War? We Don't Know What That Word Means.

Many of us in America have been hearing much about the Syrian conflict recently.  However the war on terror and instability in the Middle East have been national topics ever since the tragedy of 9/11.  The various wars that our government has been executing across that region float in and out of the news with an ebb and flow of citizen interest similar to that of weight loss, hockey, or Lindsay Lohan. They are generally covered with the same level of journalistic depth and gravitas.  Our nation's over-immersion in wars has led to a population with an under-immersion in the reality of war.  The way in which our reality of war is relayed and discussed has contributed to the numbing of both our emotional/moral response as well as our intellectual capacity to engage the topic with any semblance of context or productivity.  From the way we are told about it, to the images we are permitted to see of it, to the way in which its justifications and contexts are framed; we have completely lost sight of what we are discussing.

 I have never served in the military, and I am attempting to conceive of a reality that I have not ever directly experienced.  I am also critiquing the ways I see most others conceive that reality.  So from the onset, I recognize my insufficiency.  However, the ways I often find our conversations about war framed, are unwittingly morally obscene and intellectually hollow.  But they have grave implications for our fellow citizens and the rest of the world.  I want to be clear.  I am not just talking about obscene ideologues, I'm talking about state officials, "experts", experts, journalists, friends etc..., most of the people I talk to, including myself much of the time, are engaging this topic in a highly mistaken way.

I think, as a simple observer of this conversation, I may not be able to offer any secret information, or first hand perspective.  I may not be able to fix our entire culture's perception of war.  But I hope to offer a few humble, relevant thoughts, on the way we talk about war:

-  Our widespread wars have resulted in alienating, destabilizing, and traumatizing entire generations and regions.  They also have served to consolidate support for our enemies, and increase their ranks.  Our justifications for recent wars rest on an emotional response to a perceived threat or a specific tragedy, in the case of Syria as of 9/5/13, a distinction drawn between mass butchering of men, women and children will bullets, machetes, bombs, fire, and missiles etc... and butchering them with chemical weapons. 

-When we talk about war, we are talking about something very different than war.  The word "war" no longer denotes or connotes what it did to everyone who has ever lived before us.  This is because we do not see, or feel the effect of our wars.  Our over exposure to the digital "reality" of war, the "war" that lives in the detached "facts" in headlines, the yammer of ideologues and stock photos, has become our reference point for a concept of war.  Some who care to do deeper research often find only marginally better sources to ingest and discuss the reality of the wars going on around them.  Our conversations between each other, often fail to escape the talking point level, since these are the frames we were presented with the information in the first place. 

-This lack of linguistic tools to talk about war in a productive way, has led to a world in which American military action has destabilized both the US and the Middle East with the consent of the American people.  The Syrian conflict is now a massively volatile international crisis.  And we don't have the language to even begin a majority conversation about it.

 Stanley Hauerwas gave a very insightful interview with "The Atlantic"that finally pushed me to write down these thoughts that have been buzzing through my head, especially since listening to John Kerry's recent speeches.  His speech on August 30th revealed a horrific tragedy that is rightly admonished, but the reason for the speech was to justify military action. It appealed for a war that was not a war, a war of no consequences to Americans, but an action of eternal moral import.  At best his argument for military intervention was based on a distinction between the mass slaughter of 100,000+ people and one truly heinous, and wildly horrific chemical attack killing roughly 1.5% of that number.  Every human life is sacred, period.  At worst this seems opportunistic, capitalizing on the truly unique horror and agony of the deaths of roughly 1,400 writhing human beings, in order to achieve an outcome that is not guaranteed, with assured collateral damage and which would be mostly symbolic.

