The Importance of Good Writing

I never understood how to read the Second Amendment because, grammatically, it makes little sense, because of an extra comma:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And apparently I am not the only one to be confused. Some states, for example, ratified a version of the Second Amendment that had only two commas in it.

In my opinion the Second Amendment makes much more sense if you read it this way, with only one comma:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Whatever your opinion on the use of commas in English (they are overused, as every non-mother-tongue English writer will tell you), I highly recommend that you read this article by Adam Freedman. And if you are still not convinced about the importance of placing commas in the right spot, consider this famous Latin sentence, which an ancient oracle used as a response for soldiers who wanted to know what their fate would be in war:

"ibis redibis non morieris in bello"

Now play with commas:

1) "ibis, redibis, non morieris in bello" (You will go, you will return, you will not die in war.)

2) "ibis, redibis non, morieris in bello" (You will go, you will not return, you will die in war.

I always wondered if the Founding Fathers were playing tricks on us.

The Constitution? Just Parchment.

The latest gem by David Michael Green, inspired by the recent Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, has arrived. Here is an excerpt:

"Our current system of jurisprudence – which is often really our current system of legislation – is wrong on all sorts of levels. It was, to begin with, a bad idea for these justices to be deciding health care policy in America. And it was an even worse idea for them to be doing so on the basis of attempting (or pretending to be attempting) to decipher the Founders’ thoughts about the provision of health care to the public, more than a century before governments anywhere ever contemplated providing such services, and two centuries before it became the norm in developed countries."

Enjoy and learn.

And, if you would, please go and peruse my thoughts on the US Constitution, which I wrote about in 2008.

Why The Founding Fathers Were Wiser Than You Know

"Ridiculous veneration for the Constitution of the United States." Those are the words of Sanford Levinson, constitutional scholar, who has written a wonderful book that I highly recommend, both to those who understand its greatness and its limits and--particularly--to those who regard it as a sacred document, on par with Scriptures.

The book is Constitutional Faith, and you should buy it and read it as soon as you can.

And by the way, I wrote a post almost 4 years ago wherein I made many of the points that Levinson makes about the Constitution.

Making a Living Making Shit Up

Thanks to outlets like Faux News, it has become possible for an incredibly large number of ignorant asses to make a living making shit. This includes the experts, pundits, and hosts that spew falsehoods and misinformation to their complicit and ignorant audience, as well as politicians who would have been laughed out of any congress in any serious nation in the world.

Anyway, one of the individuals who best exemplify this situation is--you guessed it!--Glenn Beck. So it is always nice when someone finds the time to debunk Beck's inane statements for what they are: the ignorant rants of a man who makes a living by making shit up that people are eager to scarf down in their infinite gullibility an ignorance.

This time it's University of Pennsylvania history professor Rick Beeman who gives Beck a well-deserved and humbling lesson after Beck said that the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution was a step TOWARDS the abolition of slavery. Beeman's reaction? "My Goodness -- Glenn Beck got it completely wrong." Media Matter's takedown of Beck's ignorant bleating is well worth a read.

Trampling The Constitution

I have been absent from these parts of the world for a couple of months due to personal reasons, but this piece of news prompted me to interrupt my absence and return to blogging.

In a 6-5 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the C.I.A. (and with the Obama Administration) in a case that revolved around extraordinary rendition and that should make your stomach turn if a) you believe in human rights, b) you believe that the first duty of the President is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution", and c) you believe that when "Bush did it" it was wrong (and Obama doing the same does not make it right.)

And now that I am back expect a bunch of posts between now and Election Day, focusing in particular on hypocrisy and the Republican effort to dismantle the middle class, aided and abetted by complacent, spineless, and self-centered Democrats.

A Lesson In Civics

From the pages of the Daily Kos: Running After Happy. It is a rare lesson in civics and what the Founding Fathers might have wanted for the United States, had they had more of a say in the current state of things than the conservative pundits who hijacked their thoughts.

