Pursuit of Democracy for Egyptians

I witnessed history unfold in front of my eyes. I impatiently switched channels between Al-Jazeera the Arab channel and CNN; I watched President Mubarak's representative bravely announce Mubarak's resignation. I couldn't believe it; it felt surreal that I had the opportunity to witness people standing up for their rights, revolting against an old regime and demanding justice, in my lifetime.  We always studied about the past and other rights movements especially the civil rights movement, rights people fought and died for, but I never thought I would get the opportunity to witness that taking place. I was overcome with joy and hope for the Egyptian people. They persevered and had tenacity and even went beyond the naysayers. I was proud, today I felt like an Egyptian.  However, as much as I tried to stay in the moment, and enjoy history unfolding in front of me, I recognized the hard work ahead for Egyptians and all nations surrounding Egypt. The Egyptians demanded and fought for freedom and democracy. I believe God is giving them an opportunity to put those theories in to practice. Aristotle states the hardest form of government to run is a democracy. It is hard because people with different point of views have a say in how the government is run.  Egyptians must define their idea of a democracy, what form of democracy they want for their country, and how they will avoid returning to the old regime they ousted. As a philosophy graduate, I had the opportunity to study different views and the outcomes of those views. I will explain the causes of a revolution in an oligarchy, and factors to consider in the process of beginning a democratic state. I hope I can offer meaningful advice to my Egyptian brothers and sisters and all nations surrounding Egypt.   What stirred these revolutions in the Middle East? Not many people pondered this question, but I think it is poignant to ask and study these causes. The uniqueness of human nature means we have a history to which we may refer and which may apply to our current situation. Aristotle raised these questions in the Politics; I think it is worth studying his perspectives on revolutions. Aristotle notes revolutions arise from inequalities, numerical or proportional; i.e., from a numerical mass claiming equality denied them, or from a minority claiming superiority denied them. Aristotle informs us that a revolution may result in a complete change of government or a modification of the existing one. Egypt had an oligarchy government, so I will discuss Aristotle's definition of an oligarchy and the causes of a revolution in an oligarchy. According to Aristotle, an oligarchy government has in view the interest of the wealthy. An oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands. The leader looks out for the interest of the elite group; it is the government of the few and the wealthy. In an oligarchy the majority of the citizens have some property, but not very much; it allows any citizen who obtains the required amount of property in sharing in the government. The elite groups make the law represent their wishes. This form of oligarchy leads the ruler to amend the law so that the son shall succeed the father. So what causes a revolution in an oligarchy system according to Aristotle? In an oligarchy, revolution arises from the oppressive conduct of an oligarchy leader. In Egypt, Mubarak began as a moderate leader; he improved the conditions of Egypt. However, power and wealth led him to be dissonant from the wishes and desires of the people. He created an elite group and kept much of the wealth of the nation within his inner group. After recognizing Mubarak intends his son to take his place; Egyptians could no longer take the oppression of Mubarak. The Egyptian people felt deceived by Mubarak, they saw his corrupt ways and violence his army committed against the people. Egyptians erupted and there was no way stopping them, until granted their wishes. John Donne in Meditations XVII quotes "No man is an island, entire of itself; everyman is a piece of the continent, a part of the main"; this quote should guide the Egyptians. To become a democratic state, the people must be in it together. One group that defies the concept of democracy potentially destroys the evolving nature of democracy. People view America as a democracy, but even America has a long way to reach democracy. Democracy is the hardest government to run. People die and kill each other to reach democracy. I hope Egyptians do not reach to that level. To avoid dire circumstances, Egyptians must first define their idea of democracy with inclusion of other religions in the country. They must decide what form of democracy they want for their people. Remember, democracy doesn't equate to majority rules. All people must be represented in the system.  Aristotle, James Madison, Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill expressed their fear of the tyranny of the majority. Who will protect the minority if the majority forces its beliefs on the minority? The only solution, I believe, is a 'checks and balance' system in the election process, to make sure the law protects the minority. Aristotle warns of this in The Politics and considers it a potential cause of a revolution in a democracy. We must not resort to oppression and unfair treatment of minorities. I know many consider religion to be ideal with government; however, we must understand religion is a personal choice and should come from an intuitive choice, not enforced externally. Islam requires Muslims to teach others about Islam, but also to allow them to practice their own faith.  Egyptians must understand that just because a majority wins, this doesn't necessarily equate to fair representation of the people. Secondly, Egyptians must focus on creating a constitution and improving the conditions in Egypt, before worrying about international interest. Only, when a nation is settled and developed does it worry about allies and others. Egyptians must first create a democratic, strong Egypt before dealing with other nations. Remember, a nation's word matters in the international arena, when the nation has a strong cooperative nation. I would like to warn the future Egyptian leader to be wary of the capital interests of the super power nations. What I mean by this is, the super nations like the US, Europe, and other countries offer large sums of money to ask a nation to support them in a cause. I believe this is wrong and unethical; whenever money is involved in a peace treaty, I think it deteriorates the notion of peace. Money does not bring peace; it creates resentment, which leads to anger and a revolution. I believe this is what led Mubarak to his downfall; he did not listen to the concerns of his people. Egyptians must be very careful in their strategies for creating a better government for themselves. Once Egyptians concretely figure out their concept of democracy and freedom, Egyptians will be ready to choose their leader. When electing their leader and creating their constitution, I would urge the people of Egypt to please consider the following: 1.  Egyptians must understand that secularism doesn't mean democracy; it is a particular attitude that may be held within a democracy, but it can be held in other forms of government as well.  And it should be noted that secularism may lead to worse conditions.  So, Egyptians should focus on democracy, not necessarily on secular notions of governing.  2. Egyptians must not rely on the government for funding or providing economic security in the form of welfare; they must focus on creating a prosperous Egypt that leads to economic independence. Nonetheless, Egyptian leaders and the people must find a way to protect the poor. Egypt has a strong history, and this movement is part of that history. 3.  Create a strong government system that creates a balance and check system between the different branches.  Don't give too much power to the executive leader, whether that person is called president, prime minister or whatever.  If Egyptians do this, this could lead to another tyrant leader.  So, Egyptians should be very cautious in this transition period. Some groups who are not interested in genuine democracy will attempt to take advantage of the chaos of this time of transtion. Egyptians must not allow these groups to derail Egypt's new opportunity for democracy. -- A. Hussein, IDEO contributor

