Earlier this month, on Independence Day, a VOX neighbor posted the text of the American Declaration of Independence. Thank you, Cap’n Stephel.
The 56 signatories signed the Declaration as a rejection of the Old World Order, based as it was upon an absolute, remote and central seat of power held in very tight hands, (King George III of Britain and his cronies). In doing so, they committed treason and thereby put themselves in serious peril.
Tip: it is actually quite fun to read the Declaration today and try to imagine that it had been addressed, not to George III but instead, to King George XLIII… (You know: “Dubya”.)
So that post got me wondering about just what it is that makes the American Constitution special. What, in particular, is its genius? I’d be interested to hear what people think, especially Americans.
For me, the most striking aspect of the spirited debates that stirred the early colonialists was the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Both factions were very much against a powerful, federal government and held the common goal of strongly restricting it from mischief. With perhaps the exception of the execrable Alexander Hamilton, they all understood that “[small] government is a necessary evil; [large government is an intolerable abomination]”.)
The Federalists carried the day and so wrote the constitution restricting the federal government by specifying only those powers the federal government was to wield. The objections of the Anti-Federalists were later partially assuaged in the Bill of Rights, a series of amendments, (1-10).
So I want to venture here the notion that the genius of what the Framers of the Constitution conceived is what I call, “the shopping mall of government”.
The Union was to be a loose collection of democracies, united by some common principles, but allowing the states to determine local laws according to the wishes of their electorates. The Founders rejected the kind of centralized, remote, absolute government that they, and Europeans, had long suffered under. In the Constitution, they sought to promote local determination with citizens free to choose how they would live, work and trade. In the realm of government, small is beautiful. (Or at least, less “evil”. 
)
So imagine 50 states, each free to determine the majority of issues for themselves, with the union ensuring only the freedom for people to move and trade between states and securing the common defence against external threats. Imagine how this might work with 50 states, some “red” and some “blue”. Imagine the interesting comparisons that would inevitably arise.
The following benefits might accrue:
The following objections might be raised:
(To be even-handed about this last, I must say that I think the greatest flaw in the Constitution, (which sought to protect life and liberty), was that it did not explicitly forbid slavery and that slavery was tolerated for nearly one hundred more years under the operation of the US government.)
Well, food for further thought.
Thanks again to Cap’n Stephel.
From: The Monday Morning Quarterback
Next: Exodus 2
In my very first blog post, Leaving Japan, I referred to the culmination of a long odyssey. I knew then that I should have to write about how that odyssey commenced.
In November, 1981, at the tender age of 26, I quit my job, assigned power of attorney to a friend, packed a suitcase, pulled the front door shut for the last time and rode to the airport of my home-town, Adelaide, Australia, to board a flight toward a country I had heard a lot about, but never before visited. My intention was emigration. My first destination was San Francisco.
Arriving in San Francisco, I rented a car, checked into an airport hotel and then placed a call to Harvey Poenack, in Bethesda, MD. No answer.
The business of Harvey Poenack International was three-fold: 1) immigration specialist, 2) head-hunter, 3) tax accountant. Harvey brought foreigners into the USA to work. I had entered the USA in possession of an H-1 visa, authorizing me to work for Harvey. But I was now unable to make contact with my agent.
To kill time, I drove into downtown San Francisco, milled around awhile and then proceeded to circumnavigate the Bay via bridge and freeway. It was the first time I had driven on the opposite side of the road. I marveled at six-lane freeways, (per side!). I observed drivers turning right on red lights and, after building up my own nerve (was it legal?), pulled the same stunt. I found a diner nearby the airport and the quantity, quality and price of the food, along with the endless coffee refills, was remarkable to me. Plus the service was as cheery as it was snappy. Tipping was new to me. So was putting down a fiver for something marked 4.95$, but then finding one needed some extra change as the register rang up the total with the sales tax added on top. (Taxes are generally well-hidden in Australia.)
The plan was to interview for a week on the west coast; then fly to the east coast for another week of interviews. Harvey answered the phone. The economy was in deep recession ('81/82). All he had for me was a lone interview in Washington. State. I booked a flight one-way, planning to rent a car and drive back down Route 1 by the Pacific, if the interview failed.
