to distrust one's government. Whether such distrust is historic I cannot say, but one thing seems to be fairly certain - the current distrust and hatred of every aspect of our government is fruit of the Reagan revolution. Ronald Reagan, that master of the pithy soundbite, injected a poison into the body politic stronger perhaps than even he realized, and today we still suffer the consequences. When he declared that government was not the solution to our problems, but the problem itself, Reagan gave a catchy slogan to opponents of government and started us on the path to destroying ourselves.

Today, there is a strong constituency in the country that believes that whole government, or at least a very large part thereof should be shut down and those functions handed off to the private sector. This is, to view it charitably, a philosophy that seems largely ignorant of history. The American government, more than any other in the world, and certainly the first of its kind, was not a system of rules imposed upon the nation by an external force; rather it was a compact formed by the people and adopted as the most effective way of meeting the challenges they faced. This is a government, as Lincoln put it, by the people and for the people. And yet today we face a group of people who continually talk about the government as an alien entity that must be opposed and destroyed; one might as well seek to cut off one's arm or leg in a fit of pique.

There are two broad views of the fundamental nature of government. The minimalists believe that the government should be of such size and power that it cannot impact their lives at all, it should have no power to tax, or regulate. Being of the opposite camp, of course, I exaggerate their position, but based on statements by some of the loudest cheerleaders, I do not think I state it very wrongly. They would have people live by their personal means, and would have the government never aid or hinder the progress of any person, nor their destruction. There are naturally shades of difference, and this libertarian viewpoint is often compromised by those who would impose their own social values upon the rest through the medium of government.

On the other hand, there is the liberal view of government, of which I am a firm believer. Government was formed by us to serve our needs and purposes. It is a tool we have created to ensure our safety and progress, and it serves us at every level, from city to state to nation, and we have bestowed powers upon our government to serve specific needs in response to specific challenges. There is no magical level at which government becomes unacceptable and at some point the artificial walls between nations will crumble and be swept away and a world government will succeed our national governments as the highest power - this is the arc of history and we can embrace reality or stick our heads in the sand; the result will be the same with the difference being the level to which we can fashion the government that forms. As a liberal, I believe that we have formed our government to ensure equality and equal opportunity. It is something of an article of faith amongst believers in capitalism that "a rising tide will lift all boats"; we liberals believe in the same concept, that if we help our less fortunate brothers, it will benefit everyone.

It is sometimes suggested that liberalism is the enemy of capitalism. While some left-leaning governments have misstated the case, nothing could be further from the truth, really; the two are not mutually exclusive systems and should in fact bring out the best in both. Capitalism when it works, rewards excellence. A liberal government would actually ensure a healthier market to consume the fruit of a capitalist' labor and by promoting equal opportunity would actually inure the market against it's naturally monopolistic, and self-defeating tendencies. If there had never been a bust up of AT&T would we have enjoyed the explosion of mobile technology, or would we have been forced to suffice with whatever a monopolist company deigned to give us? Can capitalism thrive if there are no consumers for its produce? If capitalism is allowed to concentrate all wealth in the hands a very small number, wherefore the capital to fund development and innovation and improvements, given that great personal wealth rarely is harnessed in pursuit of the greater good?

And that really is the crux of the question: do we want a liberal form of government dedicated to the greatest good of the greatest number or do we wish to plow our lone farrows neither seeking help from anyone else nor offering any in turn? But in the end, no man is an island, and in the words of Disraeli, we must hang together, or assuredly we will hang separately.

A Teaching Moment

One sunny afternoon some weeks ago, as my co-workers and I returned from lunch, one of them remarked that it was high time we got rid of the teacher's unions, which in his opinion was nothing but a means to ensure that lazy good-for-nothings could never be disciplined or removed. He cited their right to tenure as a glaring example of their unfair advantage over the school districts.

This attitude seems to be spreading, fueled in part by a major campaign against all organized labor across the nation, wherein somehow our friends and neighbors become the personification of all is evil socialism the moment they cross into their workplace. Governors Walker and Christie have done more to dismantle the power of organized labor than any  leader since President Reagan, I'll warrant. And teachers, as members of one of the most visible public employees' unions, have drawn a disproportionate level of invective. Teachers have been accused of many socialist evils, and at least some of the dislike of the may be rooted in their distressing desire to teach students about such objectionable subjects as Darwin's theory of evolution and equality of humankind, irrespective of race, color, gender, religion or sexual orientation - unacceptable obviously and a clear attempt to corrupt the minds of the youth. It appears that hemlock is not as easy to procure today as in classical times. and so we must find other ways to deal with the malaise of an out of control teaching establishment.

I once met a woman who explained that her hyperactive five-year old son was not really out of control even when he was wrecking his school room, he was just active and full of energy and if the teacher would just hold him gently by firmly for a few minutes he would calm down and stop smashing things. She was in absolute earnest that the teacher, given charge of fifteen or twenty children should adopt this unique maternal approach to handling one child and should not get angry with his destructive behavior. Of course, should a teacher actually attempt such an approach, there would probably be other parents lining up to scream about inappropriate behavior and all but ready to lynch her. This is the world our teachers work in, and they receive scant compensation for the work they put in.

