American Politics: the Lost Generation

[Altherion]

local school boards have been nuts for decades. federal education reform's next step should be to abolish state boards and nationalize education under the DoE. the states want sufficient competence to outline even their own trifling state histories.

That's a pretty hard sell -- the states' rights people will go berserk. That said, I think the US is at least getting some national education standards (except Texas and Alaska).

[Shryke]

local school boards have been nuts for decades. federal education reform's next step should be to abolish state boards and nationalize education under the DoE. the states want sufficient competence to outline even their own trifling state histories.

I like this bit:

The cultural roots of the Texas showdown may be said to date to the late 1980s, when, in the wake of his failed presidential effort, the Rev. Pat Robertson founded the Christian Coalition partly on the logic that conservative Christians should focus their energies at the grass-roots level. One strategy was to put candidates forward for state and local school-board elections — Robertson’s protégé, Ralph Reed, once said, “I would rather have a thousand school-board members than one president and no school-board members” — and Texas was a beachhead. Since the election of two Christian conservatives in 2006, there are now seven on the Texas state board who are quite open about the fact that they vote in concert to advance a Christian agenda. “They do vote as a bloc,” Pat Hardy, a board member who considers herself a conservative Republican but who stands apart from the Christian faction, told me. “They work consciously to pull one more vote in with them on an issue so they’ll have a majority.”

[Mad Monkey]

We'll stick with public schools even if Michigan textbooks reflect the Texas choices. Our son will be affected just have to pay attention to what's in them and supplement, which we should be doing anyway. Especially that perfectly awful crap about personal responsibility in sociology (teen suicide, sexuality, date violence and so on).

Even so, I doubt that all parents have the resources or educational background to be able to counterbalance a public school education that is actually designed to push some local school board's bigoted agenda. I don't know, but it just seems so unethical for these guys to deliberately give millions of kids a substandard education just because of some nutty right-wing agenda.

[Annelise]

I don't know, but it just seems so unethical for these guys to deliberately give millions of kids a substandard education just because of some nutty right-wing agenda.

It is for anyone to play politics with education standards, absolutely. I just don't want to over blow it. What they're doing is giving kids a textbook. They are not setting the curriculum for the nation, and they cannot control what teachers do in their classrooms.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Regarding the Texas state board of education and their decision-making...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/texas-textbook-massacre-u_n_498003.html

:bang:

Edited:

That's from NYT's James McKinley on the proposed changes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

Is the claim that the texbooks were apolitical prior to this, or just that they're now political in a differt way?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But you are advocating "descending to their level" in terms of torture, and your justifications aren't much different from theirs.

Well, they are, but I don't think it's a point worth arguing.

I am certain that those who engage in the torture of Americans (or others) would insist they'd tried everything else, and that they were simply attempting to nullify threats as quickly as possible. What makes them wrong and you right?

It's not just me, Neil -- it's the law of war as commonly accepted among civilized nations. And they are refusing to follow it. Now personally, I'd much rather both sides follow it. But if their side is going to try to obtain a tactical advantage by ignoring it, we should respond to the extent our response is directed at the people who are engaging in that conduct themselves.

Obviously, the answer is "nothing." Once you start rubbing away that bright red line that separates torture from other methods of interrogation, the justifications don't really matter much any more.

Well, I disagree.

as I am concerned, once you agree to torture you may as well abandon any attempts to put yourself on a higher moral plane and just commit yourself to mucking around in the slime.

So you wouldn't be any more outraged than you already are if, in addition to waterboarding those three guys, we routinely murdered prisoners, either by a bullet to the head or simply sawing it off, shooting the wounded, intentionally targeting civilians and engaging in conduct that violates the law of war with respect to trying to minimize civilian casualties, horribly oppressing women, etc.? All of that is just inconsequential to you morally?

I don't know about anyone else, but if President Tracker decides he's going to authorize the torture of suspected terrorists, he's going to authorize the torture of their wives and children as well, and it won't stop at waterboarding. If I'm to bloody my hands I may as well get them red to the elbow, because if a little torture is effective, way too much is even better!