As the 727 banked right to turn 180 southbound for Sea-Tac airport, I was presented with a magnificent view of the Seattle skyline, Space Needle and Lakes Aurora and Washington. All the wooden houses connoted a shanty town to an untraveled Australian, but I think I fell in love with Seattle right there and then. I had been quite disappointed to think that I was coming to, (for me), the most exciting country in the world and was looking at being marooned in the furthest corner of the Forty-Eight. But the natural beauty of Puget Sound, Lake Washington, the Olympics, Cascades and Mount Rainier was too overwhelming to resist.
The rental car company in the airport did not want to rent me a car without a credit card. I showed them the contract I had for the rental from their San Francisco branch and so they happily relented. Man, this was so long ago! Credit cards optional. Service. Trust. How things have changed!
I checked into the Thunderbird Lodge in Bellevue, just in time for Thanksgiving lunch. (Americans are almost all surprised to learn that other countries don't celebrate Thanksgiving. Makes you wonder how much American history they really know, doesn't it? )
The interview was with an American affiliate of a German database company. HQ in Reston, VA, and an engineering team of about 50 people in Bellevue, Washington. (Just a couple of miles away from Bellevue a small but malignantly cancerous company was metastasizing in adjacent Redmond, WA.) I got hired. By the database company.
I theorize that I am just slightly agoraphobic. Thus, I prefer an overcast sky. I know that is weird. There are two kinds of people: those who can hack constant drizzle and those who can't. Seattle is no place for those who have no affinity for the rain gods and the locals accept this philosophically as a gift (to keep away the Californian sun-worshippers who wouldst resettle there). Perhaps Seattle is the Valhalla of people who, like the Douglas Adams character, are unknowingly rain gods, attracting precipitation in all its dreary forms, unbidden? In any case, they also believe that there is no finer place on the earth — not in August and September, anyway, the only months during which the drizzle abates. However, I was not to experience those months in Seattle…
For the first six weeks, I stayed with very distant relatives, Henry and Jenny and their 18-month old son, in Kirkland on the NE shore of Lake Washington. That was a great introduction to restaurants, shops and friends. We became great friends and I think Henry and Jenny particularly appreciated the in-house, baby-sitting services!
I have very fond memories of Seattle. My first time seeing snow falling: those large, whirling flakes that create the mental illusion of a whirring sound even though the snow fall is actually deadening most noise. Driving down I-405 with crisp views of the snow-caps on the Cascades on one side and the Olympics on the other. The giant, snowy apex of Mt Rainier to the south, magnified by wood smoke and suspended above the haze, as if floating. Watching ducks show off, flaring for a water-landing in the moat around the office park, feet extended forward for splash-down and wings cupped, braking. Seeing the same ducks attempting the same maneuvre the morning after an overnight snap freeze, falling backward on their rumps onto the ice, coming gradually to a halt after a gently cork-screwing slide, embarrassed and furtively looking around for now-unwanted spectators.
Seattle people staying home from work and school after a single inch of snow-fall. Avoiding the very few out on the roads like the plague, due to their inexperience with snow. I discovered Saturday Night Live and it was in the John Belushi era. I was invited to Christmas parties and found people very hospitable and friendly. I saw a very early flight simulator operating on a very early PC. And I remember one conversation in which I was told earnestly that, if the Russkies ever did decide to invade the US of A, they would quickly become surprised and consternated by the level of gun ownership in America: "go ahead, pry our weapons from our cold, dead fingers!!"; much like Afghanistan, I suppose. 
People walking on their right-hand side of the sidewalk (they don't any more) and arranging their shopping carts accordion-style in supermarket check-out queues so as not to block other shoppers. Receiving pleasant greetings from strangers.
Finally I moved to Bellevue, renting an apartment. I had settled in at work and it had ramped up. I wasn't technically so busy but the rest of the team were working about 90 hours a week. I gritted my teeth and put in about 70, just for solidarity. I still seemed to be spending all my time at work. A very difficult adjustment for an Australian of that era, even one that liked to work.