Innaharda, ehna kullina Misryeen… Today, we are all Egyptians

For nearly three weeks now, the streets of Cairo, Egypt have been flooded with thousands of protesters calling for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down after thirty years of oppressive rule.  Complicating matters for the U.S., Mubarak has been a loyal friend of the U.S. and a stabilizing force in the region against radical Islamist extremism.  Moreover, there are some indications that Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are taking advantage of this opportunity to press their own agenda, causing some in the west to fear a repeat of the Iranian revolution of 1979.   Caught in the middle are the vast majority of Egyptian nationals who simply want a better life with more freedoms, especially freedom from the oppressive tyranny they have been enduring for the last thirty years.  Yet, for the second time in two weeks, today Mubarak has declared he will not step down until September.

As Americans, it is right for us to sympathize with the Egyptian people.  One of my former students' recent Facebook posts reflects the right attitude:  "Innaharda, ehna kullina Misryeen.  Today, we are all Egyptians!"  But which Egyptians?  This is our real dilemma as Americans.  Certainly, many of us would welcome a secular democracy in Egypt, where individuals are free to pursue their own  dreams, while respecting the rights of other Egyptians to do the same.  This is perhaps our main objection to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.  Any group which imposes its own ideology on its fellow citizens is not only morally repugnant, it is antithetical to genuine democracy.  This is true whether the group is religiously motivated or politically motivated by left or right wing ideologies. 

How do Egyptians find a path to genuine democracy when organized protest is the means by which they hope to achieve political victory?  While many of the protesters are crying freedom as the basis for their political action, what do these activists mean by 'freedom'?  The English language site for the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, implies that its real agenda is freedom.  However, a careful analysis of both their English and Arabic websites indicates an Islamist agenda, where Islam and Sharia are imposed upon society.  This is because to many Islamists, true freedom and peace come only from total submission to Allah (Islam) and Allah's Law (Sharia).  So, for these believers, freedom can be imposed from the outside simply by establishing a theocracy in accordance with the Qur'an and Hadith, at least a particular reading of these. 