I made a similar point, not too long ago, in the context of the health care reform struggle. It is not nearly as eloquently as exmearden on the Daily Kos, but certainly as heartfelt.

The Constitution of the United States of America and What It Provides For

There are many (conservatives, libertarians, religious extremists--it takes all kinds...) who say that the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America never intended for health care to be included in the list of rights that the Constitution grants. Ignoramuses then go on to say that the Constitution only guarantees "certain unalienable Rights, [...] among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and not universal health care. Of course, the latter quote is not from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence.

Ignoramuses aside, the above-mentioned categories of ill-informed or misleading Americans like to say that the government should provide for the common defense of the United States and little else, and that health care is certainly not what the Framers had in mind.

Remind them, then, that Article I of the Constitution reads:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Emphasis added.)

As if that were not enough, Article I, Section 8 states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States". (Again, emphasis added).

So forgive those of us who consider the general welfare of the United States to include the guarantee and access for all to affordable, non-discriminatory, health care services. Perhaps opponents of health care reform and their shills are not too familiar with the Constitution. Invite them to read it, before they dare to speak again.

Birthers Should Have Railed Against the Ronald Reagan First

If Obama may indeed be ineligible to be president, but then again so where "Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant, William McKinley, James Garfield, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Harding, Harrison and Hayes. A rule's a rule," says Chris Kelly. He explains why in this brilliant, funny (and accurate) piece by Chris Kelly about the "birthers" controversy.

Chris Kelly is a writer on Real Time With Bill Maher. No one but a comic could find comedy where the rest of us can only see insanity.

A People's Budget

If you are not happy with how Congress has performed over the last ten years, you are not alone. From the days of Clinton’s dotcom economy to today, approval ratings for the job Congress has done have plummeted from roughly 50% to as low as 18% (they now hover around between 20 and 30%, depending on the polling house). One of the reasons for this statistic is that an increasing number of people do not feel represented by Congress, whose priorities are out of touch with those of real America. At a time when the nation is spending billions and billions of dollars every year in Iraq, the government cannot find the money or the political will to provide satisfactory education for many children, or healthcare for 47 million uninsured citizens (including, again, millions of children). If it were up to me to come up with a plan to put Congress back on track, I’d say hit them where it hurts the most: the wallet. Transfer (some) spending power from Congress to “We The People.”

---

Your immediate reaction might be: hold on a second! Are you advocating more tax cuts, just like President Bush would? You know me better than that, I hope. I am suggesting that we should amend the Constitution of the United States to transfer (some of) the spending power from an obviously inadequate Congress to the People of the United States of America. After all, don’t politicians always tell us that no one knows how to spend hard-earned money more wisely than American families? Well, here’s the president’s and Congress’s opportunity to support in practice those principles they advocate in theory so often.

The “Why”

The Constitution of the United States of America delegates spending power to Congress, and Congress is more and more controlled by special interests more often than not in conflict with the people's best interest. If you want a measure of the control that money exerts on politics, you need to look no further than the current presidential campaign, where candidates have already raised (and spent) hundreds of millions of dollars.

When April 15th comes around, we file our tax returns and pay our taxes on the understanding that that money will be spent for the good of the Commons and of “We The People”. We expect infrastructure to be updated and maintained. We expect that the government will provide national defense. We expect a certain level of public education. We want everyone to have access to healthcare, for many good reasons, and not least because it provides protection for society against the spread of diseases. But what do we really get in return for our tax dollars? Tax breaks for energy companies who have just reaped the highest profits in the history of the world. Bridges to nowhere. Tax breaks for corporations located on tropical islands. Attempts to limit corporate liability for non economic damage awards or awards for pain and suffering to $250,000 per individual, in spite of ample evidence that the only way to change a corporation’s behavior when society has been hurt is to assess exemplary damages. Budget decisions made by representatives in name only are driven mostly by consideration of personal convenience for politicians and their corporate sponsors.