Well, in that case, your morality really is no different from that of the people we're fighting. Why not just go out and stone some women to death for the fun of it?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I realise my post was long and I'm kind of glad you didn't go through and answer every single point, but I feel you've picked the low hanging fruit a bit in the one point you did answer.

To some extent, though, it's that particular fruit that influences every other argument, which is why I limited my comments to that.

You're acting like a hierarchy of detention exists with unlawful combatants being lower than POWs being lower than citizens. You seem to assume that as you move up the ladder you gain more rights and privileges and those lower down in the hierarchy should not get anything that isn't granted to those higher up. This is manifestly untrue. Each is a different legal designation and is granted the rights appropriate to their position.

Exactly. There is no question that U.S. citizens are entitled to more rights than POW's, and that the Conventions that guarantee certain rights to POW do not guarantee those rights to unlawful compbatants.

Most important to note is that unlawful combatants are accused of a crime and POWs are not.

I don't agree with that assertion. We can choose to accuse them of a crime and put them in the criminal system if we wish, but we don't have to do so.

But don't believe me, read about it yourself. The correct procedure under international law is to 1) hold a tribunal to demonstrate that they are unlawful combatants, 2) if you wish to punish them for their crime they must be given a trial "under the domestic law of the detaining state". So you're right, they don't get one trial, they get two.

Let's just say I don't find your legal summary of wikipedia very convincing. It's a lot more vague than you're representing here. Just as one example, under international law, we didn't have to give them a hearing -- only if there was doubt as to their status, and of course, the Conventions don't address what that means or even who makes that determination. Nor is there any requirement that they be tried for crimes versus detained indefinitely. The law is only that we have the right to try them in the civilian system if we so chose.

I've read the various conventions, ratifications, judgments, etc., more than I care to relate, and rearguing legal issues of that complexity isn't anything in which I have interest. So I'll simply state that I disagree with your legal conclusion.

As to the morality, I disagree with your moral justification for treating people who violate the law of war better than those who do not.

Finally, and this is the big point that you seem happy to ignore, these people are alleged unlawful combatants and there is good reason to believe that a significant portion of them aren't guilty of anything whatsoever. The biggest reason to have a trial is to sort out which ones are actually guilty of something.

I'm completely in favor of tribunals when necessary to determine someone's status. I don't think its necessary to have such tribunals or hearings in all cases, though. And I should point out that nothing requires these to be normal civilian-type trials, either.

So I'll ask the question again, how many innocent people are you comfortable with detaining at GITMO to catch one terrorist?

Is this a trick question or something? If you mean someone who was not a combatant, lawful or unlawful, then I think they should be released. But nobody is seriously claiming that with respect to the people we waterboarded, so I'm not sure of the relevance.

Does it ever occur to you to ask why this problem occurs at all? Why do we end up picking up some people who may not be combatants? Why is it that we sometimes attack innocent civilian gatherings? It is because the enemy does not follow the law of war. They do not wear uniforms, they do not wear distinguishing devices, and they strive to make themselves indistinguishable from civilians. These are the exact actions that 1) make them unlawful combatants, and 2) place innocent civilians at much greater risk by creating confusion regarding who is, and who is not, a combatant. And they do this intentionally. It's a major reason why these rules came about in the first plase, and why people caught out of uniform were sometimes summarily executed. Because they greatly increase the risk to innocent civilians.

So instead of blaming the U.S. for attempting to deal with a very difficult problem caused by the enemy intentionally putting civilians at risk, why not focus at least a bit of your ire on the enemy?

Finally, only civilians fighting in a recognised war between two states (ie like the French Resistance and US militia during the war of independence) are unlawful combatants.

That's not true. Militia generally are a category of lawful combatants. Partisans may or may not be lawful depending upon how they conduct themselves.