In contrast, American Christians, particularly Protestants, have a unique perspective on the American notion of democracy.  The European religious struggles in the 16^th and 17^th centuries led to intense persecutions and wholesale disenfranchisement for those who did not belong to the dominant religious group of a region or country.  My own family heritage involved persecution and death at the hands of French Catholics, since my ancestors were French Huguenots.  Having fled to Nova Scotia to avoid persecution, arrest and death, my forebears eventually migrated to an isolated rural part of French speaking Louisiana, in what is sometimes referred to as Cajun country today.  These family members resisted the systematic pressures of Catholic practice, even marrying relatives in order to avoid becoming Catholic.  Even when Louisiana became part of the United States, it took nearly a century and a half for Protestants in the region to feel genuine freedom from religious oppression and pressure. 

As a Baptist, I also have a keen awareness of the religious persecution and struggle involved in the formation of the United States in the late 18^th century.  Baptists were influential in getting the freedom of religion clause included in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.  Baptists were a religious minority in both New England and Virginia, and knew first hand the political difficulties faced by minorities in any system of government.  They wanted to make sure their religious liberties were protected; however, they also knew that in order to secure their own liberty, they must protect the liberties of those with whom they disagree.  This is a fundamental aspect of American democracy, and all notions of democracy must include this basic principle in order to qualify as a genuine form of democracy.  This alone accounts for why Americans could not accept an Islamist involvement in a democratic Egyptian government.

    I could include American and European Jews, or other minority religious groups living in America in my discussion of the problem of achieving genuine democracy.  African-Americans, Native Americans, immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere, all face similar difficulties of disenfranchisement, and sometimes persecution and outright hostility.  We are all well aware of the horrors and evil of racial slavery, and how an entire population was systematically exploited, abused and oppressed solely based on the color of one's skin.  And this evil was not remedied simply by the removal of slavery as a sanctioned social institution.  Even today, democracy is difficult in our country.  Some feel that the political and legal mechanisms and institutions in place today still have not granted true equality for many in our country.  Economic, political and social injustices still persist, in spite of our dreams of a truly democratic America. 

As you might be able to tell at this point, I do not see "majority rule" or "one person one vote" as the basis for democracy.  My notion necessarily includes both individual liberty and self-determination (self-governance) AND minority protections.  When any group, even a majority, can impose its will upon another, democracy is not present.  This is one of the main reasons the founders of American democracy tried to constitutionally limit the power of the federal government.  When a small group of people – a centralized government – can dictate its will, overriding the will of the local community or state, democracy is lost.  It is no different than the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist group dictating its religious ideology as sovereign law.  American democracy, in order to remain genuinely democratic, must remain predominantly decentralized, with a cooperative 'republic' forming the basis of national action.  This is the fundamental basis of American democracy.

If Egypt is to transition toward a genuine democracy, the people must have constitutional and political protections against the rise of Islamist rule, or even against a tyranny of the majority.  Minority rights and liberties must be protected and guaranteed.  The right of dissent is not an absolute right, meaning dissent cannot be used as a club to impose the will of the minority upon the majority.  However, without the right to dissent, democracy is equally impossible.  Egypt must find a way to navigate the treacherous waters of disagreement democratically if it is to eventually achieve some semblance of genuine democracy.  It has taken America over two hundred years and we are still struggling toward this ideal.  Certainly, it will take time in Egypt as well.  But if democracy in this sense is the goal of the Egyptian people, then truly today we are all Egyptians!

               -- David Adcock, managing editor

America's Energy Future (Part Two): Practical Suggestions for Energy Transition

As stated in my previous article, America must make a more concerted effort to transition away from fossil fuel-based energy sources.  Yet, in my opinion, even the president's twenty-five year transition timeline is too slow.  So, what are we to do?  There are no easy solutions, and all options currently available to us, short of massive government intervention, will have limited effect on the long term problem unless we all begin to change the way we consume energy.  Nonetheless, we can begin to make steps in the right direction if we care to do so, and if each of us does our part.  So, what are we to do?