If we want to change the way business is transacted in Washington, we are up against gigantic odds. We will have to fight a system that has developed intricate ways to maintain, and to profit from, the status quo, and that has law (the Constitution of the United States and our legal system) on its side. It is an almost impossible fight, but it would not be the first almost impossible fight that The People have won. So was the fight of this nation’s Founding Fathers against the surging British Empire. Historic change is worth fighting for, no matter what the odds against it, and, as Booker T. Washington correctly said, “Nothing ever comes to one, that is worth having, except as a result of hard work.”

In this spirit, I propose that the Constitution of the United States should be amended to transfer (some of) the spending power from Congress to “We The People.” I believe that it is the only way to realign Congress with the People’s priorities, and to begin curbing corruption and financial mismanagement of taxpayers’ money.

The "How"

The financial year of the United States government starts every year on Oct 1st. The President must submit a budget to Congress between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. Currently, the President’s budget proposal is based on 100% of revenue. I propose that the budget submitted to Congress should cover only 80% of revenue, with the remaining 20% being set aside for popular allocation.

After the House and the Senate have approved the budget resolution, each taxpayer, including those who owe no tax because they do not meet necessary income levels, would be sent information about budget outlays by category/department (Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, etc.), as well as matching information for a number of prior years. This would give taxpayers a measure, at a glance, of the spending priorities set by Congress and the President.

With this information in hand, taxpayers would select a number of departments they would want to provide additional funding for (perhaps between three and five). This submission process could happen either electronically or by mail. The process would be optional. If a taxpayer chose not to reply, he would simply lose the opportunity to influence budget allocation.

When all returns are in, the popular 20% of the budget reserved for popular allocation would be divided among the various department and agencies in proportion to popular allocation results. So, for example, if 12% of respondents said that they wanted to increase education funding, 12% of the popular budget (20%) would be allocated to the Department of Education. If 20% of respondents said they want to allocate additional funds to health and human services, HHS would get 20% of the slice of the budget to be allocated by popular vote.

The trick would be to synchronize the popular allocation process with the current budgetary process (which would have to be modified). But, if there’s a will, there’s a way.

So now, let’s take a look at the foreseeable pros and cons.

Is this system too complicated?
This would be the first, foreseeable objection of those interested in preserving the status quo.

Perhaps it would be too complicated for some people. Perhaps some people would not care to answer. If so, their non-preference would simply be disregarded (which would have no influence on percentage totals). As stated earlier, the greatest difficulty would be to make the process fit in with the Congressional budget schedule, but that can be accomplished.

Why 20% (not more, not less)?
In deference to the empirical (if somewhat rough) rule that you achieve 80% of results with 20% of the effort, and viceversa. Also, to guarantee that all departments have an adequate level of minimum funding to function.

Would all taxpayers have this opportunity?
Only individuals. Corporations and special interest groups would not get the chance to interfere with the allocation process. They already do anyway, through lobbying. They get their say in the allocation of the 80% of the budget that is managed by Congress.

What are the risks of such a system?
Congress might be tempted to completely defund a department, the reasoning being that if people really care about certain departments or agencies, they will select them for additional funding. Since this is an all too real possibility, a provision must be added to Congressional budget funding that no department can lose (or gain) more than twice the rate of inflation (currently, for example, that would be two times roughly 3%, or 6% roughly).

Another potential risk comes from sudden emergencies (like 9/11) that might cause Congress to want to shift its budget allocation priorities. In such a case, it could go and get the money where it should anyway: by repealing tax cuts for the wealthiest individual and corporations. After all, the share of total federal receipts from corporations has dropped from 27% in the 50's to 9.6% of total revenues in the current decade. Also, the effective marginal tax rate for individuals (the highest tax rate paid on the “last dollar earned”) for the wealthiest 1% of the population is now only 39,6%, versus 51.5 in 1960. (In the 50’s it was 91%). Conversely, the share of national income owned by the top 1% (pdf) has gone from 8% in 1960 to 17% in 2000.