In addition, at work, I felt like I was "hitting the wall". I think every engineer goes through this and must learn to adapt. It was the first time I had worked with so much code, written by so many other people with different coding styles, so many of them long departed, but with just the usual amount of documentation. Next to none. I was getting frustrated and not enjoying the work. I started looking around for other possibilities. The recession had deepened. Nothing doing.
I called United Airlines to book a flight to the east coast to go meet Harvey. The sales representative told me over the phone that only "coach" was available on the day I wanted to travel. I didn't have time to cross the country by bus, so I politely declined and hung up. (We call the back of the airplane, "economy class", in Australia.) I never did get to meet Harvey. 
(Speaking of which is a good time to mention a lesson learned: when you have the opportunity to do something, seize it. All the while in Seattle, I heard good things about Vancouver, the only outside place Washingtonians will say good things about. I deferred making a day trip there because I was renting a car on a miles-limited, monthly basis. It wasn't until 2006 that I again had a good chance to finally visit Vancouver. Washingtonians say "Vancouver, B.C." to distinguish it from plain "Vancouver", meaning Vancouver, WA. Like "Paris, France", as opposed to just Paris. Texas. )
I called a colleague in Australia. One I had dealt with in Australia only by phone, inter-company. I asked for a reference, but he refused. Rather, he offered me a job in Sydney. Working for a computer company, in a telephone support centre. (Which is how I had made his acquaintance: over the phone.) But it was a large, American, multi-national, computer company and I conceived the idea of working for this company in Australia and then transferring back to the USA. (This would turn out to be a crazy idea.)
I was by now quite despondent and so I buckled and surrendered the dream. I phoned Sydney and accepted the job offer. I felt then that it was weak of me and I still do to this day. My chattels had only just arrived at the docks in Tacoma — just in time to be turned around and sent back.
I left the USA at the end of March, 1982, after only a little over four months. Just enough to have a tantalizing taste of American life and truly whet my appetite. The experience had been exhilarating, albeit bitter-sweet.
I returned to Australia, discouraged and with my tail between my legs.
[I was to learn several months later that the Bellevue development center had been closed down for relocation to Reston and all but three of the Bellevue engineers had left the company. My office-mate, Floyd, had joined the Redmond company then in 1982 and had gone to work on becoming an early-retiring millionaire.]
If you've read this far, congratulations and thank you.
I am intentionally going to avoid writing any kind of comparison of the two countries, (and am not at all confident I could do a competent and objective job of such a comparison, anyway).
This next part is the one I have been dreading to write. What made me want to move from Australia to the USA? To try to explain, I need to interpret the motivation of my former self, 28 years ago. It's painfully introspective for me to do and will no doubt seem trite. I recognize that self and recall some of what he was thinking, but it now seems implausible and, frankly, somewhat risible to me today.
There were three, main factors.
The first factor is the most easily defensible. In those days, for a computer engineer, the USA was very definitely the centre of gravity of the computing world. That's changed a lot now with globalization and particularly the internet, but it was certainly true then. I've had a most rewarding career and it is impossible to imagine having done all the things I have done if I had not been in the United States to do them. I learned very much during my career working with all of my colleagues in the United States (and a considerable number of those had also emigrated from elsewhere).
The principal factor must just be blurted out and suffer its natural judgement. I loved the United States of America and did so with all my heart.
America was, for me, the land of liberty and I yearned above all to be free. Call that young man an idealist, naive and a fool — and there was very much I did not know then — but I can see no reason for shame on his behalf.
The most momentous day in my childhood / teenage had been Monday, July 21st, 1969. I arrived at school that morning to learn that the Eagle had landed at 5:47 am (my time). The whole school spent the morning watching live transmissions beamed from Houston (and ultimately the moon) and at 12:26pm I watched an American set foot on the lunar surface. The whole history of the world had changed: ante Mare Tranquillitatis had transitioned to post Mare Tranquillitatis. How could one not marvel and be inspired?
