Friday, April 07, 2006
More Thoughts Exactly
Can you believe this blog has been up for nearly 2 years and I've never titled a post that way? I'm incredulous. Since I've been off the horse for a bit, and will continue to be off the horse for the next week or so, I've decided it's time to opine on some current events. Feel free to disagree, but then then you'll be making our blog name a bald-faced lie, and I don't think you're ready for that kind of responsibility.
Ok, first off is the incredibly important and worthwhile trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. (I spelled that correctly on my first try and without looking it up beforehand, thank you very much). For those of you that haven't been paying attention, apparently some terrorists attacked the US a few years ago. I can't remember the specific date, unfortunately, because news organizations have been a little bit reluctant to talk about it every day and attribute every single thing that has happened in the time period since then to the attack.
Wait, what was I talking about again? Ah yes, the trial. Anyway, Moussaoui has been convicted and now sentencing has begun, where the government is trying to prove that Moussaoui deserves to die. Apparently, this is done by reliving 9/11 for the jury and the victims who are present in the courtroom, in graphic detail- body parts, unreleased videos, cockpit recordings, and 911 calls. Why? Because clearly, the jury needs to be reminded. The way the prosecution and the media puts it- they need to 'put a human face on the tragedy' and 'remind them that it wasn't just a number'.
I say bullshit. The prosecutors are literally out for Moussaoui's death, and they want the jury to have the same outrage, the same sickened feeling that everyone had on 9/11, and they want them to make the kinds of decisions that people filled with outrage make. I think on 9/11, if you had asked every American "we caught one of the hijackers- should we kill him?" The answer would have been a resounding yes. But this is, as we are so frequently reminded, the post-9/11 world, and we should have a little perspective now- a little hindsight.
I'm going to ignore a few things here that are reasonable points, but not what I'm upset about. First, I don't even care about whether Moussaoui gets the death penalty- he's an incredibly stupid/insane man, and his life is not really worthwhile in anything but a symbolic way.
What I do care about is the fact that killing Moussaoui should really only be considered an act of pure retribution- his association with the event is bad enough for the public. He did not, in fact, kill anyone. And though he could have stopped them, and is clearly culpable of conspiracy and criminal neglicence, the dividng line between killing someone and not killing someone has generally been a clear one. But the prosecution would like us to believe that Moussaoui was personally responsible for everyone of those deaths- and though it's a dubious connection to make, the defense knows that it would be in such poor taste to contest it that they can't do anything but watch as the jury gets their faces shoved in it.
The other contention- that he 'could have' prevented or mitigated the disaster is equally dubious. In fact it's nonsense to say that he could have prevented it when he WANTED it to happen. It's like saying in a murder case "he could have NOT shot the victim" and smugly thinking you've proved something. It's also a special kind (the outrage variety) of nonsense to suggest that the CIA, FBI, FAA, INS, and local police could have cooperated to catch these terrorists, if only Moussaoui had developed morals and suddenly realized that everything he had thought up to that point in his life was wrong.
So what is killing him going to accomplish? Does it show that we're serious about terrorism? Does it deter terrorists in any way? Or is it actually saying "this is what happens when you try to kill yourself and fail- we do it for you." Or is it saying "you did a bad thing, and we'll feel better when you're dead". I'm sure it's the last one, so let's just get it out in the open.
Secondly, (yes, unfortunately, this is actually only the second part of this post) I want to discuss immigration. Right now, there's a bill in the Senate trying to get hammered out to get to the President's desk before they go on spring break (more evidence that our government is actually a fraternity house of powerful, middle-aged people who assign themselves arbitrary titles like president, treasurer, captain of the keg committee, and supreme arbiter of Everything.)
The bill is relatively conservative in that it doesn't make sweeping changes, (but it seems liberal in the sense that it makes changes at all! zing!) a guest worker program, a legalization process that speeds up for certain people. I actually support most of the general ideas in the bill- I think illegal immigration needs to be decriminalized to some degree, and the liberal in me wants to support an amnesty program.
Thirdly, and this ties into immigration, I want to talk about the utopia that we're all desperately trying to get to, in Civ 4, in life, and in the US. If we had this utopia, wouldn't every single person on earth want to get in? Is immigration confirmation that we have a good society, or is it confirmation that we have money and power? The conservative argument against opening the borders is that even though it may be a noble idea, and though it's the end goal to have open borders, it's unsustainable to take on citizens and support them without an equal economic expansion. Illegal immigrants are probably fine and even good in the strict view of economic expansion, as long as they live in poverty and take jobs that won't be done by Americans. In fact, Bush's most liberal policies relate to immigration because on this issue, he may actually be so far to the right that he aligns up with them. Or maybe it's just that he was governor of Texas and couldn't possibly hardline against immigration there. In any case, the issue that concerns conservatives is that it isn't 'fair' for immigrants to get taxpayer's rights without paying taxes. So, do they have the same objections against people under the poverty line? The answer to that is probably yes, but a small number of impoverished non-tax paying people is fine as long as it doesn't destabilize the whole system. And that's what they fear will happen, former illegals stealing their health care, jobs, and school funds to the detriment of the entire society.
The economics of the situation dictates that in order to support more people, more money has to be there- newcomers have to create wealth and value at least equal to their drain on society. After all, any utopia has to be stable and sustainable. Capitalism excels at creating wealth, but what if capitalism's fatal flaw of its continous climb is that its continuous climb needs infinite expansion? The point is that sustainable systems generally need equilibrium, and there can't be equilibrium when the US is clearly more powerful and wealthy than its neighbors. So I'd ask the liberal ideal- are you prepared to give up an indeterminate amount of power, and prepared to risk economic collapse to permit true equality? And I'd ask the conservative ideal- are you prepared to step into the moral low ground to stay in power, and prepared to risk class strife to keep the system running? I think the answer is no to all of the above, so don't be surprised when nothing changes.