It is popular to talk about how teachers have summer vacations and the school day ends at 3pm compared to the longer hours we work in 'real" jobs. But teachers work far past the end of school day. I had a roommate who was a teacher and she spent evenings grading homework, and preparing for the classes of the next day. I've taught a few classes in my days at graduate school and I know that it can take as much time out of class as in the classroom. Then add in the sheer variety of challenges that teachers deal with in their classes daily. Most of us, service industry excepted, deal with a fairly uniform group of people from day to day; how would we fare if we had to deal with students ranging from near moronic to smart enough to me in MIT, and bored if the class moves at anything slower than their own aptitude. Teachers are hamstrung too, in the level of discipline they are allowed to impose on their charges, and in the attitudes of parents to any shortcomings in their offspring. We expect teachers to turn the children into paragons of virtue and wisdom, but we give them no assistance. On the contrary, parents seem ever more eager to point the finger of accusation at teachers. In which other job are staff expected to put up with lewd comments and get no succor (and we'd be fooling ourselves if we think female teachers in any class above fifth grade do not face it)? In which job do staff face the risk of violence as teachers must? It may not happen all the often, but it's a very real possibility? And what do we offer them in return? A low salary, constant criticism and abuse, little to no appreciation and untenable situations. We have even stripped teachers of the right to a personal life, with some teachers losing their jobs for the wildly inappropriate image of being seen with a glass of wine while hanging out with friends.

All this do we do, and then we ask the teachers to also be willing to lose their jobs at the whim of the market. It's time to realize that good teachers are not created overnight, that experienced teachers are worth their weight in gold. If we dismiss teachers whenever we need to balance a budget we will never have any institutional knowledge, nor will the teachers have any incentive to do anything beyond the absolute minimum. Why would teachers work past the end of day to help students with extra curricular activities? Do we really think those teachers do that for money? As Matt Damon explained, teachers in the vast majority do what they do because they love their work, not for the inadequate money we pay them. Most of them could earn more in other jobs, but choose to work as teachers for love of educating and molding minds. Giving them the security of tenure is a way to encourage them to put forth all their energies into what they love without the fear that their efforts of one year will be swept away the very next, along with their jobs. If we pretend otherwise, we will assuredly get what we pay for, and it won't be a pretty sight.

Change of Heart For A Self-Confessed Oil-o-Phobic (Or "Drill, baby Drill")

By most measures, I'm just a typical common or garden-variety environmentalist or at least a person who would rather see environmentally friendly policies than not. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, I recycle religiously, drive a Prius, support a gas tax and more public transportation and would rather sit in front of my TV on a Saturday morning than burn gasoline driving out to some beautiful scenic trail in the middle of nowhere. So, it was with some surprise that I reached the conclusion that it's time to turn right about in our position on exploration for and exploitation of oil resources in continental America.

Naturally, I don't endorse a no-limits "drill, baby, drill" approach where we simply hand the pristine wilderness over to the oil companies. Safeguards, the most rigorous environmental safeguards, would be an indivisible of this new drive to tap our resources. But tap them we must. If the Deepwater Horizon tragedy taught us one thing, it should be that our demand for oil will simply force drilling in ever more challenging regions. And if renowned companies like BP can fail so spectacularly, it would be naive to imagine that something similar or worse will not happen in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Cuba. Cuba is especially dangerous, given their desperation for petrodollars and our continued short-sighted embargo, even to the point of threatening oil companies with sanctions if they work in Cuba; we have simply cleared the more experienced players from the field and left it to companies from India or China, companies with less expertise and technology as best and fewer safeguards or concerns for the environment. Companies in USA and Europe may not have any inherent interest in environmentally responsible practices, but they are forced to follow them nevertheless, while companies from elsewhere may not operate with the same constraints.

Perhaps the greatest issue for me however is not the risk that the beaches of Florida may be threatened by an accident in Cuba. Great as that tragedy would be, the sad fact is that other areas stand at greater risk or are even now suffering the effects of crude methods of oil extraction. Brazil has planned deep sea exploration every bit as dangerous as Deepwater Horizon; the Amazon jungle and especially the Niger delta have been under attack for the past decade, to the point that damage may be past repair.Do we care about environmental degradation only when it happens on our yard? More pertinent, perhaps, should we care? We know well that the ocean currents care not for our maritime boundaries around Hispaniola and hence we fret about Cuban wells, but the damage farther off the horizon may escape our notice while causing as much damage to the world as a whole.

We occupy a crucial, unique position in the world. By virtue of our enormous consumption, approximately a fifth of the total world's output, we enjoy leverage over the producers as much as they enjoy over us. The difference is that OPEC has consciously used that power to further their own interests, while we turn away from our power. The time has come to embrace our power and embrace reality. Environmentalists would like to believe that we can shed our dependence on oil and sustain ourselves on green energy, and perhaps someday we will get there. But that day is not today, nor even tomorrow. And as long as we pursue cheap gas as state policy, there is little incentive to make the switch. But we may change that if we wish. For starters, we must tap our domestic oil producing capacities to the fullest. I know this idea is almost criminal in environmentalist circles, but I prefer a wider worldview; we can force the companies to protect the environment here and work in a responsible manner (assuming a political will to enforce the laws) while we have next to no control over the depredations of the Niger. And while the arctic ecology may be delicate and easily damaged so is nearly any natural ecosystem and we can minimize the damage at home, keep the wells away from the wildlife reserves.

