Buried

Lately I have been completely swamped and have more or less totally abandoned this blog. I need to get back into the swing of it.

But a quick run-down of what's going on:

I'm in an accelerated program to finish my Bachelor's of Science in Information Technology: Network Management from Western Governor's University, which totally rocks. They're much better than U of Phoneix, the greedy bastards that they are.

I'm also getting ready to take the Master's of International Management at Portland State. So I have to get all my material together and have my complete application in by end of April. Since I only decided on this program a couple weeks ago, this is a bit of a rush job. In fact, I'm taking the GMAT on Monday. My other schools are doing a good job of getting transcripts there in time, the first one has already arrived and I only sent out for them last week.

On top of all this, I recently got a promotion at work, but until my old position is back-filled, I'm essentially working two jobs.

And, my loan for my first home should close this week, and then I'm spending the next couple weeks moving in.

So, pretty busy lately, but I should get back to writing soon. I have something in mind that I hope to have up in a couple days.

Today's libertarian letter

I dropped off a friend at Portland MEPS today. Not only did I get up ajust after 5am on my day off to do so, I got hassled by their personnel when I was there. So I wrote a letter:

13 March 2005
To: Maj. Thomas Battles, Commander MEPS, Portland
From: (me)
RE: MEPS policy

Sir, this morning I happened to be dropping a friend off at the MEPS pursuant to his enlistment in the Oregon Air National Guard, and while I was waiting to confirm that he was able to process, I was accosted by one of your civilian employees (as usual, all of your military personnel were extremely polite), and I am left with some disgruntlement about the situation.

The individual I am writing to you about was not overtly rude either, but I do want to make a point about his attitude. The issue in question was my wear of a hat, specifically a ball cap with a police logo on it. He asked me to remove it.

Now, I am a 13-year veteran of the Armed Services, and I am aware of uniform requirements for wear of a cover indoor and outdoor. However, I am now a civilian, and I was not wearing a uniform item. When I inquired as to why the gentleman wished me to remove my hat, he replied, “It’s a government building. It’s a respect thing.” He did not state that it was an official policy, but I am assuming that it is. If it is not, then my complaint is about an even more egregious overstepping of authority on the part of this individual.

I fear that my complaint may fall upon deaf ears, but I am compelled to address a couple of principles that often get overlooked in the grind of daily life.

First, though I believe in the importance of certain abstract principles, I believe they are only worthy of respect when put into concrete context. Yes, I respect honour, integrity, bravery and self-sacrifice in service of others. However, I do not believe that the abstract concept of ‘government’ is worthy of respect, even that of the United States of America. Is your building some sort of shrine to the U.S. Government? Is the bureaucracy itself worthy of obsequious shows of respect? I don’t think so. In America, the individual is sovereign, and the bureaucracy is the servant. Unchecked, the bureaucratic exercise of power becomes an end in itself. This is most often manifested in the form of rules that have little or no point other than to make compliance a habit.

I chose not to confront this policy in person for two reasons. One, from the attitude of the person I spoke with, I was concerned that such an officious bureaucrat would find satisfaction in retaliation against my friend, who was already preparing to undergo a process which lacks in dignity, and provides a thousand opportunities for infliction of gratuitous discomfort and humiliation, i.e. the cattle-car process of physical examination by your medical personnel. Secondly, I did not believe that I could adequately explain my reason for non-compliance in those circumstances (an open waiting room with quite a few young military aspirants standing in a line 5 feet away).

However, let me outline how this appears to someone in my position: A visitor having no stake in the military culture or mindset, accompanying a new enlistee, comes into your facility and is asked to remove an article of clothing, apparently for reasons of fashion, and explicitly told to pay more respect to ‘the government’ in the person of a paperwork-pushing clerk in a waiting room. Sir, I submit to you that I had my reasons for wearing a hat, that my sense of when it is appropriate to wear any article of clothing is adequate, and that you have no compelling interest in changing that. Imagine someone who does not even have the context of knowing about the military uniform rules on wearing a hat inside a building, such as a family member or friend who has never been in the military, and see what impression is formed.

I ask that you immediately curtail this policy and undertake a comprehensive review to ensure that any remaining policies have a valid reason for enforcement, and make your personnel aware of these principles of liberty and the role of the government and its representatives to serve the public rather than dictate to it.