First, we can begin to transition virtually all local, state and federal vehicles entirely to non-fossil fuel technology.  Most local government vehicles need not travel long distances in a day; for most government agencies, we could transition at least the autos to all-electric cars like the Nissan Leaf.  According to U.S. Census statistics, in 2007 there were nearly 4.2 million registered vehicles owned and operated by federal, state and local governments and other public institutions, not counting military vehicles or motorcycles.  Replacing over four million gas powered cars, vans, trucks and busses with electric and hybrid vehicles may only account for less than 2% of all vehicles on the road today, but it would be a start.  Of course, while most government cars would be transitioned to electric, those vehicles needed for long distance travel or unable to be replaced by all-electric technology could be replaced gas hybrid vehicles. 

Transitioning to non-fossil-fuel-based government vehicles will take time.  Government budgets will need significant adjustments almost immediately.  An aggressive ten year replacement plan is theoretically achievable, but even a twelve to fifteen year plan might work.  Within ten to fifteen years most government vehicles would be entirely electric, and none of the remaining would be based entirely upon fossil fuel technology.   Still, transitioning 1.5% of all cars, trucks, vans and busses to non-fossil fuel technology would reduce total fossil fuel consumption in the U.S. by less than 1%, and significantly less than that if we don't transition the U.S. electricity grid off coal as quickly as possible.  The solutions are not easy.

Second, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. military is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels in America by far.  In fact, according to one source, the U.S. military consumes about 450,000 barrels of oil per day, about as much as the entire country of Greece.   But this isn't saying much, since Greece is #32 in the list of countries consuming the most fossil fuels today.  In fact, when compared to the total U.S. consumption of fossil fuel, the American military accounts for only 2% of U.S. fossil fuel consumption.  While this is still a huge number, this includes large military deployments in the midst of two foreign wars.  Moreover, in spite of the extensive global engagement of the U.S. military today, Department of Defense officials have begun to deliberately reduce dependency upon fossil fuels as of mid- to late-2010 (New York Times, October 4, 2010).  U.S. Navy Secretary , Ray Mabus, stated that the Navy has a ten-year plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by 50%.  Other military departments have similar goals.  While we need to do more, this is a good start. 

The biggest obstacle facing America is privately owned gas & diesel burning vehicles, which account for most of the fossil fuel consumption in the U.S.  The second largest problem is electricity usage by our homes, office buildings, cities, etc., most of which is powered by fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas).  If we are going to make progress in reducing our fossil fuel usage, Americans will have to take two bold steps.  Millions of us are going to have to switch to electric and hybrid cars, trucks and vans.  Hybrids will not be enough.  Many of us are going to have to switch to electric cars, especially for local transportation needs.  Certainly, this will put a drain on our electric utility grid, initially increasing our use of coal-based technology.  But if our government and utility companies make a serious effort to increase our usage of so-called 'clean energy' technology (solar, wind, hydro and nuclear), we might be able to offset our initial increase in coal usage as more and more of us drive electric cars. 

Why do I think this is a feasible move?  Already America has made significant progress without much coordinated national effort.  For instance, since 2005 America's dependence upon fossil fuels has declined 8.4% (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.pdf).  This is due in part because in the past five years America's dependence upon renewable energy sources has increased nearly 21%, and the rate at which we are transitioning toward 'clean energy' is increasing.  According to the Energy Information Administration, 8% of all U.S. energy consumption in 2009 came from renewable energy sources (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_ consump /rea_prereport.html).

While this is a significant improvement over the last decade, only 10% of our renewable energy comes from solar and wind, meaning less than one percent of our total energy consumption today comes from wind and solar technologies.  Hydro-electric and bio-fuel technologies still account for the bulk of America's renewable energy usage.  We will have to invest more in clean energy methods quickly if we are going to avoid the severe fossil fuel shortage predicted in my previous article.  I'm not suggesting that our federal government has to shoulder most of the burden for this shift.  But our utility companies at the very least must establish ambitious plans to transition to a much larger dependence on renewable energy sources, and this must occur relatively quickly over the next ten to twenty years.

All of these solutions together will not solve the fossil fuel problem.  Reducing our energy usage as well as coordinated energy conservation will help, too.  But taking these steps over a ten to twenty year period might make a big difference over the long run.  How long will such moves put off the coming 'dark ages' I mentioned in my last article?  Who knows?  But if we do not make a concerted effort as Americans, we may find ourselves in the dark sooner than we think.