But this is the season of grand bargains, from debt ceilings to professional football, and increasing domestic production is but one leg of my proposal. In addition, we would introduce a higher gas tax, sufficiently large to generate significant revenues and nudge consumer behavior, with the revenue being used partly for mass transit systems and partly for more green energy. But, truth be told, if petroleum based solutions become more expensive, investment will automatically seek out greener solutions. And I am enough of a believer in markets that I think the government should not be betting on a specific technology but should simply signal a general shift away from oil and let the market find the best solution - it may be totally different from anything we've imagined so far.

But the real power of our top consumer status lies in the third leg of my strategy - we need to impose a green tax on all petroleum products imported into the US, based on how the company produces it's oil. If it's destroying the environment in Africa or southeast Asia, we would impose a higher tax on them than if the oil came from the North Sea. Exactly how we would rate the oil sands of Canada or the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is debatable, but I suspect they would fall somewhere in between.  Companies may seek to get around the system by claiming the oil they give us is produced from "good" locations while the bad stuff is sold to other countries; we can combat that trick easily enough by basing the tax on total production of the company, with a company that has more responsible methods attracting a lower tax rate. The other trick would be for a company to sell it's "bad" stuff to a company that produces "good" oil and let the second company sell to us at their low tax rate. Again, a little vigilance would go a long way to negating this trick, with the "good" company getting tainted since a part of it's total production would now include the "bad" stuff it bought and it would still attract the same higher tax rate as the original bad producer.

The other argument to address is the danger that companies facing a "green" tax will place an embargo on us. I would counter that it is precisely there that our power of consumption comes into play - companies simply cannot refuse to sell to us, we are too important to their balance sheets. Unlike the seventies and the oil embargo, we are talking about private companies driven by profit, not states that can live with financial losses in pursuit of a strategic objective. When you control a fifth of the market, no one can ignore your demands. The many leading oil companies that are based in the US or Europe already possess the technology to operate in a responsible manner but see no reason to to so in the less regulated corners of the world. At the risk of being a global cop again, we are going to make it less advantageous to destroy the environment, no matter where. Further I think, with companies vying for the newly available lucrative drilling contracts in the US, objections will be somewhat muted. The net result will be more revenue for mass transit and greener gasoline for everyone. As a bonus, dearer gasoline will also nudge all of us towards more responsible driving choices, be they smaller cars, gas-sippers instead of guzzlers, occasional bicycle rides in place of the SUV and maybe a rediscovery of the advantages of city life over the suburban experience.

Not Quite a Sunscreen Song

As I drove into work the other day, I heard the "Sunscreen song", played to mark the end of most college semesters and as I listened to the best commencement speech never given, my thoughts drifted to the increasing number of articles I've seen questioning the value of a college education. I've ignored those articles for most part, since they are too late to influence my choices in that direction, but the very fact that such ideas are even being debated is disappointing in many ways. I've always considered my college years as the best times of my life, and it's sad that the next group of high schoolers will forgo that rite of passage in favor of plunging straight into the workforce.

It's possible of course, that the debate is less about skipping college and more about focusing on a more practical, and quicker, post-high school education that will prepare one for immediate entry into the job market without a lot of unimportant courses. Perhaps the traditional college degree isn't for everyone, just as it wasn't for everyone in the past. A person with absolutely no interest in education would obviously be wasting his money on a college degree. And it is certainly worth asking if education costs are worthwhile, when the average student will incur a cost of over $100,000 for a degree at any major school. But again, it's worth remembering that college does not have to include the big schools - a degree at a community college can be as good and, if the NBC sitcom is any barometer, far more fun than I ever had at school.

Those are valid questions that every student needs to face and answer for themselves. But today, I want to address the more insidious suggestion that college education in general is unnecessary. It is beyond doubt that college education, as high school education includes a lot of subjects that seem to have little bearing on our normal lives and that will be rarely if ever used in our careers after graduation. How many Wall Street wizards use their knowledge of history of European art as they craft toxic financial instruments? Will a knowledge of ancient or modern Chinese assist a mid-western farmer? Will intimacy with differential equations aid a trucker as he rolls across the length of America? Perhaps not, but with the vast range of courses available at any major college, well counseled students can pick a bouquet of useful and interesting classes that will broaden their understanding of the world around them and open new vistas to explore. We live in an increasingly connected world, and an understanding of the culture and motivations of people beyond our immediate circles is actually an increasingly critical and sought after skill in resumes.

But beyond the obvious and visible advantages of courses that apply to the world around us, college offers a chance for students to mature, to learn critical social skills, to broaden their critical thinking abilities and to generally acquire well rounded characters. Schools may do their best, but in the smaller student bodies, students face less diversity, not just racial or economic, but also cultural and intellectual; it's colleges that provide the microcosm of the real world that prepares students for the maelstrom they will soon face. Even without a variety of courses - my engineering course included none of the humanities or liberal arts that are mandatory in the US - I can still say that I came out of college a vastly more mature and developed person than the callow youth who entered four years previously. In the end, it was not engineering that was the most important of lessons learned, but the discipline and concentration I developed there, along with such intangible skills as working with people very different from me and learning to solve problems, involving both mathematical and people; the mathematical ones were the easy ones.