Even beyond, bad reporting, the evolution of war in our current millennium has served to confuse and diffuse our response to it.  The parameters of our "war on terror" have blurred the lines of what "peace" and "war" and "terror" actually look and feel like.  Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri discuss our society's perception of war, informed by the "war on terror", at length in their masterpiece "Multitude".  Slavoj Zizek in "The Year of Dreaming Dangerously" also explores the effects of the perpetual "war on terror."  Their works are worth reading.  War has been ubiquitous in human history, but my generation has experienced perpetual war, without ever feeling the effects of a war, outside of 9/11.  We may have experienced fear.  Some lost loved ones in the attack.  But we were not at war.  Only a select few of our friends fought in wars.  We feared for them, and prayed for them.  Some did not return, and we mourned them.  Others did return and we likely did not return the dedication they gave to us.  Outside of these secondary experiences, we are totally insulated from the hellscape that we as taxpayers fund, and as voters and citizens are largely complicit.

We, in America, experience war as opinion havers,  not as refugees, not as corpses, not as soldiers, not as rapists, not as the raped, the tortured, the orphaned, the widowed, the widower, not as medics, nurses, hospital custodians, or grave diggers.  With a hollowed out notion of war, and a jargon of words thrown around so frequently they no longer codify their full meaning, it is our duty to do the mental and spiritual work of processing that reality as much as we authentically can, and act accordingly.  Acting accordingly is another problem we have, but that's another conversation.

-Patrick Walsh

"there is nothing intelligent to say after a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead...everything is supposed to be very quiet...and it always is, except for the birds.” K.Vonnegut

Gay Marriage in America, the First Redefinition of Marriage?

The debate over marriage equality in our country requires us to examine the psychological and cultural contexts that produce the political phenomenon surrounding it, which we inhabit today.  Like any issue that can produce major controversy, it cuts across all the planes of our experience; sexual, religious, political, cultural etc... While the majority of Americans and myself can agree that this is a human rights issue  which is self evident, we are left with a sizable percentage of our population that will be left to lament the moral, spiritual and social decay of the society around them.  We know the arguments for and the arguments against marriage equality.  Personally I seriously doubt that anyone with a solid opinion on the matter will have their minds changed by any such arguments.  But what I find more fascinating, is the complete lack of philosophical common definitions and common framework that exist, which impede any actual communication.  Where are the opponents of marriage equality coming from?  I mean besides traditional hate groups, where are they coming from?
Non religious opponents of marriage equality are engaging the debate on the very definition of marriage, its intrinsic purpose and form.  This is an essentialist approach, in that it attributes a specific and exclusive purpose of marriage, and by definition human sexuality and "the family".  This type of thinking aligns with most religious dogmas, in its consistent narrative of human sexuality.  It also aligns with baser forms of knowing, i.e. ignorance, bigotry, and fear (which are all essentially the same).
I am very interested to see how these hearings at the Supreme Court tomorrow will play out.  After all the rhetoric is over, it would seem to me that the basic question we can distill this debate down to is the definition of marriage.  Marriage has been being redefined, over the course of social evolution, for thousands of years. See "Origins of the Family Private Property and the State", by Fredreich Engels, or "Ancient Society" by Lewis H. Morgan or "The Bible", or the "The Quran" and you will find very diverse definitions for and purposes of marriage.  From historical materialism, to anthropology, to theology we can see the diversity of the history of legally enshrining and sanctifying different sexual relations.  While I am not building an argument here, I'm attesting to the fact that history has a very loose meaning for the word "traditional".  These are subjective mores dictated by power structures.  It would seem to me that attempts to make religious arguments against marriage equality, a-religious, by mounting a philosophical defense through a natural definition of marriage, fail because they are founded upon a subjectivity that has documented history of its malleability.  I feel that in addition to redefining marriage and family, attempts to define and legally control/permit forms of human sexuality have also been well documented.  Humanity's attempts to confine itself by narratives of morals, motivated by both fear and desire are universal.  It is clear we have a propensity for dictating different sexual morals through law, we are just another moment in history, the question is only whether we will move forward or let ourselves be dictated to by power structures that claim to explain the infinite depth of human sexuality.
Could the cultural opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality be, in itself, a libidinal response?  Fear of the unknown and the decision that something is unknowable, rejection, domination, and objectification are all part of both, the spectrum from homophobia to opposition to gay marriage, and the libidinal consciousness.  I find it ironic that one culture's sexual fears, or definitions or tensions would subjugate the sexual realizations of another to the realm of the disordered, illegitimate, and non-familial.  It is precisely in structuring homosexual persons out of the notion of family that our society does the most psychological and physical violence to the LGBT community.  In separating their love and their children from societal protection and recognition as a family, our culture all at once demeans their freedom, their love, and their children while at the same time attesting to its own disregard for freedom, love, and children. 