 

               David Adcock, Managing Editor

America's Energy Future (Part One): Is the President on the Right Track?

On Tuesday, January 25, 2011, President Barak Obama delivered his second State of the Union Address to a symbollically more conciliatory congress.  Similar to his 2010 address, the president called for increased investment in so-called 'green energy' technology and jobs.  Then surprisingly, the president challenged America to attain an 85% green energy economy by 2035.  Currently less than 15% of the U.S. economy is dependent on non-fossil fuels, and if nuclear energy is taken out of the equation, the number is less than 7% (Institute for Energy Research).  Political and media reactions to the president's address the following day were mixed, but most focused on either trivial aspects of the speech or the president's call for increased federal spending in spite of the massive debt America has already accrued.  Still, the president's energy remarks are worth a second look.

One can interpret the president's insistence upon 'green energy' as a recognition that this nation is at a critical crossroad.  As the president remarked, America has a choice; we may continue to depend on the energy of the past or find ways to create energy technology for the future.  President Obama's trivial "winning the future" slogan aside, his emphasis on an aggressive policy of transitioning to new forms of energy is well founded and should be heeded.  Like many others in our country, I am deeply concerned about government debt, both federally and locally.  America is in a huge financial crisis and massive government spending, even in the energy sector, is foolish.  However, this does not mean that private companies and individuals cannot take the lead in developing viable energy alternatives to America's current dependence upon fossil fuels.

Here is our dilemma.  The vast majority of energy consumption in the U.S. comes from fossil fuels, namely oil, natural gas and coal.  Without considering the ecological impact of this, America must wake up to the fact that current and projected oil reserves across the globe are dwindling at an alarming rate.  Virtually all estimates suggest that, at current rates of consumption, the world has approximately 40-50 years of oil left.  Given that China and India's economies alone are growing at an exponential rate, and will require much more oil than they do currently, current rates of fossil fuel consumption are expected to grow at a rate much, much higher than they are now. 

Add to this fact that, according to economist Ian Bremmer, a handful of countries – China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, U.A.E., Venezula, Brazil and Malaysia – control 75% of global oil reserves, and these countries directly control these reserves through state-owned and operated oil companies.  Clearly, America has a looming predicament to consider.  Think about it.  America has no 'state-owned oil company.'  Nor does Western Europe.  The largest oil companies are all multi-national corporations whose profitability is dependent upon share-holder faith and expectations.  Most important, for all the president's bloviating about 'big oil', the top sixteen privately-owned oil companies (Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, etc.) own or control less than 3% of the world's oil reserves today.  While they continue to earn huge profits, it is soley because they are much more efficient at oil extraction, and the simple fact that these companies control much of the refining capacity around the globe.  But as their technical expertise and productive efficiency no longer give them the competitive edge, their profits will dwindle and in a few decades most of these companies will either be extinct or have found some other way to survive. 

This is no small problem.  Most estimates I have seen, including data provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, suggest that 60-75% of all oil and gas consumption in the U.S. comes from transportation.  Think about this.  If oil consumption estimates are correct, within the next twenty-five to forty years, NO CARS will run on gasoline, because there will be little to no gasoline upon which to operate them.  We might be able to stretch this number by quickly transitioning to a larger percentage of electricity-based cars, and perhaps bio-fuel cars, but this must be done quickly if we are going to make a significant dent in the rate of decline in global oil reserves.  Such a move, however, would put a drastic burden upon America's electric utility companies, requiring them to invest in much more coal consumption, since the vast bulk of America's electricity production is coal based.  

We cannot transition entirely to bio-fuels for cars, because the effect on food production would be catastrophic.  We can switch to natural gas powered cars, but this would affect the rate of decline in natural gas reserves.  While current estimates suggest that we have at least 100 years of natural gas remaining, these estimates are based upon current consumption rates.  Who knows what switching to natural gas as a transportation strategy will do to the rate of decline in gas reserves?  No matter what we do as a country with regard to energy consumption, America and the world are facing difficult decisions, and these are coming faster than most people realize.