And finally, all practical advantages aside, college is the crucial time when we come of age, when boys become men (girls usually grow up earlier). It's a last time to enjoy life with few responsibilities and the knowledge that those responsibilities hover just beyond makes the joys of college all the sweeter. It's fun with a tinge of adulthood, carefree enjoyment with the edge of real life. Some people miss it for reasons beyond their control - Dafur or Congo being just two places that come to mind - but for kids here in the US, it would be a crime if they chose to turn their backs on this gift that's theirs for the taking, and a crime if they were advised to forgo college by people who have enjoyed it themselves. It's a last magical idyll and no one should miss out on the experience.

The Tide is Turning

Last night, New York became the sixth state in the Union to legalize marriage for all human beings. The world did not end, the earth did not rend, spewing forth molten magma and swallowing the citizens of modern day Sodom. Nor did celestial trumpets blare forth a paean of triumph. It could be just another proof that there is no god directing our destiny. Or more charitably, it may be proof that an omnipotent deity concerned with the creation and ordering of the entire cosmos has far better things to do that wonder about whether men should lie with men and that our lives, our futures and all we aspire to is up to us. Whatever the truth of god's existence, there is no doubt that we are at our best as human beings when we look within ourselves for the answers we seek and find the strength there to do the right thing by our fellowmen.

It took a pair of Republican senators to join the other thirty one in favor of allowing all citizens of New York the same marital rights; the sadness is that twenty nine remain obdurately opposed to what seems a self evident truth to all of us on this side of the line, but one can only hope that they will realize that the world belongs to all of us, even those who may not share our sexual predilections, and they deserve the same rights and freedoms as us. It is not a an act of kindness on our part, it is not our benevolent magnanimity that we finally suffer them to live like us; it is our shame that we have taken so long to recognize the reality and stop withholding what was their birthright as much as ours.

Today, New York pats itself on the back for having done the right thing. There is no point in harking back to their failures in the past, but it is nevertheless pointing out, even if it means being cavalier that they are late to the party, and that the real turning points were reached some time ago. It started in Massachusetts, but for me the biggest win was Iowa. Before Iowa, opponents of universal marriage could argue that this was a movement born in the liberal strongholds of the coastal strip and did not reflect the bedrock values of the heartland, whatever those may be and wherever that mythical place may be. But Iowa changed that. Iowa, in the heart of the Midwest can never be dismissed as a socialist bleeding heart liberal enclave. If a state epitomizes the imaginary "true" America, it may well be Iowa. Known for early primaries and corn, rather than a burning desire to right the wrongs of society, Iowa legalized universal marriage with a typically Midwestern lack of excitement, with none of the hype and noise and beating of breasts that accompanied New York's entry into the enlightened club.

I do not know which state will be next, though it seems likely that the first push will come out of New England before the conservative center begins to feel the pressure. And though marshaling logical arguments in favor of universal freedom is unlikely to win over the opponents, it is nonetheless worth addressing one of the most widely touted fallacies, that allowing same-sex marriage undermines "traditional" marriage. If one were to ask these adherents which precise tradition they yearned for, it is unlikely that they would have a common answer, for the traditions of marriage are as diverse as the cultures that spawned them. Likely though that the conservative defenders of traditional marriage believe that there is something sacred about a marriage between a man and a woman and they cling to the notion that the god they worship has sanctioned this marriage.

In fact, marriage had little to do with religion and everything to do with strictly secular and material concerns like property and money. It is no coincidence that elaborate marriage was required only amongst the upper classes and nobility of medieval Europe, and that such marriages included lengthy settlements dealing with decidedly material issues, with religious authority mostly invoked only to prevent untimely dissolution of unions that guided the destinies of the land. It's worth recalling that Henry VIII split the Catholic church because he was denied an annulment of his marriage. Mormonism, growing rapidly in America, has a traditional marriage based on polygamy; is that the "traditional" marriage opponents of modern marriage yearn towards? Ancient Jewish custom recognized polygamy, and also treated the women as mere child producing chattels, possessions of their fathers and husbands. There was a moment in early Christianity when marriage was wholly dissuaded, in favor of universal celibacy. But perhaps even the most devout traditionalists would shy away from a tradition that is not even marriage at all.

In the end, tradition is just tradition and if we do not eat as our ancestors did, nor travel as they did, nor speak as they did why should we choose one random tradition and raise it above the others and demand that it be maintained. Slavery was also a tradition, as was serfdom, and burning witches as the stake. If traditional marriage is sacred, then surely we need to simply decide which period we aspire to and throw out everything, every aspect of our lives that does not conform to that tradition. Which reminds me that we have a construction project starting soon - we need to find a virgin to sacrifice and bury in the foundation to appease the gods and ensure the safety of construction. It's tradition!