Anyone picked up at an airport and accused of terrorism is a (allege) criminal pure and simple

So we give them 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination, court-appointed attorneys, and ignore any expressed intention to kill Americans unless there is admissible evidence proving that they've actually engage in such actions. Well, I don't agree. And for that matter, neither does a lefty like Eric Holder.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731301791449521.html

[TrackerNeil]

So you wouldn't be any more outraged than you already are if, in addition to waterboarding those three guys, we routinely murdered prisoners, either by a bullet to the head or simply sawing it off, shooting the wounded, intentionally targeting civilians and engaging in conduct that violates the law of war with respect to trying to minimize civilian casualties, horribly oppressing women, etc.? All of that is just inconsequential to you morally?

I don't see a fundamental difference, no, although certainly the degree might engender in me more outrage. Barbarity is barbarity, and once you decide to engage in it you've lost your moral authority to criticize others who go just a little further than you.

Well, in that case, your morality really is no different from that of the people we're fighting. Why not just go out and stone some women to death for the fun of it?

But I'm not arguing in favor of torture, am I? However, if I were, I thought we were doing all this waterboarding not for "the fun of it" but to extract information that will save thousands of lives, right? If the gravity of the situation to be averted and the value of the information to be gained is what justifies torture, I don't see why we should limit our use of torture to terrorism suspects. Those same justifications that allow you to morally torture* a terror suspect allow you to torture that suspect's wife, if you think she might have vital information, or if her pain will cause her husband to confess. After all, we're trying to save lives, yes? If it's a numbers game then what are one or two (or five) people tortured compared to 2,000 lives saved?

*I never thought I'd ever type the phrase "morally tortured", but that is where the debate in this country has gone, Seven protect us.

On another topic, Slate's William Saleton has an excellent article on why Democrats should ignore the polls and pass health insurance reform.

[Guy Kilmore]

So we give them 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination, court-appointed attorneys, and ignore any expressed intention to kill Americans unless there is admissible evidence proving that they've actually engage in such actions. Well, I don't agree. And for that matter, neither does a lefty like Eric Holder.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731301791449521.html

Last Time I Checked, Eric Holder was pro trying terrorism suspects as criminals, so, yes, he would agree that they are not POWs. From what I also remember he was pro how the recent bombing attempt over christmas was thwarted. (A person was arrested, given rights, and questioned.)

I am not sure how this quote is supporting your point.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123493667

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't see a fundamental difference, no, although certainly the degree might engender in me more outrage. Barbarity is barbarity, and once you decide to engage in it you've lost your moral authority to criticize others who go just a little further than you.

I disagree with the "little bit further" point. Give me a choice to be waterboarded, or suffer the fate of Daniel Pearl, and that's a pretty clear choice for me. Likewise the moral distinction between a "waterboarder" who is trying to elicit information to stop the bombing of a day care center, and the guy who is actually trying to bomb the day care center. I see a major difference there, and you don't. But if the only thing that separates two foes is their methods of waging war, rather than what they are supposedly fighting for, I can't see why you'd ever bother fighting at all.

But I'm not arguing in favor of torture, am I? However, if I were, I thought we were doing all this waterboarding not for "the fun of it" but to extract information that will save thousands of lives

It may not save thousands. It may not even save one. But if you have a reasonable basis to beleive there's a good shot that it might, I've got no problem with it to the extent you apply it only to the people who are violating the law of war themselves.

If the gravity of the situation to be averted and the value of the information to be gained is what justifies torture, I don't see why we should limit our use of torture to terrorism suspects.

The rationale is that neither side ultimately benefits if both sides violate the law of war. It just increases the human suffering without a clear advantage to either. It's the reason the Nazis didn't use poison gas against Allied troops in WWII -- they knew we could do the same, so both sides decided to refrain from it. It's a rough calculus, but that's the general idea. Now, if one side decides to gain a tactical or strategic advantage by violating the law of war, that rationale no longer applies. At that point, the person who has violated the law of war has surrendered the right to its protection, and should not be permitted to use his opponents humanity as a weapon to commit more inhuman acts, especially those involving civilians. And the primary motivation here is that your actions will lead to the most rapid cessation of all such atrocities.

