Analyzing S 1959 and Analyzing You and Me, Pt. 1

So, some folks are saying that Willy Loman, who made the original posting about the proposed legislation, S 1959, is crying wolf. They say that all S 1959 does is set up a commission to study the issue of “homegrown radicalization,” which the document seems to straight away conflate with “homegrown terrorism” and “homegrown extremism.” That, right off, strikes me as a bit of sleight-of-word trickery aimed at blurring the distinctions between three separate concepts–radicalism, terrorism, and extremism– which, while they may be related in certain instances, are not necessarily so. Further, it seems that the wording aims at making out these three concepts to be synonymous.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. I figure, I’ll take the time to analyze this here document, all 21 pages of it, over the course of series of pieces on this site. If anyone’s still awake by the time I’m done with this exercise, it should be useful–but only insofar as it provides an impetus for people to master themselves, handle their business, so that they can thrive despite any storms, literal or metaphorical, that they might face in the next few years.

To that end, I might add some questions and possible self-exercises for each of us to contemplate, experiment with and put in to action. This makes good sense to me because so much of political discourse is ultimately just folks standing around commenting on train wreck in progress rather than getting out of its path or doing what’s necessary to save themselves, the people around them and the limit the damage to the place where they’re standing.

So first things first. Here is the beginning of the document:

110th Congress First Session

S 1959

To Establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for Other purposes.

Okay, so right off, we find that the bill aims to establish a National Commission. So far, not so spooky. This proposed commision will focus on “violent radicalization”–okay–”and Homegrown Terrorism”–alright–and…”for other purposes.”

Other purposes? Well, that’s pretty vague. Makes me at least a little bit curious. And if I know anything about congressional bills (and, really, just because I’m typing this isn’t really good enough reason for you to believe I do), we’ll probably find out what those “other purposes” are in, oh, ten to fifteen pages. If I’m wrong on that one, I’ll have no problem saying so.

And, before we go further, let’s ask ourselves: what exactly does a governmental commission generally do?

Well, here’s one answer, from an MSNBC article by their resident retired military guy, Jack Jacobs:

Derived from the Latin word that means “delegation of business,” a commission occasionally makes some sense. In a complicated environment in which lots of related things have to be done, you can accomplish tasks efficiently by ceding authority to a group to make and execute policies on narrowly defined subjects.

Don’t want the entire government supervising the financial markets? Create the Securities and Exchange Commission. The mechanism of electoral politics too complicated? Let the Federal Electoral Commission keep an eye on things. Similarly, we have the Federal Communications Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and scores of others.

All these bodies have one thing in common: They have authority. They can make rules within their charters, and they can enforce them, too.

So, if we can believe Mr. Jacobs, commissions don’t just get together to talk about stuff. Their intent is to “make rules” within their charters, rules that they have the authority to enforce. For instance, the FCC has rules about what can and cannot be said or seen on radio and television and they are authorized, by their charter, to impose fines on anyone who violates their rules. Thus, if this proposed national commission under S 1959 is approved, it might have authority to prevent “violent radicalization”, “homegrown extremism” and, other undefined “purposes.”

How indeed would a commission do that? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is by creating charters and rules. That’s a little harder to do with regards to abstract concepts than it is in regards to industries, like the stocks and bonds or radio and television, etc.

But there’s another thing that a commission, at least one of a temporary nature, such as the 9/11 Commission can do. It can make recommendations for legislation and for the institution of new bureaucracies to oversee an umbrella of new laws.

Jacobs explains further:

Recently, there has been a spate of commissions with the responsibility only to study a subject. They have had no real authority. They look at a problem and make recommendations, but because they then disappear forever, they aren’t really commissions, are they?

However, this doesn’t mean that they don’t have some long-lasting effect. They are a bit like tornadoes: They do their damage and then disintegrate. For example, the 9/11 Commission (actually, The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States) observed, among other things, that our intelligence apparatus is ineffective because we have too many disparate intelligence organizations, and that we need a director of national intelligence. In an attempt to appear to be doing something about terrorism, without actually doing anything useful, Bush and the Congress acted, and now we have a director of national intelligence—essentially just another bureaucratic impediment to producing intelligence.

Let’s go one step further, into Art of War territory, with the analysis of the new breed of “temporary” commissions. My read on this is that this is a commission that basically exists to recommend that the ruling cabal of the moment do exactly what the ruling cabal of the moment already wants to do. Thus, you create the appearance of legitimacy for the actions of the ruling clique by directing a group of its cronies, set up as a commission, to give it that legitimacy.

But you needn’t take things that far into the so-called “tin-foil hat realm,” as knee-jerk consensus realists would view it. It’s obvious from the get-go that any commission that doesn’t at least make recommendations for legislation would be pointless. At the minimum, there are recommendations for laws, which are either acted upon or not. At the “extreme” (there’s that word), a commission becomes another arm of law-enforcement either in and of itself or it facilitates the creation of such a new enforcement bureaucracy.

We’ll continue with this tomorrow. In the meantime, here are some questions and exercises.

***

What, if any, associations (verbal, visual, kinesthetic) come to mind when you hear the term radicalism, the term terrorism. What does the term radicalization illicit within your perceptual machinery?

What, if any, (verbal, visual, kinesthetic) associations come to mind when you hear the terms liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism?

Place the word “violent” in front of each of the above five “isms.” How, if at all, does that change your perceptions of those concepts? In what way.

Go look up the definitions of radical, terrorist, liberal, conservative and libertarian in two or more different dictionaries. One dictionary must have been published within the last six years. The other(s) should be no newer than twenty years old.

Add “ism” to your first name and do your best to articulate what exactly the core of this concept as it relates to *you* means. If your name is Ted, what thoughts, emotions, intentions, actions or guiding principles truly and fully define what Tedism is? Reduce it to as few aspects as possible. This may take awhile.

Spend an hour, a day or a week being faithful in your thoughts, emotions, words and deeds with the tenets of your own personal [Name]ism. Jot down your reactions and discoveries.

Appoint a commission of several friends to recommend certain restrictions/modifications of your behavior.  Give them a week to make the recommendations.

Appoint a  second commission of your friends to do as the first commission, only give them a set of conclusions/ suggestions that you have written in advance and have them present those “findings” to you in about a week’s time.  Have this commission meeting during the same period as the first but with no knowledge of them (and vice versa).

Compare the recommendations of the two groups.  You can either refuse to implement the recommendations of one or both groups.  If you choose to implement one set of recommendations, provide that committee with permission to punish you if you fall short over a pre-determined set of time (e.g., a week or a month).  If you reject both sets of recommendations, create your own set of recommendations, but give both commissions permission to monitor you over a set amount of time and punish you for failures or lapses in implementation.

Be your own commission and your own enforcement body.