Immigrants Behaving Badly

Last month the President decided to bring immigration reform to centerstage once again, if only to highlight the obstructions raised by his political opponents. Since then, interest has languished again and the moat and alligator business I'd hoped to start up may have to wait a whiles till funding to build the same is approved by Congress. But meanwhile I thought I'd dust off some old thoughts on immigration and publish them in this snazzy blog that is such a credit to some unknown developer. This is actually part of a two-chapter posting on different aspects of immigration and let me lead off bu discussing this article in the Washington Post from a few years ago that illustrated a very interesting aspect of Hispanic immigrants and explodes several negative myths about their role in US society. Distilled down to the essentials, the various studies show that Hispanic immigrants don't act according to stereotype.

I know a little bit about immigrants who don't fit stereotypes. Immigrants are supposed to stick with others from their ethnic group, they are supposed to speak the language of their home country rather than English, they are supposed to go mostly to their particular ethnic restaurants and celebrate their own particular religious and secular days. I can testify that every morning I see a would-be immigrant who doesn't fit the mold. Sure, he looks like typical immigrant and judging from the reaction of others, sounds unlike the average American. But it just goes to show that appearances can be deceiving. Or rather that stereotypes are, more often than not, totally wrong.

Returning to the article, studies show that as generally perceived, a majority of first generation Hispanic immigrants do fall below the poverty line and also tend to earn significantly lower wages than Americans in the same job. However, the wage gap between immigrants and natives tends to close quickly. Far more interesting however is the revelation that these immigrants do not think of themselves as poverty-stricken, nor do they behave as such. It seems like someone forgot to tell these immigrants that they are supposed to be different, that they are supposed to drag down US society. Instead, in their ignorance they react positively, in much the same way as every other immigrant community that ever called America home.

These are people who earn less than the $20,000 annual salary that the US government defines as dividing the poor from the rest. And, these poverty level salaries are typically earned in urban (and expensive areas). While many settled natives might think that it is impossible to live on around $11,500 a year (or barely $225 a week), these people beg to differ. They manage and their attitude is that of the middle class - they manage the best they can in education for their children, manage to save a little (!) and nearly always manage to send some money back to their families and relatives in their native country. Imagine that – they are supporting not just themselves, but also large extended families. Several economies south of the border are heavily dependent of these remittances. And since this money comes without IMF-mandated conditions or high interest rates and repayment timetables, every last penny goes into improving the lives of the recipients. These immigrants have discovered so many truths - you don’t need a 52-in plasma TV or a TV in every room, or a night out on the town every night, you don’t need to drive the latest model car or have the newest computer or I-pod, there is life without a Playstation or Xbox. And they are living out the economic theory that just won the Nobel Peace Prize, creating economic and social development from the grassroots, and actually alleviating the conditions that force so many to immigrate to America in first place.

According to the article, a majority of immigrants own or plan to own their own homes and businesses. They are working hard to improve their living conditions and provide a brighter future for their children, and they expect fewer government handouts than many natives (think about the corn farmers or oil companies). Sounds familiar? It should. It could describe any previous immigrant community. It could describe the American Dream.

This study was focused on Hispanic immigrants, who are right now the target of most negative myths and stereotype, but I'm willing to wager that other prominent immigrant communities are similar. In fact, I'm so sure of this that like Oliver Twist's interest acquaintance, Mr. Grimwig, I'll eat my own head!

Union of Interests - A Different Way Forward

Better than the common platitude, "United we stand, divided we fall", is Benjamin Franklin's more powerful statement, "We must hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". And as the public service unions of Wisconsin attempt to hang together, it's worth considering the alternatives, should Governor Scott Walker and his fellow conservatives win their way.

Growing up, I had a rather negative attitude towards unions. India, in the eighties, was in the thrall of the unions and they ably demonstrated everything that was worst about unions with too much power. Yet, looking back, the problem was not so much the unions, though they were no angels, but the byzantine mix of laws that rewarded lack of initiative and thwarted any spark of entrepreneurship. The unions and their leaders were willing collaborators, but they did not set up the massive state-run companies that had no incentive to turn a profit, that were treated as a way to buy political support. As I embarked on my journey across the world, I began to see unions in a new light.

The recently beatified former President Reagan won great acclaim for breaking the unions, and since then, his disciples have built on his victories to roll back the power of unions, and more importantly changed the public perception of unions and their members. In America today, unions are victims of their own successes in the past century. The inhuman working conditions and powerless position of the workers in early twentieth century America is now little more than a bad dream and generations raised to regard basic health-care and forty hour weeks as the norm forget that none of these luxuries were gifted to us by the magnanimity of our employers, but were won by furious, often bloody, battle by the much maligned unions. Yet today, they are reviled and distrusted as agents of a socialist Dystopia, somehow alienated from their neighbors, their fellow citizens. It's easy to see the battle over unions in simplistic black and white terms - the liberals want them, the conservatives hate them, the Democrats support them, the GOP wants to eliminate them.