Call it a Patriots’ Tax, if you want. That would be the way for the richest people in the nation to give back at a time when the nation needs it most, and when the children of the have-nots are already fighting for their lives in foreign lands.

What effects might such a system have on our budget and on our spending?
People would have a bigger say in how Congress prioritizes expenses, and would benefit or suffer in direct proportion to their wishes. After Katrina, for example, the budget for the Department of Commerce, which includes NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), remained the same, and Congress cut the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development from 1.7 to 1.6% of the overall budget. They did so in spite of the destruction wreaked by nature and men on one of America’s most beloved cities. It is unthinkable that the people would have been as insensitive and as callous in allocating funds as Congress was, while the Administration was squandering billions of dollars in Iraq (where billions of dollars have literally gone unaccounted for).

What difference would it make?
Those who would make this argument cynically assume that Congress would find a way to simply misuse popularly allocated funds to different cronies and patrons. This may be a valid concern, but the real goal of the proposed system is not to prevent fraud or misuse of funds (the safeguard against such problems being criminal prosecution by state and federal attorneys). Rather, the proposed system seeks to produce more alignment between the popular will and the way Congress and the Administration allocate funds. It would teach them the value of prioritizing, since they would not have direct control on the full pie, but only of 80% of it.

Conclusion
Politicians are right when they tell us, albeit with entirely different goals, that there is power in controlling our own money. But their words are empty rhetoric, when their idea of people controlling their money is to send us $600 tax rebates to stimulate the economy. If we really want to change the way business is done in Washington, we have to get involved. Having control of a significant slice of the federal budget pie is a very tangible way to get involved. It would give us a place at the table our Founding Fathers built for us, and from which we have long been excluded. No proposed solution is a silver bullet, but we need to start somewhere.

Why The Founding Fathers Were Wiser Than You Know

As a foreigner, I am always amazed by the unshakable belief that Americans have in the perfection of the United States Constitution. This belief is one of the few things that unite people across political barriers, which seem to have grown higher and wider. The Constitution, though, is perfect, and the wisdom of the Framers was such that no changes are needed. It is a widespread belief. A blind one, really, since most people have no idea what the Constitution says. Many even confuse the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

---

For conservatives and religious zealots in particular, the Constitution is almost a religious document: an unquestionable source of wisdom, guidance, and justice. For them, belief in perfection becomes absolute reverence. Ask them to justify their belief, and you will be attacked immediately for being unpatriotic, for daring to question the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, who—more than 200 years ago—were all wise and all-knowing, almost god-like, when they gathered to set the rules of the game for American democracy. Dare to ask them if they know any other nation’s Constitution, and how it stacks up to that of the United States, and you will be looked at with a tinge of xenophobia. The Constitution’s perfection is not up for discussion. Period.

The only amendments that these conservative Constitutional zealots would consider are of a restrictive nature: a marriage amendment to define that marriage is the union of a man and a woman (no equality for homosexuals); an amendment declaring America a Christian nation (essentially relegating atheists and followers of other faiths to second-class citizen status). In so doing, they ignore the historical fact that most Amendments to the Constitution have led to the expansion of people's rights, rather than to their limitation (the notable exception being the 18th Amendment, which briefly instituted prohibition). They maintain that, in deference to the infinite wisdom of the Framers, we should use no less than the strictest interpretation of the Constitution, and that presidents should appoint only constructionist judges to guard against liberals, who have no respect for authorial intent.

How could anyone, I wonder, have such faith in the absolute perfection of a document authored by human beings at the end of the 18th century? Not that the Founding Fathers were not an enlightened bunch in their day, but perfect? Didn’t they write Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which explicitly states that no attempt to prohibit the importation of men (slavery) should be made at least through the year 1808? So I started doing some research.

Did The Founding Fathers Have Delusions Of Perfection?