Those same justifications that allow you to morally torture a terror suspect allow you to torture that suspect's wife, if you think she might have vital information,

No they don't, unless the wife is actively violating the law of war herself, because that is part of the moral justification for applying it to the terrorist.

or if her pain will cause her husband to confess. After all, we're trying to save lives, yes? If it's a numbers game then what are one or two (or five) people tortured compared to 2,000 lives saved?

Neil, you do raise an interesting point that I'm not making, but that I suppose is worthy of discussion. And it all goes to the morality of opposing torture and war crimes. There is a story I was told about a crappy little third world place with two factions fighting. One of the factions was intentionally targeting the families of the other. The second faction tried to negotiate a cessation of those attacks, made various threats, etc., but it wasn't working. Kids, families continued to be butchered to intimidate the other side. Eventually, the other side got hold of the family of one of the opposing factions mid-level leaders, and sent their heads back in bags. Along with a message that this would continue unless the attacks against families stopped. The attacks against families, both ways, stopped for the most part.

I could never personally do that, nor could I ever order anyone to do that. But when I look at that situation, and try to judge morally the side that finally responded, it gets very difficult. Without question, fewer innocents suffered, and the overall level of horrific acts dropped, precisely because one side finally decided to respond in kind with a horrible act.

How would you judge that?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Last Time I Checked, Eric Holder was pro trying terrorism suspects as criminals, so, yes, he would agree that they are not POWs. From what I also remember he was pro how the recent bombing attempt over christmas was thwarted. (A person was arrested, given rights, and questioned.)

I am not sure how this quote is supporting your point.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123493667

Because the issue is questioning those guys for any intelligence they may have prior to a trial, which is what Holder said in 2002 that we obviously needed to do. However, if it is a purely criminal matter, they could assert a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, ask for a lawyer, and at that moment, all such questioning would have to cease. No intel, and the right to have all questioning cease as of the moment the request for an attorney is made is something to which no POW is entitled. That fact pattern clearly is inconsistent with Holder's statement in 2002 that we'd obviously need to question these guys.

Of course, it's kind of a weird comment for Holder to have made at all, because it seems from the context of his comment that he believed there is no right to question POW's at all, which is false. Nevertheless, the comment points out Holder's recognition of the right to get intel from these guys, which treating them purely as criminals would eliminated.

[TrackerNeil]

No they don't, unless the wife is actively violating the law of war herself, because that is part of the moral justification for applying it to the terrorist.

Why the distinction? After all, in many cases the folks we're waterboarding are merely suspects...they haven't enjoyed the benefit of a trial, and in some case, they never will. So we really don't know for certain what they're guilty of. If we're to dole out torture based on unproven belief of guilt, does it matter in terms of policy just how strong that belief is?

Face it: When you torture, you're bloodying your hands and putting yourself in the same group as the other fun-time folks - the Syrians, Libyans, etc. - who do the same. The methods used by the US might be less stomach-churning, but they are no more defensible, and I think anyone who supports them has surrendered the moral high ground. Saying "they did it first" doesn't change that, IMO. We're supposed to be the good guys, remember?

Neil, you do raise an interesting point that I'm not making, but that I suppose is worthy of discussion. And it all goes to the morality of opposing torture and war crimes. There is a story I was told about a crappy little third world place with two factions fighting. One of the factions was intentionally targeting the families of the other. The second faction tried to negotiate a cessation of those attacks, made various threats, etc., but it wasn't working. Kids, families continued to be butchered to intimidate the other side. Eventually, the other side got hold of the family of one of the opposing factions mid-level leaders, and sent their heads back in bags. Along with a message that this would continue unless the attacks against families stopped. The attacks against families, both ways, stopped for the most part.

How would you judge that?