But reality is rarely if ever that simple. I'm greatly conflicted over unions, in part because of the poor example they've set, in part because the anti-unionists have sold a seductive counter argument, and in part because I can't join one any more. The "right to work" is a slick piece of marketing, of a piece with "pro-life" - it sounds really great and reasonable and would work great, except that it doesn't. The pro-life brigade is busy imposing their moral view upon everyone else using a reasonable sounding term - who's anti-life after all? - to deny people the right to believe differently from them. In much the same way, the "right to work" has absolutely nothing objectionable at first blush. To be honest, I always thought that the idea that everyone who joined a unionized workforce had to join the union seemed unfair. Of course, on reflection it's obvious that once non-union labor is introduced, it becomes fairly easy for the management to weaken the union and destroy it. Likewise, seeing a portion of my payroll sucked away as union dues didn't seem too attractive an option either, which was a large part of why I opposed the unionization of the graduate students who were teaching assistants while at school. In the end the unions have to recognize that the world has changed over the last half century and they can no longer rest on their past laurels. Their time has passed and now has come the moment for a new idea.

Unions, at the their best, represent the most important part of a company. Let's be honest, if a company could survive without its labor, they would do it in a heartbeat. But the fact is, the workers are what makes or breaks a company. It is a common theme that the owner brought in the capital that made the company possible, which is a fair enough idea. But capital without workers is as meaningless as workers without an employer. Labor and capital need each other, no matter how much the pretend otherwise. It's time for both sides to forge a new relationship and it will need a lot of adjustments from both sides. Let's start by dropping the term "union' with all it's negative connotations - I propose that alternate terms like "Workers' Guild" (a shout out to the World of Warcraft) or "Workers' League' be adopted. But more importantly, all workers not invested in the company be made a part of this new association. The old distinctions between blue collar and white collar made sense, when the white collar workers were few and were usually treated as part of the company management. Today, when the line between the two has blurred and vast numbers of white collar workers struggle with less rights than their blur collar fellows, it's just another idea whose time has passed. And if  the professional players in the NFL can band together to bargain with their employees, why not the rest of us? Obviously, shareholders in the company cannot be a part of the association, since their interests are nominally at odds with those of the workers, but all others can and should be free to join this association. Of course, I see no role for "outsiders" in this association - only workers in the company can be in the association. And of course the positions would carry no additional salary - if the janitor won the job, he'd sit on the board of directors as a representative of his fellow workers, but he'd still draw a janitor's paycheck. And he'd still have to fulfill his janitorial duties.

However, it's critical to note that in fact, labor and owners are not on opposite sides of a zero sum game. And that is where the greatest adjustment is required in thinking. The worker's association, as partners of the capitalists need to have a role in company policy, not during wage negotiations only, but at all times. We live in an era of short term gains and myopic worldviews, when the CEO and his fellow Board of Directors earn a hundred times more than the average employee, and where those decisions on company policy and CEO compensation are never discussed with the people they impact most and who contribute every bit as much as the CEO or owner. In fact, for an established company that raises money largely on the stock market, the capital is so diffused that there is hardly a single person contributing overwhelmingly to the company's coffers and the workers are probably far more important. Ownership is the great American Dream, so let's make the workers equal partners in the company.

Now such an idea could be dismissed as socialism. So be it; if this is socialism, I embrace the concept, Comrades! But it's worth remembering that Margret Thatcher executed something fairly similar in Britain during her initial terms when she sold off state-owned corporations, often to the workers. I've heard of small company founders selling their company's to their employees when they wish to retire, so it's neither a revolutionary or ground breaking idea, really. I just suggest that this be implemented on a wider, near universal scale, and that the workers have a voice in all company policy. That would include the association having access to the company books, and all the same information as the rest of the Board. It will not end bad decisions - Hummers would probably have been built even under this system - but it will make the labor part of the solution. There are many other problems that would definitely remain, but workers invested in the long term health of the company would probably make reasonable accommodations on salaries and benefits and assume a fair share of the pain during the bad times, so long as they also reaped the profits during the good. Naturally workers who choose not to join the association would have that right and would still enjoy the benefits of any labor agreements negotiated by the association, but only association members would share in the decisions of the Board and in the profits - or losses - that flow therefrom.

Time to Negotiate Tough - Send for Shatner or The Rock

For the past week, the biggest issue relating to the killing of Osama bin Laden has been the one no one wants to confront directly: did the Pakistani government know of bin Laden's hideout and what do we do next? It's an issue that is likely being furiously debated at the highest levels of the US government and every other level besides, including the very inefficient waiter at the pizzeria by my office who told us he was a cousin of Leon Panetta. It is equally clear that Pakistan must be pondering the same question and wondering what the fallout for them will be.

Pakistan would have us believe that they had no idea that bin Laden was hiding just a short journey from their capital, a neighbor almost to their military academy. In a nation that has suffered multiple vicious and bloody attacks by terrorists committed to destroying the status quo and Pakistani state, it certainly stretches credulity that a large compound could be maintained so openly without the slightest knowledge of the government. Now, it is likely that the Pakistani intelligence service is no KGB or secret police service, that they are far from omnipotent, no matter what the Indians and Afghans may claim, and they may not have had the ability or even the mandate to investigate that mysterious complex. But one thing that makes hiding in south Asia so difficult is the pervasive corruption. I do know that the local police would have known there was something strange about that compound and would have suspected that it was either a mujaheddin commander, either Pakistani or Afghan, or a drug dealer. In  either scenario, they would have expected to be bribed to stay silent.  And the most troubling question is whether they could be bribed or coerced into silence regarding the world's most wanted man, that never once did they allow the news to slip out, say in hope of snagging that American reward. If the local security forces were willing to keep secret of this magnitude from the federal government in Islamabad, that may be far scarier than the possibility that the government was sheltering bin Laden. It suggests that even in a seemingly peaceful oasis, the government writ has ceased to run and from greed or fear, the local authorities answer to a different power. For the safety and survival of the Pakistani state, we must hope that is not so.