My first objection to such fanaticism for the Constitution and, with it, the myth of infallibility of the Framers, stems from logic: If the Founding Fathers were as wise as Americans think they were, would they have assumed perfection for themselves? I hardly doubt it. Wisdom has a way of showing up hand in hand with humility. Arrogant people are seldom wise (we have some shining example of this fact in the present day White House), so it seems to me that a necessary requirement for superior wisdom is a superior sense of one’s limits. I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers would have such an elevated opinion of themselves to admit no possibility of improvement to the nation’s founding papers. And in fact, I found a quote to support my hunch:

No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

An opinion so distant from the infinite wisdom of the Founding Fathers could only have been written by a flaming liberal: probably a Kennedy under the influence, right? Look the quote up: Thomas Jefferson wrote it in a letter to James Madison. Incidentally, Madison replied:

It would give me singular pleasure to see [this principle] first announced in the proceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.

Contrary to what conservatives would have you believe, Jefferson was not alone in his interpretation that the Constitution should be regarded, and was intended by the Framers, as a living document:

The warmest friends and best supporters that the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise here from, that remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary [as] ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue than those who will come after us. (Emphasis added).

That quote is from another champion of un-American sentiment: your first President, George Washington.

What Imperfections?

In their truly great wisdom, the Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution would be imperfect. For example, they could not have known that the day would come in the history of the nation when 17% of the population would elect a majority of senators. That day has arrived. They could not agree on the prohibition to own slaves, so they left the prohibition in place at least through the year “one thousand eight hundred and eight”, but they could anticipate that future generations would amend this horrible wrong. They might not have been able to name the day when women would be allowed to vote, but they deferred to the wisdom of generations to come and bequeathed to them a system of clear instructions for amending the Constitution. They could not have known that the day would come when a president would interpret the constitution in such a way that would grant him the power to wage perpetual war under a single resolution of Congress, or that he would use the Constitutional prerogative of signing statements to challenge more laws than all other presidents combined, a practice so extensive that it earned the censure of the American Bar Association. That is precisely why they provided the power for future generations to improve the Constitution, so it could address unanticipated issues.

What The Preamble Tells Us

As you might know, there is a sizable number of conservatives (and libertarians) who believe that the role of the government, as defined in the Constitution, is to administer justice and secure the nation, and that everything else should be left to the free market. Does the Constitution corroborate this interpretation? We can start right from the Preamble, which says:

We the People of The United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sure enough, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility and providing for common defense are stated goals in the Preamble. There is no mention, however, of the role of free market in a democracy. So where do conservatives get the idea that the government should not play a role in the social development of the nation? Or that the government should not play a role in regulating free enterprise? In fact the Preamble clearly states that one of the goals of the Constitution is to “promote the general Welfare”. It seems to me that programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, a national transportation system, a publicly-funded healthcare system, laws that regulate our interaction with the environment, workers rights laws, and so on, might very well fall under the umbrella of promoting the general welfare, don’t you think? When considering that the Preamble was written by 18th century men, it seems the Founding Fathers had a fairly progressive view of the role of government in society. Progressive enough to make promoting general welfare a part of the Constitution, without any mention of a preferred economic theory by which such welfare could be achieved.

I am starting to think that perhaps the ability of some conservatives to claim that they know the authorial intent of the Founding Fathers is inversely proportional to their actual knowledge of it.

The Genius Of The Constitution, in Jeopardy?

Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the Founding Fathers was the separation of powers achieved by establishing three branches of government. While the case has been made that nowhere in the Constitution the explicit phrase “separation of powers” can be found, authorial intent can be assumed based on extant writings by the Founding Fathers. For example, it was Jefferson who said in 1784:

All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body [in the Virginia Constitution of 1776]. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. [Emphasis added]

Madison reaffirmed these concepts in Federalist Paper #47, when he said “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” A further explanation of the concept of the separation of powers (which according to some did not go far enough) is clearly and extensively enunciated in Papers 47-51.

In light of such positions, one naturally wonders if the Framers’ would not have questioned the wisdom of granting presidents the power to appoint justices for life, which they did, when President Bush was able to successfully appoint Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court, with the help of a Republican Congress that made it possible to rubberstamp even the president's most ideologically charged decisions, such as those two appointments were.