I don't judge that other than to say it was obviously a horrific situation, but one that IMO is not analogous to the "War on Terror." Torturing terror suspects has not intimidated other terrorists into quiescence; if anything, it's stirred them up even further. Abu-Graib has pretty much proven that.

Getting back to the numbers game, I once read a really interesting essay on this topic by David Luban, entitled, "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb." In it, Luban makes many excellent points, but I'll quote him only briefly here:

Do you really want to make the torture decision by running the numbers? A one-percent chance of saving a thousand lives yields ten statistical lives. Does that mean that you can torture up to nine people on a one-percent chance of finding crucial information?

If suspects will not break under torture, why not torture their loved ones in front of them? They are no more innocent than the [others] you have already shown you are prepared to torture. In fact, if only the numbers matter, torturing loved ones is almost a no-brainer if you think it will work. Of course, you won’t know until you try whether torturing his child will break the suspect. But that just changes the odds; it does not alter the argument.

That's where playing the numbers game gets you.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So social security will not run a surplus this year. They are going to have to cash in some of their loans from the federal government, who doesn't have the money either. This means they will have to borrow the money to pay off their loans.

Some here like to say that national economics are not the same as personal economics, but I don't care if you're a citizen, corporation, country, or cocker-spaniel; if you are taking out loans to pay your loans, you are fucked.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why the distinction? After all, in many cases the folks we're waterboarding are merely suspects...

"In many cases?" We only waterboarded a grand total of three people. You act like waterboarding was routine.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

and nobody claims they each of those theree weren't, at a minimum, unlawful combatants. But I'll tell you what -- I'd agree to no enhanced interrogation unless it has been determined administratively or otherwise that the individuals subject to EIT are actually unlawful combatants.

they haven't enjoyed the benefit of a trial, and in some case, they never will.So we really don't know for certain what they're guilty of. If we're to dole out torture based on unproven belief of guilt, does it matter in terms of policy just how strong that belief is?

You can claim that we don't "know" but we can "know" that just as certainly as we can "know" people are guilty before sentencing to life in prison.

Face it: When you torture, you're bloodying your hands and putting yourself in the same group as the other fun-time folks - the Syrians, Libyans, etc. - who do the same.

I disagree, for reasons I've stated previously.

I don't judge that other than to say it was obviously a horrific situation, but one that IMO is not analogous to the "War on Terror." Torturing terror suspects has not intimidated other terrorists into quiescence; if anything, it's stirred them up even further. Abu-Graib has pretty much proven that.

Notice I didn't defend Abu Ghraib, which was both morally indefensible and stupid. But the moral issue is the same in the example I gave to EIT -- all that changes in the magnitude of harm on each side.

Getting back to the numbers game, I once read a really interesting essay on this topic by David Luban, entitled, "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb." In it, Luban makes many excellent points, but I'll quote him only briefly here: That's where playing the numbers game gets you.

You'd have a point if I was making the "numbers" argument, but I'm not. I'm talking one on one -- waterboarding a guy who you know intentionally targets innocents to forestall the harm of more innocents. You seem to think moral innocence doesn't matter, but to me, it's everything. To me, you gave up your right to whine when you started killing innocents. And if simulated drowning makes the guy provide information that saves lives, my conscience would trouble me only if I opposed it.

My turn for a question. Let's take the situation where you read rights, no interrogation, and the guy tells you that he knows of an upcoming attack on a shopping mall but won't tell you where. He laughs, which is pretty close to what KSM actually did. And let's add that you have other intelligence that knows that such an attack has been planned, but don't know where. The decision is yours as to whether he gets waterboarded or not, and you obviously say no. Next day, it goes boom, and 100 people die. Now, the parent of one of the kids who died comes up to you, Tracker, and asks you why you chose to let that explosion go ahead and kill her child rather than waterboard the guy, and likely prevent it.

How would you explain to her your moral decision making? Because for the life of me, I honestly cannot figure out the bottom line moral values you protect by making the choice you'd make. Those dead people would haunt me, and rightly so.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So social security will not run a surplus this year. They are going to have to cash in some of their loans from the federal government, who doesn't have the money either. This means they will have to borrow the money to pay off their loans.

