Leaks in the Constitution

I'm watching an argument in a forum where I participate, and I'm generally staying out of it this time. The argument has to do with how we should treat "enemy combatants," also known as either POW's or accused criminals. And that's the problem. Which are they?

They aren't POW's, because they don't belong to an official army of an official nation state. So they don't come under the Geneva Convention.

But they aren't US citizens, so do they get a right to a criminal trial here? Or do they come under the laws of the nation they're citizens of, and thus get shipped there for trials?

It's a mess. But it's not a new mess. It's the result of decades of flex-think.

Back when we were at war with north Viet Nam, we weren't actually at war with them. Technically, it was a "police action." It was technically legal to shoot at the Viet Cong because we were there at the invitation of a legitimate government (South Viet Nam) which was resisting being taken down by their enemies. We never declared war against North Viet Nam, because that would have been inconvenient for our Congress, among other reasons. I felt at the time that we had no business sending in an army, firing weapons, killing people and breaking things, if we hadn't declared a war, but nobody listened to me or the other few thousand people who opposed this police action. I guess we had done the same thing in Korea, so there was already precedent, but the problem still remained: it wasn't a Constitutional action. And it was flex-think: it's a war but it's not really a war.

So here we are in Iraq. Once again, we're fighting a war that isn't really a war because it was never declared. But there's a difference this time. We were not invited by a legitimate government that needed defending. We invaded Iraq, sent in armies and bombs, deposed the existing government, and all without being attacked by them first, and without being invited by its government. The fact that Saddam Hussein was a sorry, merciless bastard is irrelevant to this point. If you're going to invade a country without an invitation, you have to declare a war. Don't you? But by then we were used to, and accepted, the policy of having a war (wink, wink) without ever declaring it.

And now we have our dilemma. Are our enemies soldiers and entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention? Or are they criminals? But if they're criminals, are they subject to our laws, since they aren't even in the USA when they shoot at us? What is their status? Do they get trials by our laws if we're shooting at them for violating our laws?

It's a mess.

For decades, we've been flex-thinking the Constitution, passing election laws that clearly violate the First Amendment, passing ballot access laws that clearly violate every principle of free elections, and passing hundreds of laws that violate the 9th and 10th amendments (by stretching the commerce clause beyond anything in its original intent). It's so well-established that when Ron Paul suggested obeying the Constitution, the most common criticism directed at him was that he had "crazy ideas." Yes, folks, the Constitution is now a "crazy idea."

The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is intended more than anything else to keep government within some boundaries. And like a dammed river, every time we punch a hole in the dam, the entire dam is further compromised. If we can't freely criticize our elected leaders, they can get by with more mischief. If they can jail us with a simple accusation, they can stop us from criticizing them. If they can confiscate our property for criticizing them without a permit (think FEC)... if they can rig the elections so that only the two parties can get on the ballot... if they can read our email and listen to our phone conversations because we "might" have terrorist connections... you get the picture. Each new hole in the dam makes it harder to repair the dam before it breaks altogether.

For the love of God, for the love of country...

...stop voting for these two corrupt parties before it's too late.

It may already be.

Zen and the art of Global Warming

Global warming came across my desk again today.

I'm the editor of the CRF Newsletter, the official publication of the Cave Research Foundation. I got an email proposing an article about White Nose Syndrome, a mysterious disease which is killing bats in the northeastern United States. Now if your response to that is "who cares about a bunch of nasty bats?" you should reconsider, because bats have a direct effect on your lifestyle, beyond the obvious one involving mosquitoes and other insects. Do you like tequila? Without bats, the agave isn't pollinated, and you can say goodbye to that delicious beverage. But I digress.

WNS (White Nose Syndrome) is a serious, and mysterious disease which is killing bats while they hibernate. We haven't figured out what it is, other than a fungus, and it's threatening several species of bats.

The gentleman proposing the article suggests that perhaps the bats are going into hibernation without sufficient fat stored in their bodies, that they are malnourished, and that this is lowering their immune systems, their natural resistance to diseases. I hadn't thought of that, and it makes sense.

But he goes further, proposing that the lack of insects might be an effect of global warming. Now, it could be. It could, in my opinion, also be the result of a new disease or insectivore invading the area. I know that here in Texas, the disappearance of the Texas Horned Lizard (aka the "horny toad") is the result of the fire ant invasion from South America. No, the fire ant doesn't attack the lizard, but it does drive out the Texas Harvester Ant (aka the "red aint"). See, there are lots of villains in the environmental disaster we're living in these days.