Ok, first off is the incredibly important and worthwhile trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. (I spelled that correctly on my first try and without looking it up beforehand, thank you very much). For those of you that haven't been paying attention, apparently some terrorists attacked the US a few years ago. I can't remember the specific date, unfortunately, because news organizations have been a little bit reluctant to talk about it every day and attribute every single thing that has happened in the time period since then to the attack.
Wait, what was I talking about again? Ah yes, the trial. Anyway, Moussaoui has been convicted and now sentencing has begun, where the government is trying to prove that Moussaoui deserves to die. Apparently, this is done by reliving 9/11 for the jury and the victims who are present in the courtroom, in graphic detail- body parts, unreleased videos, cockpit recordings, and 911 calls. Why? Because clearly, the jury needs to be reminded. The way the prosecution and the media puts it- they need to 'put a human face on the tragedy' and 'remind them that it wasn't just a number'.
I say bullshit. The prosecutors are literally out for Moussaoui's death, and they want the jury to have the same outrage, the same sickened feeling that everyone had on 9/11, and they want them to make the kinds of decisions that people filled with outrage make. I think on 9/11, if you had asked every American "we caught one of the hijackers- should we kill him?" The answer would have been a resounding yes. But this is, as we are so frequently reminded, the post-9/11 world, and we should have a little perspective now- a little hindsight.
I'm going to ignore a few things here that are reasonable points, but not what I'm upset about. First, I don't even care about whether Moussaoui gets the death penalty- he's an incredibly stupid/insane man, and his life is not really worthwhile in anything but a symbolic way.
What I do care about is the fact that killing Moussaoui should really only be considered an act of pure retribution- his association with the event is bad enough for the public. He did not, in fact, kill anyone. And though he could have stopped them, and is clearly culpable of conspiracy and criminal neglicence, the dividng line between killing someone and not killing someone has generally been a clear one. But the prosecution would like us to believe that Moussaoui was personally responsible for everyone of those deaths- and though it's a dubious connection to make, the defense knows that it would be in such poor taste to contest it that they can't do anything but watch as the jury gets their faces shoved in it.
The other contention- that he 'could have' prevented or mitigated the disaster is equally dubious. In fact it's nonsense to say that he could have prevented it when he WANTED it to happen. It's like saying in a murder case "he could have NOT shot the victim" and smugly thinking you've proved something. It's also a special kind (the outrage variety) of nonsense to suggest that the CIA, FBI, FAA, INS, and local police could have cooperated to catch these terrorists, if only Moussaoui had developed morals and suddenly realized that everything he had thought up to that point in his life was wrong.
So what is killing him going to accomplish? Does it show that we're serious about terrorism? Does it deter terrorists in any way? Or is it actually saying "this is what happens when you try to kill yourself and fail- we do it for you." Or is it saying "you did a bad thing, and we'll feel better when you're dead". I'm sure it's the last one, so let's just get it out in the open.
Secondly, (yes, unfortunately, this is actually only the second part of this post) I want to discuss immigration. Right now, there's a bill in the Senate trying to get hammered out to get to the President's desk before they go on spring break (more evidence that our government is actually a fraternity house of powerful, middle-aged people who assign themselves arbitrary titles like president, treasurer, captain of the keg committee, and supreme arbiter of Everything.)
The bill is relatively conservative in that it doesn't make sweeping changes, (but it seems liberal in the sense that it makes changes at all! zing!) a guest worker program, a legalization process that speeds up for certain people. I actually support most of the general ideas in the bill- I think illegal immigration needs to be decriminalized to some degree, and the liberal in me wants to support an amnesty program.
Thirdly, and this ties into immigration, I want to talk about the utopia that we're all desperately trying to get to, in Civ 4, in life, and in the US. If we had this utopia, wouldn't every single person on earth want to get in? Is immigration confirmation that we have a good society, or is it confirmation that we have money and power? The conservative argument against opening the borders is that even though it may be a noble idea, and though it's the end goal to have open borders, it's unsustainable to take on citizens and support them without an equal economic expansion. Illegal immigrants are probably fine and even good in the strict view of economic expansion, as long as they live in poverty and take jobs that won't be done by Americans. In fact, Bush's most liberal policies relate to immigration because on this issue, he may actually be so far to the right that he aligns up with them. Or maybe it's just that he was governor of Texas and couldn't possibly hardline against immigration there. In any case, the issue that concerns conservatives is that it isn't 'fair' for immigrants to get taxpayer's rights without paying taxes. So, do they have the same objections against people under the poverty line? The answer to that is probably yes, but a small number of impoverished non-tax paying people is fine as long as it doesn't destabilize the whole system. And that's what they fear will happen, former illegals stealing their health care, jobs, and school funds to the detriment of the entire society.
The economics of the situation dictates that in order to support more people, more money has to be there- newcomers have to create wealth and value at least equal to their drain on society. After all, any utopia has to be stable and sustainable. Capitalism excels at creating wealth, but what if capitalism's fatal flaw of its continous climb is that its continuous climb needs infinite expansion? The point is that sustainable systems generally need equilibrium, and there can't be equilibrium when the US is clearly more powerful and wealthy than its neighbors. So I'd ask the liberal ideal- are you prepared to give up an indeterminate amount of power, and prepared to risk economic collapse to permit true equality? And I'd ask the conservative ideal- are you prepared to step into the moral low ground to stay in power, and prepared to risk class strife to keep the system running? I think the answer is no to all of the above, so don't be surprised when nothing changes.
# posted by Stuart @ 9:47 AM 