The president is right to focus on this problem, and his current strategies, while not the ultimate solution to the coming energy crisis, may forestall the crisis for several decades beyond the 50 or so years we have left.  Of course, all this disaster talk is based on current projections with regard to global energy reserves, and it is true that some industry experts don't quite agree on the rate at which oil and gas reserves will be depleted.  For instance, two of my sources in the oil industry (anonymous) agree that oil reserves are dwindling, but that we probably have more than the 40-50 year window that seems to be the majority view these days.  But when pressed regarding how much more time we have, my sources are reluctant to project much beyond these estimates. 

Even if we have 100 years of oil and 150 years of natural gas remaining, we need to address this problem now.  Why?  In short, currently, we have no technology other than that which uses fossil fuels for energy that can power large transcontinental and intercontinental aircraft, like passenger and cargo jets.  We can use nuclear power for large ocean going vessels, but not for aircraft.  The world depends heavily upon the ability to move quickly between states, countries and continents.  At this point, we can use renewable energy for home heating, even cars, but not those mighty metal birds of the sky that move people in large numbers across even larger distances.  Without this ability, long distance travel will be greatly hampered, and the time it takes to go from, let's say, New York to Los Angeles or Paris will increase from hours to days.  And this does not account for the fact that, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. military is the largest single consumer of oil and gas in our country, and sustaining such a large military force would be impossible if oil and gas reserves are severely depleted.

If we do not address the fossil fuel crisis in time, fossil fuels, as a practical source of energy, will no longer be viable, and this may happen sooner than we think.  It may be that this disaster scenario is far fetched, but if the experts are right, it won't be too long before the price of gas at the pump will be the least of our worries.  For all the cries about global warming and ecological disaster with regard to fossil fuel consumption, we need not appeal to climate change to insist on the urgency of dealing with our dependency upon fossil fuels.  America needs to face this problem now, not tomorrow.  The crisis may not come in my lifetime, but it will certainly come in my daughter's lifetime, and by the time she has grandchildren, the world may be living in the dark, literally.  Let's avoid a second 'dark ages' please.

David Adcock, Managing Editor  (January 30, 2011)