Pope Francis I, Remembering and Celebrating our Common Humanity

The massive contribution of active love and charity, to the world, of the good and dedicated lay and clergy of the Catholic Church, is well known to its faithful. This is also likely experienced in some fashion by those outside the Church.  Likewise, the massive failings, oppression and inherent social/psychological incongruities of the Catholic Church are well known to its detractors.  In turn, these drawbacks are likely experienced to different degrees by the faithful of the Church.  We welcome today, in this decade of crescendo, a new pope, a new beginning for the Catholic Church.  If we allow it to be, this can be an  opportunity for the secular world, struggling for tolerant, just, and peaceful societies all over the globe, to reciprocate this act of progress, (in the election of a Jesuit from Argentina) with attempts to engage the Church with renewed patience and charity.

While the dogmas of the Catholic Church are unchanging, its spirit and practice is alive in its faithful who let the love of God pour out into their lives.  Those that witness to the grave injustices and crimes of the Church, could take this moment to recognize the good people who make up what the Church would call the Body of Christ.  This is a moment for those of us who are critical of the Church to renew their commitment to fighting its exploitation and discrimination with love and understanding, rather than approaching it from a place of arrogance and hate.  The heart of both the Church and the secular progressive movement is love, peace, and a yearning for greater understanding.  While witnessing to the injustice of the powerful, we must always be sure that our anger does not manifest in the very prejudice and closed-mindedness we aim to combat.

The election of a relative outsider to the Vatican milieu at least symbolizes an attempt towards unity with the world outside of its narrow philosophical corridors.  Our world faces powers more dangerous and violent than the Catholic Church.  We should all strive to cooperate in our journey to justice.  I will accept this new development as a reminder that our caricatures of movements/religions/people can be wrong and unhelpful in effectively perceiving and engaging those around us.  Sometimes they can say more about the limitations of the perceiver than the failings of their object.  To my Catholic friends I extend my apology for my sometimes unproductive ranting, not because today's events change or mend any problem or offense, but because they remind me that unity and understanding can be even more productive than truth sometimes.  Parts of the truth can be ugly. Parts of the truth can be beautiful.  And parts of the truth can also be unknown, to me.  As we all journey towards truth together, we remember that we are all of the same sacred dignity, regardless of the shortcomings of ourselves, or our traditions.

...for every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you ~ walt whitman

Spring

the smell of spring wind over wet earth, rushes into my lungs
on the slick rock I slide the moss, gritty and
smooth with my thumb
I greet the sudden change of season like a photograph of my brothers as children
remembering how we were then, and smiling
i greet the cool thrust of that unique spring air
like an old friend at a familiar bar
I swear it comes from a specific place,
waiting for the arrival of this moment to return here
celebrating itself with gusts and swirls until settling into a warm and inviting night.
And now i sleep in spring
and spring's air sleeps from my bed to the top of the sky.
-patrick walsh

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"

An amazing documentary chronicling, first hand, the attempted coup of Hugo Chavez's democratically elected administration by heads of industry in Venezuela and the US CIA.  RIP

The Role of Non-Violence in a Society Without Recourse

Observing the alarming brokenness of our democratic system, it is growing increasingly harder to imagine true systemic justice, ever emerging out of any legal, current democratic recourse.  I believe I have some unique questions to discuss here, but I will begin with a quick bulleted preface, to give context to my analysis.