I encouraged him to work on that article, for the obvious reason that it would be a Good Thing™ to know what is causing this bat disease, whether it's global warming or some new moth-eating critter from Australia or the tragic result of a chemical experiment gone wrong. Remember that DDT reduced the bat population in New Mexico to a horrifying degree. And if it is a global warming thing, it would be useful to know that, too.

But it got me to thinking once again about the global warming dilemma. Now, most of you don't know what a dilemma actually is - you assume it's a synonym for "difficult problem." A dilemma is a set of choices, either of which may give costly and unsatisfactory results, but one of which must be taken. Here's the global warming dilemma.

We are faced with two possibilities: either global warming is a real crisis, is threatening our very existence as we know it, and is caused by man's industrial activity and lifestyle....
or it isn't.

If the first is true, then we have to do something. We have to cut back on energy consumption. We have to limit our lifestyles. (And for some reason lots of money has to change hands, but that hasn't been explained to my satisfaction).

If the second is true - if global warming is a crock, or if it's totally natural - then the unnecessary attempt to stop nature in its tracks could be very very expensive, could result in the failure of the world wide economy and the loss of a great deal of liberty, and could even be environmentally destructive in the long run.

But we don't really know which is true. The water in this pond has been thoroughly muddied by political hacks on both sides. Environmentalism has lost considerable credibility as the result of well-intended exaggeration over the years, and as the result of self-fulfilling computer model prophecy, and recently as the result of demands to silence open debate on the subject (Weather Channel, anyone?) What are we supposed to do? Who should we believe?

My own skepticism springs from my long years in the public school system. Way back in the 60's, we were told by those in the environmental movement that if we didn't do something soon, the entire rain forests in South America would be GONE in ten years. Yes, folks, the lungs of the earth would be no more. I was very concerned, as I have grown quite fond of the air I breathe.

Ten years later, when the forests were scheduled to be gone, the same people were telling us that the destruction of the rain forests was not only unabated, it had grown in speed, and we had to do something. Since this didn't square with what I had been told before - the forests are still there, after all - I became suspicious and so I wondered exactly what was in the Kyoto protocol that had to be signed by every nation on earth. I wondered why the United States had to sign an agreement to save a rain forest that wasn't even in our territory. Why could the governments of suramerica not make the changes necessary without our permission? A little research explained that what was necessary was for the USA to send lots of money to these countries' governments. But wasn't that the original reason for the destruction of those forests? Hadn't we sent them foreign aid so they could "develop" those forests into farmland? Something wasn't quite right. Yet I understood then and I understand now that those forests are fragile and must be protected. I have seen them. I have seen how thin the soil is. I have seen that once the trees are knocked down, it will not be easy to replant them. I just can't trust governments in the world to fix the problem, or to tell me the truth about them.

Over the years, I have learned an even more deeply ingrained distrust of government. Now, understand that I have no animosity toward the people who run the National Park Service, or the various agencies responsible for taking care of our wildlife and waterways. I think they are doing the best they can with the paltry sums they have to work with. And I do believe that the people warning us about climate change believe what they say and are sincere. They may even be right. But I do not trust the politicians who promise to take care of the environment or do something about global warming, whether or not it is a fact or a scare tactic. They talk and they ask for votes and contributions... but they do nothing. They don't even fund the park service as they should. Their motivation is to hold onto power, not save the earth.

And here's where I have the solution to our dilemma. You see, we can't know if global warming is a fact or not. There are just too many variables to know for sure, and there is too much political poison being poured into the discussion to come to a reliable conclusion. There are too many writers saying that this or that "proves" something, when it merely suggests it, or at best "demonstrates" it. Hyperbole is no friend of the truth. Yet, real proof is hard to come by when you're talking about a world wide phenomenon. So what can we do without that proof? Which course do we take?

Go to this website for a list of things that you can do, and why. Sure, the website comes from the absolute conviction that global warming is a real threat, but so what? These are all things that you can do just in case, that will actually have benefits to you that are real regardless of whether global warming is real.

I've already done all of them except for donating money or supporting politicians. Ain't no way I'll campaign for somebody just because he says the right words. But I drive a Prius hybrid, I plan to buy a second one to replace my beloved pickup, I still have one of two compost bins (gave one away), I have an organic garden, I've spent hundreds of hours on cave restoration, my house is well-insulated, I do the laundry in cold water when practical, and I have replaced those incandescent bulbs with the CF kind throughout this house and the last one I owned. I signed up for an electric plan that delivers only 100% renewable energy (from those lovely wind farms, you see). I plan my trips carefully to avoid unnecessary miles.

These are all things you can do that will benefit you even if global warming is just a crock after all. If I, a skeptic, can do them, why not you?

Why not hedge our bets if we can, eh?