The third factor was that I know that I had a number of blind-spots in those days that prevented me from fully appreciating the appeal of living in the "Lucky Country". I.e. Australia. If I had, it would likely not have prevented me from making the move, but it may have dampened my zeal and shortened my odyssey. Who knows?
I said I would not compare the two countries, but there is one over-arching observation to be made that I think is helpful. When my odyssey began, I believed that America was the place "to do". Now, at the end of it, I believe that Australia is the place "to live".
Possibly this reflects, more than anything else, something of the metamorphosis that I underwent during my journey.
(continued in Exodus 2)
From: The Monday Morning Quarterback
I said recently that the "softest landing" I could envisage for the now-insolvent United States would be the dissolution of its federal government. Indeed there have been surprising moves by numerous states to consider and even pass "sovereignty" resolutions such as NH HCR 6, fundamentally warning the US govt, a "creature of the states", to cease and desist unconstitutional practices, such as warrantless wire-tapping. While I have learned that HCR 6 has now failed to be enacted in New Hampshire, California and (9?) others may have actually succeeded in similar efforts. Nevertheless, these are purely symbolic moves and I cannot imagine Washington ever allowing such defiance to pass. Not without a bloody struggle…
But meanwhile, Ron Paul has introduced HR1207 and its companion in the Senate, S604. HR1207 requires the secretive Federal Reserve — a power unto itself, wielding public obligations denominated in trillions of dollars — to submit to government audit. HR1207 looks set to pass and attention is turning to the Senate.
Financial interests around the world have recognized that the United States is now bankrupt and the causes are rooted in its disastrous monetary policy. The party is over. If you don't believe the fight for control of US monetary policy has been going on since the American colonies rebelled from the European Money Powers, then heed:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
Here are two videos that I find are totally germane to the situation in the US today. I regard them as "The Hobbit" and the "The Lord of The Rings" of US economic history. I recommend you view Money As Debt (The Hobbit) to whet your appetite and understanding and then the 3½-hour The Money Masters (The Lord Of The Rings), if you care to comprehend the history of the struggle that continues to this day in US politics.
The Constitution of the United States does not by itself guarantee the welfare of the American people, nor does the supremacy of the US government in the world. Indeed, one writer contributing to The Anti-Federalist Papers opined that — the best effort having been made by the founders of the Union to most carefully frame the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government, and knowing all-too-much about the tyrannical history and policies of monarchs and other despots in old Europe — it would not be thirty years before the American people had to once again set right their own government by efforts signed with their own blood. (As best as I can recollect, having read it long ago when I first entered the United States as an idealistic and hopeful immigrant.)
Therefore, if you are an American citizen, please email your Senator, (or all of them!), and simply request him or her to support the passage of S604. Thank you!
[This is the first in a series from The Monday Morning Quarterback.]
I am impressed by the level of courtesy and thoughtfulness of discussion in VOX. ("You are not in YouTube anymore, koan911.") Inspired even: more than one Vocalist has recently attempted to understand the thinking of people at the opposite end of the political spectrum, a rare feat.
But what is this political spectrum? In the US, and certainly according to the corporate media, it is left versus right. Demographically, red versus blue. Compressing the gamut of all political thought and expression into a single dimension may be useful for simplification and hence comprehension; it is certainly very convenient for the Democrat and Republican parties!
And yet the bitter unhappiness amongst voters in the US is most palpable. Liberals believe that all will be right [sic] if only everyone would vote Democrat, and at every election, forever. Conservatives also believe that America can be saved, but only if everyone votes Republican, every time. It never happens and the electoral results change by a small percentage, oscillating in favor of one party of the other, but keeping the majority of incumbents… seated. Nothing significant changes. Really. In terms of customer satisfaction, democracy in America is in deep trouble and has been for a very long time. The US government is not serving the interests of society. Nor, actually, is any Western, "democratic" government. Dispute it??
The most apt comment [by an evidently-European commentator] I have ever encountered on the internet was about Western democratic politics and went as follows, (paraphrased):
"There you [Americans] go again, it's always about left versus right with you. Whereas in reality it has always been about rich versus poor, the class struggle."