Whether we identify our government's obsolescence in empirical and documented failures:
-the direct influence of the free market on all branches of all levels of government i.e. revolving door, lobbyists, citizens united court decision (to cite a fairly current nail in the coffin)
-current inability to a pass a federal budget
-the pressure of multinational corporate intrests on our government
-the sequester
-2011 and 2012 National Defense Authorization Act
etc...
...Or documented cultural aberrations:
-nearly 50 million Americans living in poverty, 16% of the population, 20% among children according to November 2012 census statistics.
-skyrocketing unregulated costs of healthcare which is limiting access and bankrupting our budget
-the current financial infrastructure of the banks elevating themselves to a level of criminal immunity
-4,700 estimated civilians killed by drones. (that the government admits to)
-sustaining decade plus long wars on unidentified enemies
etc...
...Or documented political aberrations
-the 2012 election "voter ID" laws proposed
-"jerrymandering"
-time wasted in congress on reactionary and racist endeavors: attempted repealing Voter's Rights Act, stalling of Hurricane Sandy disaster relief (just to name a few brazen recent occurrences, etc..)
-blocking of third party debates from official presidential election discourse
etc...
...And all the other moral, philosophical, socio-economic catastrophes that could comprise hundreds of volumes of writing, taking all that into account,  can we not agree as a people that our situation is untenable?

Proving that proposition is not the aim of this article.  If, after careful observation of their social environment, the reader feels that the status quo, or some kind of purer adherence to a freer free market capitalism and more American style democracy as such, is the answer to our current national and global crisis, then we have little context for discussion.  My goal, here, is to pose questions about how truly the public wants change, and to examine approaches to extensive and fundamental political and economic rearrangement.

The current state of affairs that we have in America, beyond being untenable, seems to be unfixable within the current governmental structure. So what recourse does this nation have to stem the explosion of the complex crisis, just beginning to emerge?  Outside of democratic recourse lies a chaotic morass of interests and methodologies.  The shortcomings of the Occupy movement highlight this point.  Do we, as a population, even recognize the extent of the crisis before us and the destruction we sustain by participating in its reproduction?  Or would we identify fundamental and dramatic political and economic restructuring as unnecessary and not worth its risks?  What would a non violent transition of power and political paradigm look like?

In response to these questions and challenges, I would humbly suggest one small element of perspective.  Love, that which harnesses empathy and action, is the guiding force of successful revolution.  Radical love (and all true love is radical) that compels justice, is the ethos of true change.  Love, which always recognizes human dignity as the pivot of justice, this is the objectivity that demands revolution.  The will to power is subjective.  Love, in this sense, is objective.  Despite countless attempts to mechanize love as a rationale for oppression and condemnation, it remains a universally identifiable phenomenon, its antithesis equally universally identifiable.  Thus a true revolutionary spirit demands a justice springing from love.  While righteous anger has its role in mobilizing action and challenging injustice, it is philosophically static.  Compassion and empathy is procreative.   A subjugation of the weak by the strong, overturned by a subjugation of the strong by the weak  results in the same inequity.  The methodology and goal of a true revolution must respect the dignity of life, even in those who exploit and oppress.  But where is the role of the tradition of non-violence in a society whose population is often without shame, attention span, context, or empathy?  Where is the role of nonviolence in a global community governed by banks and their political organs?  Gandhi shamed the British out of their colonization of India because the philosophical tide of the world was on the side of independence.  Who is there to shame the exploitation and violence of our government to, when the rest of the industrialized world is on the same system?

I present these thoughts not because I have answers but because I have more questions than I have answers to.  I hope to stimulate your thoughts to respond to some of these suggestions and questions in the hopes of greater understanding and future peace and justice.  I would greatly appreciate your comments and discussion.