Thank you,
(signed)

Mainly, I was irritated because I got up, threw on some khakis, a t-shirt and ball cap to cover my messy hair, and left the house. I was only hanging out for a few minutes to make sure his recruiter had actually gotten all the paperwork together so he could go through the process, because MEPS has always been picky about having everything and being there on time (guys who walk in 1 minute after 6am, even if the line in front of them hasn't been processed, get turned away.)

Changes in attitudes

In another victory for connectedness between Gap and Core states, our recent efforts in the wake fo the Asian Tsunami crisis are bearing (not entirely unexpected) fruits.

It's difficult to demonize someone up close and personal when the observable fact is that they aren't so bad. The average Indonesian probably doesn't know much about America except for media and Hollywood distortions, along with a healthy dose of xenophobic paranoid propaganda from their own government and the local versions of madrassas. However thousands of people directly observed Americans giving aid and charity with no expectation of recompense, and millions of people were directly impacted by it.

And then we left when their government asked us to. Probably much earlier than a reasonable person would have expected, but there it is. Indonesia has not attacked us, and we didn't invade her. I know some people will say "big deal, how magnanimous of you not to attack an innocent nation." But this misses the point: we are not out to remake every nation in our own image, to dictate their cultural norms etc. We only care that some basic level of self-determinance is in place, and that they are not a danger to others.

When people directly observe American principles in action, that is our best means of influence. Our 'imperial hegemony' consists entirely of ideas and practices, and we won't impose them on anyone, we just offer them freely in trade.

Anyway, check out this Indonesian poll (I saw it in the Asian Reporter) on opinions toward America and Islamic terrorism/Bin Laden-ist Islamofascism:

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/articlenav.php?id=56

Carnival of Cordite

Some interesting stuff going on:

Carnival of Cordite Week 1

Carnival of Cordite Week 2

Carnival of Cordite Week 3

Carnival of Cordite Week 4

Activist Courts

A friend asks:

you have hit on one of my big questions lately: what is so freaking wrong with looking at judicial opinions from other countries? or any other social ideas? if something is a good idea, does it matter where it comes from? i'm not saying adopt other laws/judicial ideas wholesale, but to outlaw ANY inspiration from any outside source? that seems unecessarily harsh, and even a little short-sighted.

To which I reply:

Nothing- if the legislature does it. The reason for this is obvious: the legislature is elected by the people and serve subject to the public pleasure, therefore they reflect the will of the people (and any 'evolving standards of public decency'). The Supreme Court (and some other judges) are appointed, and in the case of the Supreme Court sit on the bench until they choose to leave (subject to impeachment, a difficult process to remove someone.)

Our law proceeds from our constitution, unique in the world for being the first and most lasting of its kind, which has specific requirements built into it that provide a web of protection for individual states' rights as well as individuals (not just a specific and unique instance of trying to make a point in an individual case, but an integrated context). This ensures that our country accepts a variety of community standards, each of which is an experiment in social order running in parallel with all the others, but all congruent with the greater principles of democracy and liberty because they are subject to one basic law of the land. If we start making exceptions to the basic principles of our constitution, it becomes meaningless and all those protections and interdependancies collapse.

Also, many other countries have high-sounding sentiments in their laws, but that doesn't mean they actually live by them. If they don't live by them, how do we know that they actually work as social practices?

Anyway, the court's place is not to enact law, merely to interpret and apply it. This principle is clear, with only the most basic understanding of the 'checks and balances' system. And yet it is more and more accepted to legislate from the bench, and to twist the intent of the Constitution and the law by the most tortured of grammatical constructions and twisted logic, as well as feel-good 'consensus opinions'.

If public standrds evolve, the way to account for and acknowledge that is through the legislature. If the Constitution is outdated or wrong, there is a process to amend it and any other way of 'getting around it' is illegal, unethical, and just plain stupidly short-sighted.

Protesting for 1st Amendment Rights

I was reading the Captain's Quarters today, and Captain Ed's eloquent letter on McCain-Feingold's attempt to muzzle Costitutionally-protected political free speech struck a nerve. Thus I've added links to the two Washington state Senators, both unfortunately "Democrats".

I sent my own comments with the Captain's letter. Notably, when I went to email Patty Murray, some welfare-state bullshit was the first thing I saw:

If you need help with an immigration issue, veteran benefits, social security benefits, etc. or a government agency (INS, VA, SSA), please select 'Need Help with a Federal Agency' as your topic from the drop-down list below.

There IS a category further down for 'cvil rights' but it does not appear to be any major concern, judging purely from placement.

Muscular Minarchism

Politics of Liberty: a worthwhile read.

h/t Kim Dutoit