The role of Judiciary as a safeguard against abuses of power by the Executive or the Legislative branch relies on the political independence of the appointees. But for a year, until voters decided to reverse the Conservatives' monopoly on the three branches of government that the appointments of Justices Alito and Roberts had brought into effect, checks and balances were for all effects and purposes voided, a temporary but rather undesirable situation nonetheless, one that could have lasted longer, with dramatic and long lasting consequences.

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

A Constitution so rightly revered deserves to be actively known, not just arbitrarily interpreted by those who stand to gain the most from a fixed interpretation of it that does not leave room for the scientific and social progress that the Founding Fathers would have been proud to be a part of. The unholy alliance of social conservatives and moral conservatives goes against the spirit of freedom, justice, and enlightenment that the Framers had written into the constitution. Their message is not so much “Revere the Framers". It is “Do not question authority”, “Do not question the textual interpretation of the Constitution, just as you would not question the word of God”. That seems precisely the opposite of what the Framers’ had in mind.

Alexis de Tocqueville prophesized that “…the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase amongst democratic nations ... in the same proportion as their ignorance.” Unfortunately, most Americans know little or nothing about the Constitution nor about the men that bestowed it on the nation. Thus, they are susceptible to the claims of those who claim to have an intimate knowledge of the Framers’ authorial intent, but are quick to neglect when it does not suit their ends.

There is ample evidence that the authorial intent of the Founding Fathers was exactly the opposite of what strict constructionists say it is: The Constitution is not, and was never meant to be, a perfect, immutable, petrified tablet, containing a truth revealed to America by a higher authority. That honor is reserved for figures much less enlightened and complex, like Moses. The Founding Fathers indicated on several occasions their opinion that they did not assume that the Constitution should never be changed. They left open the possibility that it would be changed, and were certain that it would indeed need to be changed. They were wise enough to understand that they could not anticipate future developments or improvements in the state of knowledge, and they would not have wanted to hold future generations hostage to their ignorance of what they could not anticipate. They were, in fact, much wiser than strict constructionists like Justices Scalia or Rehnquist give them credit for. That is what you need to keep in mind when ultraconservatives, neocons, and religious zealots confront you with the idea of authorial intent and textualism.

So let me remind you of a quote that Thomas Jefferson delivered, which underscores the importance of standing up to false prophets and of not voluntarily surrendering authority to those who claim it solely based on their presumption of knowledge or powers they don’t have: “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical.” Had he said that today, President Bush would likely have declared him an enemy combatant. And what’s worse, our ignorance would make it possible.

Recommended Reading

The Body Disappeared

[Originally posted at TheDailyFuel.com on October 3, 2006]

Last week, Congress passed a bill that essentially repeals habeas corpus for all, including U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants. One should have expected a general uprising. If immigrants filled the streets of this nation to protest stricter immigration rules, surely U.S. nationals would rise in protest against the repeal of one of the most sacred protections of individual rights. Instead, the bill passed without hardly any noise. After spending 15 years in this country, I was shocked indeed by this turn of events, but not entirely. Why? Because the American public has become too dumb to follow anything more complex than American Idol, and because it suffers from ASC (American superiority complex.)

When I first came to the United States, I immediately noticed how pervasive a belief most Americans seem to have in the superiority of their country, in all aspects of society. America's claims of superiority have always sounded rather hollow to me, because many of the people who alleged the nation's superiority have never been outside the U.S. It's like American comedian Lewis Black says: How do they know there aren't countries that are just giving free shit away everyday? Like Canada, with health insurance. Few things are more pathetic than a people who claim to be the best in the world without the support of the knowledge of, or even interest in, what goes on outside its city limits. Of those that have had the benefit of exposure to other cultures, many have received their education as servicemen in the Army or some other military outfit, hardly the best way to get to appreciate the richness and complexity of other cultures.