American Exceptionalism and Dehumanization Laid Bare

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has revealed what he says is the death toll in the U.S. drone war overseas. At a speech in South Carolina Wednesday night, Graham said: "We’ve killed 4,700. Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of al-Qaeda." Graham’s comments mark the first time a U.S. official has offered a figure for those killed in nearly a decade of U.S. drone strikes abroad. The 4,700 figure matches the high end of an estimate by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has extensively covered the strikes and faced a concerted U.S. government effort to discredit its work.- Sen. Graham Reveals Toll of 4,700 in U.S. Drone War- Democracy Now

This quote witnesses to more than the soul-less blather of an obnoxious pseudo-statesman from a state, whose government, is dysfunctional as his frontal lobe.  This quote encapsulates the tacit justification of not only the drone program, but our greater military approach to not only its current campaigns, but its role in the world and our national interests.  I'd like to analyze this statement through several different lenses.

1. A thought experiment: If this statement had been referencing some kind of domestic war on drugs, and the senator was referring to Americans when he said: "We’ve killed 4,700. Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of [insert cartel/gang here]" This would be on every news channel as a leading story, reviling the Senator for his lack of care or respect for the lives of American citizens.  Not to mention it would constitute political suicide.  This differentiation in audience response is simply because the men, women and children murdered were not American citizens.  I am just as grateful for and aware of the opportunities and securities guaranteed to me by the Constitution as anyone.  But in this case, it's interpretation seems to symbolize our government's gross misunderstanding of the universal nature of humans' right not to be murdered, and then cursorily disregarded by the ignorant and powerful as collateral damage.  The senator not only disregards the inherent worth of their lives, but also identifies their death as justified, in that it helped us kill other targets (whose aims, allies, groups, and names change every day) that we take for granted are legitimate threats, from a military with an historically bad track record on preemptive warfare.

2. Thought experiment: Had zero terrorist targets been "taken out"  would the 4,700 deaths be justified still under Senator Graham's thinking?  The answer to this question would remain contingent and debatable, not enough information is available but I believe the question illustrates a larger point.  The point being, that these foreign lives have become the means to an end, determined by the interests of a small group of men, remotely.  In addition to all those ethical quandaries, their involvement (the murdered people) is not only accidental, but inevitable, a known unknown if you will.  The "taking out" these particular terrorists seems to be the fully absolving end goal, so I would assume that had the drone program been ineffective at first, that the future goal would still act as a worthy justification, and the murdered civilians as necessary deaths. 

3. What is going on here, is that our government is engaging in , and creating a new kind of warfare.  It is one that is unprecedented:  fighting an enemy  that has no standing army, no state, no cohesive mission.  As this is a new framework of warfare, it is difficult to approach it with the "ethical" frameworks used to "structure" previous conflicts. i.e. Geneva convention, ICC (which the US is not a signatory to), etc... These are just well known examples of precedent for philosophical examination of warfare, though they could not begin to address the brazen adolescent imprudence that has characterized our warfare.  In short, we are making it up as we go along.  And the voices of the military industrial complex symbolized in both parties make the implicit injunction to not question the grave practices that are being carried out by our country.  In the case here, Senator Graham, is ideologically, presenting the ultimate good as fighting terror, a goal which is endless, implying consistent threat and fear, while implying that opposition to this paradigm is relegated to the Utopian idealism of a fantasy world.  I challenge not only his juevenille cynicism, lack of ethical scope, and disrespect for life, but also his use of the word: war, and the validity of the targets he identifies.  I would question whether defeating an organization that repoduces in correlation with Western agression can ever be achieved when our, citizen to "very senior members of al Qaeda" ratio, is what it is.  If the government is going to continue to set us up for a endless war on terror, I would advise a mindful population to begin to care.