For the same reason, it is time for India and Afghanistan to face the truth they would rather not: fun as it is to crow over Pakistan's discredited government, we all need that government to remain stable and survive for none of us want to see a failed state with nucleur weapons in the hands of the boldest rather than the sanest claimant. There is but a small window of opportunity now and it will take the greatest act of statecraft since Disraeli bought the Suez canal, but the US must seek to  bring Pakistan, Afghanistan and India to the table together. India has till now resisted all attempts to engage with Pakistan on the larger issues of the region, retreating into a shell of Cold War hostility and knee jerk reactions, opposing even having Special Envoy Holbrook's title mention them at all. But India is deluding themselves, as much as the US does. The three countries, linked by common heritage that predates even the Mughal invasion of the Indian subcontinent, cannot address their issues bilaterally, when the issues go way beyond bilateral interests.

India likes to see all issues with Pakistan through the prism of their conflict over Kashmir. Afghanistan sees Pakistan interference in the Pushtun areas as a mischievous precursor to annexing the southern provinces. And so India plays Afghanistan against Pakistan, cultivating the Tajik and Uzbeks against the Pushtun south, while Pakistan supports a pushtun based insurgency against the Afghan government to remain relevant in Afghanistan. Back in 2001, the US offered Pakistan a stark choice, to join our war on the Taliban or become our enemy. We forced them to drop their tool against India, the strategic depth they desired and then were surprised when they kept their back channels open to their erstwhile clients. We offered the Pakistani government military aid in return, but in doing so we robbed them of all legitimacy in the eyes of their people. And with each drone strike, we further emasculate their government, even as we destroy common enemies. It is this failure to appreciate the nuances of the south Asian imbroglio that has most hampered US interests. We asked Pakistan to act against their own perceived strategic interests to further our own needs and never stopped to ask what the cost for them would be, And equally strangely, we pretended that a dictator ruling by proclamation represented the will of Pakistan when he paid lip service to our demands.

The only way to solve this problem is by ending the three way struggle between India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. By now, even Pakistan's most chauvinistic leaders must know that they will never gain all of Kashmir, just as the most bloody minded Indian knows that no matter what they call the northern part of Kashmir under Pakistani rule, it's never becoming a part of India. And no matter how much they harp on the UN mandated plebiscite, at this stage India knows that no Kashmiri north of the Line of Control is going to vote to join India. Since neither nation is going to give up territory to the other, much less allow an independent Kashmiri nation, it's time for them to quit pretending and convert the Line of Control into a permanent border. Once they drop claims on each other's territory, it will be a lot easier to stop supporting insurgencies in the opponent, and the need to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan will also decrease. If Pakistan accepts that they no longer need the strategic depth to the north, and India no longer seeks to encircle Pakistan, it will become a more straightforward battle in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, there are deeply entrenched attitudes that will make such a bargain difficult to achieve. Pakistan has since its inception worked on the assumption that India seeks to destroy them; the claim on Kashmir is as old. Changing that mindset is only part of the challenge, since even an elected government must now fear the reactions of the fundamentalists as well as the military whose very raison d'etre is based on the existential threat of India. A bargain would have to involve the government as well as most of the centrist opposition. Winning over the military is best achieved by clearly showing them the cold hard facts and their own interests rather than trying to bribe them as we've done over and over in the past. India is no easier to deal with, stuck in some ways in Cold war prickliness to any American "interference". But in reality, few Indians want the rest of Kashmir as part of India - the last thing they want is more Muslims, much less a group that has no wish to be in India. Strategic needs have long since receded - after all, India has managed without Kashmir for most of its life as an independent nation and the current generation do not even know a time when Kashmir was not a bomb wracked battleground. The diplomatic equivalent of a hard shake and a presentation of harsh reality may actually be so unusual an experience for India that it just might work. And secretly, both India and Pakistan know that their continued conflict helps no one and costs both of them enormously in lost economic possibilities. It's not going to be easy, but if we want to ever get out of Afghanistan and not see another bin Laden rise, we're going to have to engage all the players, even those, like India, who want to pretend that they aren't playing.

Playing the Wet Blanket....As Usual

It is the unfortunate but vital task of killjoys to shine at moments when most people would like them to fade away and hide. This week, as Osama bin Laden was executed in a scene that came straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, it was obvious that it was time to get out the old water hose and reprise the familiar wet blanket impersonation.