In general, there is an astonishing degree of ignorance and presumption about foreign countries, which allows Americans to make sweeping, ridiculous statements like "America's healthcare is the best in the world." (Go ask the 40 million uninsured and the other 40 million underinsured what they think of the best healthcare system in the world.) The blame for this ignorance lies to a great extent with the American news media, which acts as a facilitator for this dubious superiority complex.

For a European on American soil, it is always shocking to see how superficially international, and even national news, is treated by the news media. Newspapers, with the exception of a few national ones (NY Times, Washington Post, IHT, etc.,) deal mainly with local issues. On television, reporting focuses largely on local news. Typical network affiliates have five or six newscasts a day. Only one, the evening news, deals in any noticeable measure with national and international news. Public television alone offers political analysis of the news in any depth (and hardly ever without any bias).

The situation of cable news may be even worse. With all the coverage of child abductions, Amber alerts, tabloid gossip, and reporting of gory or voyeuristic crimes of little or no national or international relevance, they engender the impression that there is nothing else relevant going on in the world to fill a 24-hour news cycle--unless, of course, it involves the United States in some shape or form. Panel discussions typically feature people too partisan and too busy to regurgitate talking points to engage in constructive debate with other guests or the host. Just think of the parade of jingoistic talking heads that litter such discussions on any given day (mostly on Fox News, but MSNBC and even on CNN have their share, too.)

A quick survey of the “radioscape” is even more disheartening. Radio has been taken over not just by conservatives, but by some of the most extreme voices in the conservative field (whom I will not name, because they do not deserve the publicity—take my word for it,) which might explain the vitriolic, partisan, and twisted logic that characterizes most of the viewpoints that fill the airwaves. The typical host and the typical caller share a worldview in which the world had its ass saved in WWII by America, who has therefore earned the eternal right to exert its planet-saving influence when needed, either by forceful exports of democracy, or by force alone. After all, people in other countries are either pussies, like the French, or illegal immigrants, like Mexicans, whose real goal is to reclaim the land that the United States took from Mexico in Mexican-American war. In this worldview, anything anyone says against George Dubya and/or America is a form of penis envy and/or treason, punishable by deportation to a third-world country, particularly if uttered by fellow Americans.

In such a climate, the impression prospers that nothing valuable exists outside one's national borders. Once that impression has taken hold, there remains nothing but a vacuous an ignorance-fueled sense of superiority over the rest of the world.

The United States, it seems to me, have been in a downward spiral for the last five years at least, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The ongoing trade-offs of the civil guarantees that have made this country so unique for the illusion of security have been made possible by a pathetically misinformed and ignorant citizenry and have led to the creation, in scattered order, of appalling phenomena that only a few years back would have been unthinkable in the country that boasts the highest level of freedom and justice in the world. Things like "free-speech zones" at political conventions, presidential visits, etc; the systematic use of torture; the stifling of dissent, media consolidation ostensibly aimed at reducing the plurality of opinions; the smearing of political adversaries; the gradual but inexorable privatization of the electoral system by a clique of ill-intentioned political agents; the pursuit of illegal wars, the unlawful spying of citizens; the seizure of library records... I could go on listing the unpleasant and dangerous changes that this country has endured rather sheepishly and very guiltily in the last five years. The repeal of habeas corpus is only the last in a long list of disgusting compromises accepted by an ignorant and apathetic citizenry, in exchange for the promise of an unattainable protection from evil.

Unfortunately, we have reached a point where ignorance is not only pathetic, it is also dangerous. Ignorance, gullibility, and chauvinistic boastfulness are being exploited by those in power to pursue an agenda that has brought the nation closer to the brink of a dictatorship. It is quite a spectacle, as a rather uninvolved observer, to see people who think that they are "the freest in the world" do away with a fundamental constitutional protection of freedom without so much as a squeak. While not everyone agrees on the source of the quote (Benjamin Franklin?), few would disagree with the statement that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Only an ignorant people would silently accept such a tradeoff.