4. As long as we can hear: "We’ve killed 4,700. Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war" and let whoever said it go on as a legislator, and accept new undefined concepts of warfare to be simultaneously created and self regulated by the most powerful military in the world, I question whether it is "we" who are more deserving of the right to life, or the men, women, and children "we" murdered, and dismissed, in the same way one laments a broken egg in a carton one dropped.

In Late Capitalism, if Freedom is Deregulation, then Justice is Authoritarian, but the Invisible Hand is Still a Bitchslap

There is a very weird perception that goes on in critiques of the left concerning how its goal is "less freedom" and ultimately authoritarian.  This is not true.  The fluffy construction of a notion of freedom that usually frames these critiques sets the stage for the cookie cutter argument that simply sustains the status quo, while pretending to "take back" a nation that has lost its "moral" moorings. 
Since when did prudent stewardship of our environment become a notion to scoff at?  Only when inserted into the value system of a profit oriented free market does this negative distinction make sense.  Since when did investment in strong public education warrant accusations of indoctrination and wasteful spending? The same can be said for the critiques of welfare, minimum wage increase, bank regulation, corporate tax increase, graduated income tax, demilitarization, universal health care etc... The right is not stupid.  Their ideology is so thoroughly enmeshed with the virtues of the free market (that happens to be currently cannibalizing not only the poor but also the middle class now) that they cannot reconcile an America outside of the parameters of capitalism. What I am getting at here is not a critique of the economic violence or failings of capitalism.  I am attempting to examine it's ideological hold on conservative America in the light of its psychological appeal to the "traditional" American ethics grounded largely in Christianity and individualism.  Max Weber elaborates on this in different fashions in "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".  A psychologically symbiotic relationship seems to exist between the traditional religious American right, and the value set of free market economics.
These values seem to relieve the population of what Erich Fromm would refer to as the "burdens of freedom" in his work: "Escape from Freedom".  In submitting to the ideals of capitalism, one can be assured that his labor exploitation is only temporary, because of the promise of upward mobility, reassured by his envy of the upper echelons of society that await him.  And in addition one can also be comforted by the fact that one's labor exploitation places them in a position morally superior to those unemployed or exploited more intensely than himself, (unfortunate groups guaranteed in vast numbers in a free market society).  I do not intend to admonish those who feel this way, but simply to identify the logical agreement, the intersection of values between "traditional" America and the values of the free market. 
From this perspective we can answer the initial question of this article.  It is easily understood how a government attempting to counteract the inevitable injustices of the system, they identify with on a social and psychological level, would be considered an enemy of freedom and authoritarian.  By blaming its injustices on the moral failings of individuals, they are not only freed of their burden of societal responsibility, any value set that would seek to bring justice to disenfranchised, marginalized individuals can be identified as immoral, authoritarian, and against "freedom".  In this sense "freedom" can be defined as the smooth functioning of the system, because any deviation is a breach of unhindered operation of things.  It is from this paradigm that the ideals of the left are authoritarian. 

