Calembour

The Third Amendment

2005-10-27T22:04:00.000-05:00

The Third Amendment. Not one of the more readily recognizable of the Bill of Rights, nor is it often discussed. Well, as of late, persons who are observing the war in Iraq must ask themselves a question, "Are American soldiers bound by their Constitution to uphold its tenets in a foreign country?" In case you are unaware, the Third Amendment reads as such,"
Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Here is the article to be referred to in the media, "http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_re_mi_ea/
iraq_taking_over_houses;_ylt=
AiYgXUq9qvzMmS_mM7igDIULewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMH
VqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1Ym
NhdA--"

By quartering themselves in occupied residences and private property, they are thus, by law, "quartered" therein. The question is not whether or not the military is breaking their own laws in Iraq, because they are, but whether or not such laws are valid in foreign soil. If so, then clearly somebody needs to rethink giving the military such free reign. If not, then what protection do the Iraqi people from U.S. soldiers violating other laws on the basis that foreign laws have no place in Iraq? Say, for example, the Geneva Conventions. Well, we have already violated those before the fact in participating in airstrikes without a declaration of war, in killing noncombatants ("Carpet Bombing" and "Neutralization"), etc.

While this is a grim question, if persons do not start to take observation of this situation, it is quite possible that such violation of rights will occur domestically as well. It isn't unreasonable to imagine a recreated Committee On Un-American Activities.

I once heard someone say that a democratic government exists to protect us from others, but when it attempts to protect us from ourselves, then it becomes a facist one. For more information, read 1984 by George Orwell; actually, I encourage everyone to read this book, regardless if you agree or disagree with me.

Democracy in the Middle East

2005-09-29T19:50:00.000-05:00

U.S. Official Urges Egypt on Democracy AP - Thu Sep 29, 3:33 PM ET
CAIRO, Egypt - A top State Department official said Thursday the Bush administration's commitment to expanding democracy in the Arab world is "absolute and very firm" because U.S. national security is at stake.

Wow. Clearly we're not using any pretexts for our imperialism anymore. The United States is operating under principles of doublethink as never before. First, we claim that the invasion of Iraq is justified because of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then, when we are unable to determine that such WMDs ever existed, we change our statement to "What? We didn't go to Iraq for the WMD, we went to oust an evil man." Now, apparently, we are simply "protecting our national security." The question, however, is where does national security end, and where does the respect for foreign sovereignty begin?

Take, for example, Iraq. If Washington believes that the Iraqi people have a right to their own choices, why weren't they asked if they wanted American style democracy in the first place? If this administration truly valued concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity, then it would be forced to allow the Iraqi people to institute whatever form of government the majority of persons desired, whether it was representative democracy, a constitutional monarchy, or a benevolent dictatorship. We live in the so-called "Information Age," and we certainly have means to discover the wishes of the majority of a population. Why, then, do we institute a government in our own imagine, when it may be misrepresentative of the wishes of the people?

It is 19th century Imperialism reborn. The concept of imperialism is that a mother country either directly or indirectly imposes its will upon a sovereign state. In the instances of direct control, the territory in question would be subject to the laws, government, and rulership of the mother country; obviously, when an industrialized Western country tries to impose its own legal and judicial system, for example, upon an undeveloped Eastern country, the results are catastrophic. If you don't believe me, look at the attempts of the British to institute Commonwealth laws in India while it was a territory of the empire. Or the French in Vietnam. Or countless other territorial histories.

Indirect control occurs when the mother country allows the territory to maintain its own laws, and generally does not interfere with the day-to-day running of the colony, other than to tax the colony, and to install its own choice of ruler in the colony's existant government.

The question this administration has to ask itself, is 1) Will we continue the process of imperialism, which has been continually reproached throughout American history? and 2) Will it be a crushing direct rule, or a manipulative indirect rule?

Lifeblood of a City

2005-09-21T20:44:00.000-05:00

Good to see some things getting back to normal in New Orleans.

Psychedelia and Socialism

2005-09-18T23:17:00.000-05:00

Today's post is something of a bit more relaxed subject: Psychedelic music. Naturally, I thought this would be an excellent article whilst listening to Pink Floyd's - Animals this evening, but it soon led to an interesting thought; if the purpose of psychedelic music is to recreate the feeling and state of mind that one obtains through the use of mind-influencing drugs, then the penultimate psychedelic music would perfectly emulate these effects. The interesting consequence of this is that such music would render (illegal) mind-influencing drugs obsolete, because it makes little sense to drop acid or smoke a joint if you could just listen to *band name here* and obtain the desired state of mind.