A Strong Voice From Our Past   It is proper to demand more from the man with exceptional advantages than from the man without them. A heavy moral obligation rests upon the man of means and upon the man of education to do their full duty by their country. On no class does this obligation rest more heavily than upon the men with a collegiate education, the men who are graduates of our universities. Their education gives them no right to feel the least superiority over any of their fellow citizens; but it certainly ought to make them feel that they should stand foremost in the honorable effort to serve the whole public by doing their duty as Americans in the body politic.   …the man of business and the man of science, the doctor of divinity and the doctor of law. The architect, the engineer, and the writer, all alike owe a positive duty to the community, the neglect of which they cannot excuse on any plea of their private affairs. They are bound to follow understandingly the course of public events; they are bound to try to estimate and form judgment upon public men; and they are bound to act intelligently and effectively in support of the principles which they deem to be right and for the best interests of the country.   …the educated man must realize that he is living in a democracy and under democratic conditions, and that he is entitled to no more respect and consideration than he can win by actual performance.   There is however, a need for proper critical work. Wrongs should be strenuously and fearlessly denounced; evil principles and evil men should be condemned. The politician who cheats or swindles, or the newspaperman who lies in any form, should be made to feel that he is an object of scorn for all honest men. We need fearless criticism, but we need that it should also be intelligent. At present, the man who is most apt to regard himself as an intelligent critic of our political affairs is often the man who knows nothing whatever about them. Criticism which is ignorant or prejudiced is a source of great harm to the nation; and where ignorant or prejudiced critics are themselves educated men, their attitude does real harm also the class to which they belong.   The tone of a portion of the press of the country toward public men, and especially toward political opponents, is degrading, all forms of coarse and noisy slander being apparently considered legitimate weapons to employ against men of the opposite party of faction. Unfortunately, not a few of the journals that pride themselves upon being independent in politics, and the organs of cultivated men, betray the same characteristics in a less coarse but quite as noxious form. All these journals do great harm by accustoming good citizens to see their public men, good and bad, assailed indiscriminately as scoundrels. The effect is twofold: the citizen learning, on the one hand, to disbelieve any statement he sees in any newspaper, so that the attacks on evil lose their edge; and on the other, gradually acquiring a deep-rooted belief that all public men are more or less bad. In consequence, his political instinct becomes hopelessly blurred, and he grows unable to tell the good representative from the bad. The worst offense that can be committed against the republic is the offense of the public man who betrays his trust; but second only to it comes the offense of the man who tries to persuade others that an honest and efficient public man is dishonest or unworthy.   Good can often be done by criticizing sharply and severely the wrong; but excessive indulgence in criticism is never anything but bad, and no amount of criticism can in any way take the place of active and zealous warfare for the right.   In conclusion, then, the man with a university education is in honor bound to take an active part in our political life, and to do his full duty as a citizen by helping his fellow citizens to the extent of his power in the exercise of the rights of self-government. He is bound to rank action far above criticism, and to understand that the man deserving of credit is the man who actually does the things, even though imperfectly, and not the man who confines himself to talking about how they ought to be done. He is bound to have a high ideal and to strive to realize it, and yet he must make up his mind that he will never be able to get the highest good, and that he must devote himself with all his energy to getting the best that he can. Finally, his work must be disinterested and honest, and it must be given without regard to his own success of failure, and without regard to the effect it has upon his own fortunes; and while he must show the virtues of uprightness and tolerance and gentleness, he must also show the sterner virtues of courage, resolution, and hardihood, and of desire to war with merciless effectiveness against the existence of wrong.   Excerpts from: "The College Graduate and Public Life," Theodore Roosevelt, first published in The Atlantic Monthly in August of 1894, and recently republished in The American Idea: The Best of the Atlantic Monthly, edited by Robert Vare. If these acknowledgements are not sufficient to satisfy any copyright issues that The Atlantic Monthly Group may have, I alone am responsible for this partial reproduction. Of course, it may be considered in the public domain at this point, and the entire essay can be viewed at:   www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-college-graduate-and-public-life/4483/   Many of our contemporary politicians and leaders are fond of comparing themselves to grand figures from our past, and I think it unfortunate that Theodore Roosevelt is rarely, if ever, mentioned. Here surely is a leader worthy of emulation, a man whose words ring as true today as they must have when first published over one hundred years ago. Indeed, apart from differences in style this essay might well have been written yesterday, which may or may not be an indication of how history repeats itself. I actually find it somewhat comforting—bad though things may seem to us today, it turns out that, in my opinion at least, not much has changed in the last hundred years, though every generation seems to feel that theirs are the worst of times.   Additionally, our politicians are certainly not the only part of the electorate who could benefit from revisiting the published works Mr. Roosevelt; those of us who spend a great deal of time carping and wringing our hands while, in the words of John Mayer, we are "waiting on the world to change," need also take heed. I know that in my case at least, fervently wishing for a leader with the determination, wisdom, dedication, and drive of Teddy Roosevelt to emerge from the pack is simply not enough; this essay can be seen as a call to action for us all.   Finally, we need not stop just with the writings of Mr. Roosevelt. An examination of his life and those of his family show that he was one of those rare individuals who not only "talked the talk," but also "walked the walk," and he apparently inspired his sons to follow his lead. His was truly a lifetime of service to his country, a man born into wealth who nevertheless felt duty bound to do that which he could for the good of the people. Rare indeed, at least in these modern times; to use an oft-quoted statement—they just don't make them like they used to!   —John Stegall