Re-thinking How We Engage Ignorant Ideologies and Their Champions

We are awash in political debate in the era of an ever increasing connectivity to the cyber-world.  While most of us can generally accept the majority of political debate as juvenile and superfluous at best, those of us seeking out alternate forms of journalism and dialogue, (myself included) almost inevitably indulge also, in news about the opposing ideology for comic relief.  This kind of reporting/humor can run a gamut from sharp satire productively re examining a depressing reality ( in the tradition of Voltaire, Twain etc..) to cheap and easy bashing of ideologies so ignorant and dismissible that nothing can be gleaned from paying them any mind but a sense of self righteousness and superiority like that of a human to an oyster.  There is a difference between holding powerful leaders accountable for their actions, and cynically highlighting the ignorance of cultures so isolated and caricaturized that they bear no significance to any edifying debate.  Do we not dull our own sense of social resolve and critical acuity when we are inundated with the political equivalent of  the Jerry Springer effect in articles, tv shows, blogs, memes, and conversation more focused on the surface stupidity of "the other guys" than a real critique of their actions, maybe even a response to the problem?
Now, we can't be impartial observers, interacting with our society in an emotionless vacuum, however we can certainly take another look at how we approach the opposition, internally as well as externally, because both are connected. While the unfortunate phenomenon outlined earlier can leave an observer in a mental stasis, ironically unsuited to the critique the mental stasis they identify in opposing ideologies, simply ignoring sardonic mockery  is not going to re frame societal perceptions.
One can engage the opposition, even from a revolutionary standpoint with our common humanity not only in mind, but the foundation of our philosophical and communicative approach.  Losing sight of this integral part of societal conception, we limit not only the potentialities of our ideological opponents, but also those of our own minds.  I do not refer to semantic nonsense like: "agreeing to disagree", or "don't hate the player, hate the game".  But I do find a succinct expression of the kind of approach I'm trying to articulate in the language of Dr. Cornel West when he says, as he often does: "we love oligarchs, but we hate oligarchy"  This is a more revolutionary response, because it recognizes not only the revolutionary burden to overthrow the current system, but also to exercise human love within the parameters of those constraints, while holding those in power accountable, to the highest degree, for their actions within the corrupt system they organize and perpetuate.  In referring to even his most heinous opponents as brother and sister, he directs his approach from an affirmation of our commonality, a reminder of the intrinsic value of that humanity we hold in common, and a warning not to lose touch with the reality that we are, like our species, at times evil and at times good.  We cannot dehumanize evil people, just as we cannot elevate ourselves to an untouchable superior position.  Both of these approaches redraw reality to make it fit our fantasy.  If we want any chance of understanding and positive motion toward a better society, we need to reject not only the fanatasies of those that oppose us, but also those fantasies we are tempted to create in our own minds.  Our approach must be from a grounded mind, aware of its stature in the project of humanity. 

Desmond Tutu's Ballsy Challenge to the American Military Industrial Complex

Archbishop Desmond Tutu presents a challenge to the American military's drone policy.  But his  call is one of far more interesting implications and philosophical gravitas than much of our domestic protests concerning our own Constitution and "citizens rights" has to offer.  

Accurate State of the Union

"Drones: Seeing Ourselves for What We Really Are"

The recent publicity and controversy over the Obama administration's drone strikes in the Middle East forces a critical conversation on US foreign policy that before was far less pronounced or mainstream.  We have quietly transitioned into a constant state of war, because our war is a containment of terrorists, or "terrorism", spread across the world.  Our remote preemptive approach to perceived threats that has been cultivated in the past years, proceeds the US's interventionist nation building, and "containment policy" of the past decades.  This policy of "proactive" "safeguarding of our interests" has been publicly reaffirmed in the recent hearings concerning the nomination of Brennan to head the CIA.  But it is this very military perspective that our drone policy is simply the logical conclusion of.  Attempts to sugar coat a policy of globally murderous American exceptionalism, in calls for transparency and judicial oversight neglect the very core of the crime we commit.  This is the crime of the devaluation of human life, and the trauma we subject entire generations to, in the name of a war, whose enemies are whoever ends up dead at the end of the day.
The fact that remote killings from the sky are extra psychologically disturbing has brought our policy of preemptive attack to a philosophical trial that before might have been dismissed as pacifist idealism and lefty contrariness.
The obvious defense of the drone program is that they eliminate terrorist threats while keeping troops off the ground and so protect the American public and its armed services.  The clear criticism of this policy is that we are causing substantial civilian casualties, while terrorizing entire populations that live in fear and whose children are dying or surviving, to grow up in trauma.  To say nothing of the outrageous moral aberration  that these policies pose, it would seem strategically counterproductive to fight terrorism, not only in a endless campaign of acute covert raids and assassinations, but also in the inevitably indiscriminate bombings that will serve to cement not only present antiquated religious prejudices but also create new terror and justifiable rage in multiple generations in more countries across a region that is already the most volatile part of the globe.
To take a clear stance against our drone warfare policy is to indite our policy of preemptive warfare.
Our population has grown increasingly detached from our state of war.  We are isolated from the monetary burden (temporarily) via tax cuts that coincided with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.  We are isolated from information by a media castrated and lobotomized by chasing ratings and pleasing sponsors.  And we are governed by inert legislative bodies muted by revolving door politics and powerful lobbies.  In short, we do not experience the fact that our country is at war.  Together with our presumed moral infallibility, the pervading fear inherent in a war on an enemy as amorphous as"terror" assures our population's complicity.  Now with a darker, louder, more sinister symbol of our military foreign policy, we may be able to engage its strategic failings and moral  horrors in a viable conversation with stronger political momentum.

