Politics? Surely not!
Here's one of the major problems with the war on terrorism, specifically in the domestic sphere:
this article tells about how our current Attorney General still believes domestic terrorism is a threat to the US and should not be dismissed. There haven't been any incidents since September 11, of course, and no one's mentioned the 'terrorism alert level' for a good long time. Who knows what color we're at . . . perhaps a pleasant shade of tulip pink in honor of the upcoming Mother's Day, I don't know.
The problem is that it's impossible to prove that there is no longer a terrorist threat. No matter what, it will always remain a possibility. The government can easily claim that the lack of terrorist activity in this country is a result of their vigilence, not because there is no longer a threat, and there's really no way to disprove it. The only way to prove that said vigilence is not protecting the American people is to have a terrorist attack on US soil, and that would of course necessitate greater government effort, not less.
You can't prove a negative, it simply doesn't work.
And the result:
"The Bush administration has argued the continuing terror threat is the key reason Congress must renew certain portions of the Patriot Act, the key anti-terrorism legislation passed in the weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks."
How can you say that there isn't a threat when your enemy is an ill-defined concept rather than a fixed entity?
At least the renewal of the Patriot Act is sparking debate, and some
bizarre alliances. Proponents of the Act claim that no government abuses of the power granted by the bill have occured. I can't say whether they have or not, but they have the potential to occur, and that makes the Patriot Act dangerous. I'm glad to see that others agree with my perspective:
"And just because the Patriot Act hasn't been abused yet doesn't mean it won't be by government officials in the future, said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform."
And ah,
the fickle tides of public opinion.
In other news, while I admit to being a bit worried about the North Korean situation, especially in light of my upcoming year-long sojourn in Japan, the main thing I got out of
this article is a sad sense of regret for a past era. Once upon a time our politicians had to be good public speakers, rhetorical masters, commanders of the art of persuasion and argument. But nowadays our Secretary of State tosses out jems such as this one:
"I don't think there should be any doubt about our ability to deter whatever the North Koreans are up to."
There are so very many things wrong with that statement it's difficult to list them all. Start with the fact that it's so vague it doesn't actually say anything at all, save that it might have something to do with North Korea. The editor in me would strike that scentence out of a serious argumentative document in a second because it's completely useless and conveys absolutely no information. It isn't even convincing as an emotional appeal, let alone a logical one.
Actually, the news on CNN is really interesting today, in a quasi-outrageous way. Here's another article on
a court debate as to whether or not a thirteen-year-old should be allowed to get an abortion. This is one of those tragic borderline cases that pro-lifers have a hard time standing up against; who can feel justified or righteous in forcing a thirteen-year-old living in state custody to carry a child to term? Even Jeb Bush isn't stupid enough to try that one.
Final observation after browsing CNN's news page: their polls are worse than useless most of the time. Not only are they of severely questionable validity (which, to be fair, their disclaimer points out), but the questions are moronic and deeply biased. "Which do you think is facing the bigger threat from al Qaeda? U.S. domestic targets or U.S. interests abroad?" The question assumes that al Qaeda still exists, that it is a threat both to U.S. domestic targets and U.S. interests abroad, and that it only has two targets. Further, neither of the two options are specifically defined. What counts as a U.S. domestic target? What are U.S. interests abroad? Does that mean foreign territories under U.S. control, the countries that the U.S. has treaties or trade ties with (which would be just about every other country in the world, I expect), countries where U.S. troops are stationed, U.S. activities in the Middle East, or something else?
It disturbs me that reading the news is insulting to my intelligence. Maybe this is the end result of four years of liberal arts education? I have no idea.