Interesting! Another one-dimensional, political spectrum: "rich versus poor".
(In the nearly 20 years I lived in the US, I came to think of political debate there as a Punch-and-Judy show with the crowd of bystanders (voters) being worked over by professional pick-pockets. Corporations gained legal access to make contributions to political campaigns back in the 70s and I always marveled at companies donating to BOTH parties but had never puzzled why. It doesn't take a lot of thought, though, to deduce the reason and the mind is instantly repelled by the repugnance of the conclusion.
For fun, I googled this Punch-and-Judy metaphor and came up with: nothing new under the sun. Other people have also referred to the two-party system in the US as "Dumb and Dumber", evoking a well-known movie.)
According to Orwell, choice of symbology affects the range of expression of ideas and may indeed be used to limit it. Perhaps this is why the corporate media are continually leading us to constrain our thinking and debate to the matters of left versus right?
So, how does this spectrum, "rich versus poor", measure up in comparison with left versus right?
Maybe it is not so different. After all, there is the stereotypically superficial view in the US that the Democratic party represents the disadvantaged, the down and out, the poor. And the Republicans represent the rich, the wanna-be rich and those armchair economists who believe in economic miracle theory such as "trickle-down economics", (the British class ethos of cap in hand, eyes cast downward, "yes, guv'nor"). Superficial though it certainly is, yet this idea of Democrats representing the poor and Republicans the wealthy might begin to explain why the middle-class is continually being screwed. Not that I can ever imagine Ms Pelosi has ever sat around a camp-fire under a railway bridge, huddling to keep warm — although at the rate California is going, maybe she and Arnie will soon get that opportunity. Bottom-line is that Americans are much more comfortable with left-versus-right than with rich-versus-poor because it is a tenet of American society that it, society, is classless.
Great. Now let's propose a completely hypothetical, political spectrum purely for the purpose of contemplation. It's long and thus needs to be written down the page. ("Fellow Vocalists, lend me your ears!" ) This vertical orientation suggests a nomenclature for it: up versus down. Which further suggests a semantic mnemonic for it: the welfare of society, (up or down).
I have several suggestions to make about the above.
1. assuming for the purposes of this exercise that we all squeeze ourselves onto this spectrum at the closest point to which each of us can agree, then you, and everyone you know and everyone they know (2 degrees of separation), are statistically likely to find yourselves philosophically in either of the two upper-most camps in this delineation, or even upward of there; unless, of course, you are lucky enough to know Tim Geithner, Ken Lewis or someone from their club. "Mister, can you spare ten million bucks…"
2. nevertheless, there is a natural flow or devolution downward; unless society is constantly fighting this flow, things tend downward, not upward. Work begets success; success begets money; capital begets ownership; ownership begets power; power suppresses competition bringing it into conflict with the representatives of the people; the representatives are bought and subverted; the government, working now for elitist interests, comes into direct conflict with the interests of the people; the people are subdued and oppressed… The coin of this spectrum is clearly wealth and concomitant power. And the trend is the suppression of democracy.
3. the US was(/is?), as recently as the Cheney administration, arguably totalitarian. See what Naomi Wolf had to say in 2007. (And for similar ideas, compare Umberto Eco's "Eternal Fascism".)
The big question facing us today is, of course, whether the American people — by exercise of its quadrennial, binary vote — has succeeded in staunching the downward plunge, with the agency of the admittedly very appealing Barack Obama, (who came seemingly from nowhere as if chosen for this battle). To think it has, you have to bet your country that politics is indeed confined to a single dimension, left versus right, as advertised by the corporate media, and that the country's direction can be reversed in the span of a single Tuesday in November once every four years. I am waiting to see the changes I can believe in and the matter — one of fundamental faith — is getting most urgent now, I assure you.
As long as ordinary people keep on believing politics is only about left versus right, it is true that they may have less on their minds to worry about. Life goes on. Until, of course, things hit bottom.
From: The Monday Morning Quarterback, (with a nod to Snowy, esteemed Vocalist).
Next: Western Democracy