Gun Control Today

"law abiding gun owners will not accept blame for acts of violent or deranged criminals." wayne la pierre jan. 30 2013. The call for responsible control and oversight of the purchase of guns is aimed at creating a more safe and responsible culture. No one is blaming gun owners. No one is trying to take your guns. The only ones who profit from these ideas is the weapons industry and their ideological thugs (see above), who would turn a moment for a societal evolution and frank examination of its violence into a cheap and reactionary freedom wank, and a false victimization.

The intensified gun debate of these past months forces us to interact with our society in a way that before was relegated to college students and professors, your annoying friend, social workers and talking heads on cable.  I don't mean simply that our last year's irking surplus of massacres forces us to talk about the regulation of assault weapons and magazine sizes.  I point rather to the way the "camps" frame their debates. 
If our culture is going to push most of us to side one way or the other on the issue of gun control, then the underlying points of view that frame our opinions have a venue, now, to be analyzed.  These tragedies have pressed "us" to respond with calls for or against particular legislation or permutations therein.  But I would have to take this opportunity to call out both "sides" on their lack of scope.  

The overwhelming response on the left has been a call for gun control, adding increased oversight to gun transactions while creating a more peaceful culture through stigmatization of violence.  This is in reaction to a recent outbreak of massacres, and in the face of an extremely weakened ATF, and a culture of state laws waging the battle for gun rights (a la deranged and misdirected channeling of the founding fathers) with outrageous legislative concoctions borne of ideological symbolism.  Perhaps in such a moment more concrete regulation is needed to decrease the flow of guns to criminals and the mentally ill.

The overwhelming response of the right has been a call against gun control.  The aims of tighter regulation resulting in less available guns in the hands of less criminals and mentally ill people is framed as an assault on the second amendment, and the genesis of a new dawn of tyranny, while purveying a false notion of what gun control is really being proposed.  Perfecting our society via laws that can net an overall result of less massacres is juxtaposed to Hitler and Mao before the discussion can even be entertained by those who watch FOX news.  The right seems to be set on making the people believe that they are being victimized and that the government wants their guns.

What a smooth ideology that can all at once lull a culture into a symbolic distrust of the people they pay to govern themselves (symbolic, because the lobbyists and the money have major influence on the government) and at the same time be pushing the culture of a brand and a product that they themselves are physically selling.  (And at record high rates)  

Are conservatives really ready to do battle with the defense department?  Are they really going to take out the US army with their AK 47s?  No they are deluded and they are pacified by their guns. The notion that "this AK is for my government if they want to infringe on my rights" is laughable.  Coordinating a colonial era styled overthrow of tyranny would entail cooperating with your fellow man towards a common goal, it would be collectivist and infringe upon the individual.

As for those who would relegate our societal problems and propensity for violence to lack of gun control, I would argue that this is the same flawed logic of: "Main street, not wall street", when wall street creates the conditions for those on main street to buy electronics, finance a house and car, and retire with a pension.  

You can't vilify greed and separate its perpetrators from the larger issue, without acknowledging the fact that greed in inherent to the capitalist system.  You can't vilify  violence and separate its perpetrators from the larger issue without acknowledging the fact that it is a function of the culture we live in.