When I saw the first headlines, I thrilled and exulted as much as anyone around. While bin Laden never threatened me personally and I didn't lose any relatives to his terror, nor risked that loss, he has declared a war on the West in general, and the USA in particular and having chose to make my domicile in these more temperate climes, I consider his declaration of war a threat to my personal comfort at the very least. I never believed he could win, unless his intended opponents allowed him to win through fear; there were moments when I feared that America would hand the man greater success than his achievements ever warranted. Fear was what bin Laden dealt in, and America increased his stock and infamy every time they reacted in fear to the actions of his minions. America striped herself of freedom and dignity in a vain attempt to guard themselves against a terrorist who actually posed almost no threat whatsoever, and for that I help bin Laden responsible. He did not cancel our rights against government eavesdropping or spirit us away to secret prisons, but he inspired a fear in the population at large that condoned such actions in a false search for safety. He was the boogieman, the monster under the bed at night, and missteps had built him to a level that only defeat or capture could ever change that mindset. My one fear, greater than any fear of another terrorist attack, was that he would die quietly in hiding and we would never vanquish our fear of him.

And so when I heard that a US commando raid had invested him in a few pound of parabellum and stamped his exit visa, as I said, I was happy. Bin Laden finally got to personally experience the martyrdom he craved for others and that alone was cause for happiness.  Not flag waving, chest thumping happy - for one thing thumping my chest leads only to a dull cottony sound, and I leave that atavistic form of behavior to our great ape cousins, while  descending into the streets waving the flag to which I nominally owe allegiance would likely get me shot, something I fear I may be allergic to. As the news spread and scenes of tumultuous celebrations poured in, I began to feel a sense of disquiet. This was not the mature closure I hoped for, this was Rome watching Vercingetorix in chains and screaming for blood. To be sure there was plenty of restraint on display, but on every forum they were jostled equally by jingoistic posts claiming exceptionalism, and damning bin Laden to the innermost circles of hell.

President Obama spoke, as always, in measured terms, striking a great balance between triumph and somber realism, but his words were largely drowned out in the din from the population in general and the talking heads of television and politicians fighting for a share of the reflected glory. Two issues struck me above all. Firstly, this was almost universally declared an act of justice and it fell to a lone writer at Slate.com to point out that this was anything but. Amazingly, for a man declared our most wanted terrorist, bin Laden was never charged with the attack on the World Trade Center, much less tried and sentenced for his crimes. To be sure, he claimed personal responsibility, but so do terrorists often for the acts of others. And that omission by our arm of justice troubles me of many levels. If we intended to capture bin Laden, as George Bush promised immediately after the Towers fell, what would we do to him? Were we so afraid of a single man that we were going to lock him away in a secret prison to never see the light of day again? What does that say for us as  a nation and a people that a scruffy old man, with little charisma and no towering intellect, terrifies us to the point that we would not dare try him for the crimes we accuse him of committing? Do we accept the concept of two levels of justice, one for citizens and another one for people who scare us? Today that person is bin Laden, but it could be expanded to include others, as it has in the past. We were too scared to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and forced the Obama administration to drop their plans to finally try the one terrorist we had from the WTC attack. We locked away dozens if not hundreds of suspected al Qaida supporters - not all terrorists mind, just supporters - and took years to determine if they were even threats to us. Sixty years ago, we locked up thousands of Americans of Japanese descent in an action that was eventually acknowledged to be wrong, yet we've not learned from Roosevelt's admonition that there is nothing to fear than fear itself. We tried Slobodan Milosevic for his crimes in Kosovo on the reasoning that shining a light on his barbaric actions would rob them of the power to terrorize and would bring liberation and closure to his victims. But in the end, for all our brashness and chants of "USA" and braggadocio, we were as scared of bin Laden as the puniest kid confronted by a bully in a dark street. Killing bin Laden exorcised our fears for a day, but the near hysteria in our reaction is a pointer to the deeper fears that will only be buried and never confronted.

The other troubling factor was the return of the supporters of torture. They still dance around the term and hide behind the fig leaf of "enhanced interrogation techniques" but I fear very much that the day when America accepts torture as a legitimate police action has just become so much closer. When the debate first began, torture was justified in vague terms about the need to collect urgent actionable information that would save American lives. It was easy to blast aside traditionalists by invoking the safety of these imaginary victims; who would shed tears for a few dirty terrorists when their hours of pain would save lives? It was impossible to prove that torture was not needed, because the debate was argued within the framework defined by the supporters of Torquemada. But till now they shied away from calling torture by its true name and cited it only as a final resort to be used in direst need. Last week, they were emboldened to claim that the execution of bin Laden was justification for torture in wider circumstances. If torture of al Qaida operatives in 2007 led the SEAL team to his lair four long years later, that alone should suggest that it was never needed in first place. that there was never the urgency that was used to justify it in first place. Add in the  fact the actual actionable intelligence was collected not under torture, but months later by regular interrogation and one would imagine that the case for torture would be weaker than before. Yet in a bizarre reflection of the world we live in,  just the fact that the men who gave up information on bin Laden had been tortured at some point previously is now justification that torture works. It doesn't, and this should prove it. More importantly, we should be rejecting torture as a method, irrespective of its efficacy. Today it's a technique talked about in the abstract, to be used against unknown others, who are mostly Muslim, Arab and non-American citizens, but when we legitimize the idea we open the door for all of us to share that fate in future. And by then it will be too late to object.