As best as I can determine, no musician has ever accomplished this, and after all, it is only a theory. I have met people that argue instead that the purpose of psychedelic music is to accentuate the altered state of mind; in this case, many musicians have accomplished their goal, and this theory would seem to support the use of mind-influencing drugs as something that furthers appreciation of music.

My personal opinion? I think that achieving a "false high" is an almost perfect state of being, and as such is almost impossible to obtain. Even so, just because something seems impossible, does that mean that people should stop trying? This arguement extends far beyond the subject of psychedelia, as I am often frustrated by persons that reject the ideas of socialism (for example) with the response, "Oh, it will never work in a real atmosphere. It never has." To set the record straight with everyone that has told me this, I am well aware of the history of socialism. I am also aware that the possibility of a socialistic community that functions as designed is extremely slim. Should the people that want to create a small, socialistic community then cease their attempts? It seems to me that a simple, clipped rejection of an ideology is a rather unpleasant way to live; if everyone immediately rejected an idea because it seems unlikely, then progress will be very limited. I consider Ramblin's comment about moral obligations that are sometimes independant from pragmatic views, and I think this is a good application.

Logically, people look at statistics and history to determine "chance." In the case of Socialism, chances seem pretty bad. Morally, however, the concepts of socialism are often acknowledged as good, I.E. equality, common respect under law, etc. Should we stop trying to improve our society (whether by socialism, or any other political theory, for that matter) simply because it is unlikely? Should musicians cease trying to reach a previously unknown plateau?

I think people that are asking themselves those two questions can find the answers, if we just take some time and listen to Pink Floyd every now and again.

Europe/United States

2005-09-17T16:39:00.000-05:00

The differences between the French and Americans were quickly brought to my attention when I arrived in July. Aside from the obvious factors of ancient history, a truly unique culture, and one common language, I think that the prime difference between the French - and indeed, Europeans in general - and Americans is priorities. In my experiences, Europeans are far more pragmatic and adaptive than Americans are. Take, for example, the issue of prostitution as it occurred in Germany; prostitution has always been around, and always will exist in one form or another. People know this. People understand this. Germans accept this. Americans deny it.

The Germans - and the Dutch, for that matter - decided that since it will always be around, they may as well accept it and find a way to adapt to have this former problem suit their interests. Now, prostitution is a legal occupation in Germany, federally regulated, and a far safer enterprise than it was before; not only that, but the German government receives money from this new business, so it has actually taken a formerly hated social problem and made it profitable.

This, of course, is but a single example of what I call European Pragmaticism; were I to try to record all other instances of this relatively new way of thinking, I would be bored out of my skull. But for the sake of presenting examples of European Pragmaticism, I will list the most pertinent forthwith:

1) Politics - A dirty word in American culture, yet a necessary one in European. The current American administration - and essentially all American government in the 20th century - commits itself to fighting a political and moral ideal with military force: an enterprise which is impossible to achieve, as only ideas can combat other ideas. Ironically, the American government does espouse an idea that fights the "terrorist" idea, and I believe it has proliferated terrorist activities.

The idea is that of "The American Dream," that formerly lofty goal of a peaceful materialistic has been replaced with an American nightmare that instructs its citizens that materialism alone will satisfy all human urges, and that all other cultures should believe this as well. Naturally, other cultures tend to find this "Dream" to be quite contradictory to America's nominal values of "Liberty and Justice for all" and react in a rather hostile manner. Americans should not be surprised at such behavior, as their nation was founded by men who reacted in the exact same manner as the Muslim militants of the current age.

What then, is to be done to solve this bloody problem? The American approach has been to militarily invade countries thought to harbor terrorists, in an attempt to cut out from below the support for militant groups. The problem, however, is not only will countless other militants fill the ranks of those killed by American smart bombs, but will actually encourage Arab states to unite against a common threat to their way of life: America.

Some European states were bullied into this American aggression, but those states that asserted European Pragmaticism objected not only to the baseless American accusations of WMD but to the ideology that military force can quash anti-American feelings and terrorism. I think that Europeans saw that only by recognizing WHY people hated their country would they be able to make the necessary changes to make people cease hating them. And, not surprisingly, countries that pledged complete support to America for the Iraqi War - Britain, Italy, Denmark - have all received either terrorist-based attacks or threats as a result. Countries that abstained from such a venture are strangely ignored by terrorist attacks: France, Germany, Sweden

It should be noted that Adaptivity, the key ingredient for survival and evolution, is present in European Pragmaticism, and is becoming decidely unpopular in American culture, as it relates to morality, politics, and priorities. Cultures and civilizations that lacked the ability to adapt have died out throughout history; recognizing this, one must ask, is America next?