The Illusion of Safety in the Land of the Free There can be no mistaking the fact that recent events in Tucson were tragic. With six people killed by a lone gunman and another fourteen injured the grief and outrage are natural enough, especially considering that a nine-year-old girl is among the dead. That which follows is not any way an examination of the tragedy itself, but rather my opinion on the reaction to this sad affair. In other words, no disrespect is intended toward any of the victims or their families. Not long after the ambulances cleared the scene the media, politicians, and talk-show pundits went into high gear. I think the pattern of coverage following this type of calamity is well established and should by now be familiar to us all—shock and outrage rapidly followed by interviews with friends and acquaintances of the perpetrator(s), at least some of whom will remark on their past concerns regarding actions, statements, and the overall stability of the guilty party. Such of course is the case with this latest gunman, and while these post-crime revelations feed even more outrage into the pipeline—"How could they not have seen this coming? Why was preemptive action not taken?"—I have difficulty understanding why any of this should come as a shock? I am of the opinion that anyone who opens fire with the intent of killing people, irregardless of motive or venue, surely has at least some issues regarding mental-stability, and in most cases there are likely to be signs of this prior to whatever breaking point tips them over the edge. The problem in a free society is not only discerning what behavior requires intervention, but also, who is going to get involved and to what extent? Who defines what is potentially dangerous from what may just be strange; for that matter, who defines strange? Ultimately, who can predict what any one person may or may not be capable of under duress? I suspect that, in all but the most extreme cases, the answer is no one. The mass media and pundits, along with a fair sampling of our elected officials, apparently feel otherwise. I sampled a little of the online reporting on the Tucson event, as well as the talk radio circuit, and not surprisingly found most of it disappointing if not downright idiotic. We of course have the normal political finger-pointing—socialists blaming both the left and the right; some members of the left blaming the right, and vice versa; pundits from across the political spectrum blaming "harsh rhetoric," and Sarah Palin's map using gun-sights to denote target states— along with calls for stronger gun-control and hand-wringing commentary on how we need to make our country more safe. To cover just a couple of examples, I read a post on the World Socialist Web Site, and found this to be the first line— "The shooting rampage on Saturday in Tucson, Arizona was clearly an act of right-wing terrorism." A little farther down page one is even more astounding news— "But the facts are clear. The initial information about the gunman…establishes that he was under the influence of ultra-right politics…references to the [second] US Constitution, treasonous laws, currencies not backed by gold—which reproduce the coded language of the far right." Let me say here that I have not previously visited this website, and therefore have no idea what their overall credibility rating is, but this piece is one of wildest and most incredible bits of journalism I have ever read. I suppose it may be possible that Jared Loughner is just a cog in the machine of a larger conspiracy, this despite a complete lack of evidence at this date. Most dismaying of all, if having a problem with the Federal Reserve makes a person ultra-right, I am going to have completely review my own personal philosophy; perhaps I am not a "left-of-center moderate" after all?! At any rate, being under the influence of any rhetoric, not to mention seeing a political map with gun-sights displayed, should in no way steer a normal person to violence. From NYDailyNews— Former Governor Sarah Palin: "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle…It's inexcusable and incomprehensible why a man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day." This may be the first time I have agreed with anything Sarah Palin has said. Finally, from MSNBC— Representative Dutch Rupersberger's press secretary: "The congressman is determined to keep interacting with the public, but wants to make sure he and his constituents are not put at risk." This morning's headline story is entitled: "Lessons of Tucson: Can We Learn From Them? A week later, citizens wonder if we'll ever know enough to stop the next rampage…" I understand that both the politicians and the media have a job to do, the people need to hear something, and I suppose it would be politically incorrect and/or dangerous for job-security to speak the truth. Since I have no such restrictions, I will lay it out, or at least, the truth as I see it. Assuming that we wish to continue to live in a free country, we will never be able to either "eliminate risk" or "know enough to stop the next rampage." Unless we want to ride around in APCs, wear body armor, and arm the entire populace, we will remain vulnerable, there being no preventative measures that can protect us from the occasional madman. As noted above, identifying potential "gunmen" is problematic, again assuming that we value our civil liberties, and as a staunch supporter of our Constitution, I am unalterably opposed to more aggressive gun control. Although I am certainly not a fan of clichés, "guns do not kill people, people kill people" is a statement with which I heartily agree. I was handling a rifle before the age of ten, and spent most of my youth with a grandfather who owned several pistols, shotguns, high-powered rifles, and semi-automatic carbine of World War II vintage; we never shot anyone, and in all likelihood never will. Likewise, that pesky First Amendment makes it difficult if not impossible to regulate public discourse, so we can forget about any rhetoric being toned-down; it is, at any rate, ridiculous to blame words for the action of the deranged. I am certainly not suggesting that we accept things as they are. Stringent efforts towards making our country safer are absolutely necessary for the good of the public. We simply must be realistic with our expectations, and not be prepared to give up any more of our freedom for the perception of safety; there has been more than enough of this since September 11, 2001. We need to understand that any amount of freedom, once relinquished, is very difficult indeed to regain. Safety is truly an illusion. —John Stegall