Some here like to say that national economics are not the same as personal economics, but I don't care if you're a citizen, corporation, country, or cocker-spaniel; if you are taking out loans to pay your loans, you are fucked.

Oh, but we need to keep taking out loans until we're recovered. THEN we'll pay it all back.

[Shryke]

So social security will not run a surplus this year. They are going to have to cash in some of their loans from the federal government, who doesn't have the money either. This means they will have to borrow the money to pay off their loans.

Some here like to say that national economics are not the same as personal economics, but I don't care if you're a citizen, corporation, country, or cocker-spaniel; if you are taking out loans to pay your loans, you are fucked.

Well, the real problem started when the federal government raider SS for that money to pay for weapon system or whatever you decide it went to.

But really, well it's not the best place to be, how is the US government "fucked"? I mean, what's gonna happen to them?

[Swordfish]

So social security will not run a surplus this year. They are going to have to cash in some of their loans from the federal government, who doesn't have the money either. This means they will have to borrow the money to pay off their loans.

Some here like to say that national economics are not the same as personal economics, but I don't care if you're a citizen, corporation, country, or cocker-spaniel; if you are taking out loans to pay your loans, you are fucked.

how dare you disparage the way that large federal entitlements are run?

SS is a highly effective entitlement program because everyone always gets their benefits, and it's federally guaranteed, so it's not like it can go bankrupt!

heck, those IOU's are even federally backed, so it's no problem!

Or... So I've been told.

[Annelise]

Is the claim that the texbooks were apolitical prior to this, or just that they're now political in a differt way?

I dunno, I can't speak for the board members who reportedly said that. I think traditionally this sort of battle is reflective of the culture war, but I haven't followed the Texas board enough to know whether Democrats previously moved into "rewriting history" territory, as one moderate republican on the board reportedly exclaimed to McLeroy and his coalition.

Obviously it's not right whoever is doing it, as I said previously. Texas gets a special spotlight due to aforementioned reasons re: its decisions having implications for many other states.

[TrackerNeil]

My turn for a question. Let's take the situation where you read rights, no interrogation, and the guy tells you that he knows of an upcoming attack on a shopping mall but won't tell you where. He laughs, which is pretty close to what KSM actually did. And let's add that you have other intelligence that knows that such an attack has been planned, but don't know where. The decision is yours as to whether he gets waterboarded or not, and you obviously say no. Next day, it goes boom, and 100 people die. Now, the parent of one of the kids who died comes up to you, Tracker, and asks you why you chose to let that explosion go ahead and kill her child rather than waterboard the guy, and likely prevent it.

How would you explain to her your moral decision making? Because for the life of me, I honestly cannot figure out the bottom line moral values you protect by making the choice you'd make. Those dead people would haunt me, and rightly so.

Well, let me address your question. First of all, I am not certain, and you can't be either, that waterboarding would cause this hypothetical villain to give up all the information, or even any of it. Matthew Alexander, among others, thinks that in the same amount of time he can do relationship-building, that does not involve torture and that is much more likely to get solid results. That way we can both stay away from torture and still gather valuable information.

However, I'll play along with your hypothetical and assume that I only consider torture and not other, proven, methods. What do I tell that now-childless parent? I tell her that if the United States adopts an official policy condoning torture, we're going to do alot more damage to this nation than was done by that shopping mall blast. Taking that step requires us to walk away from our moral authority for criticizing other nations that do more than just waterboard, and to become a wonderful advertisement for terrorist groups that already believe that American principles are an oxymoron. I'd tell her that, as sorry as I am for her loss, I am not going to let a bunch of murdering thugs make a mockery of the principles that are supposed to guide this nation. The loss of those principles would haunt me, and rightly so. I don't imagine that answer would satisfy her, but there it is.

Finally, I'll go you one step further and say that if I did waterboard this hypothetical villain, no matter what information I obtained I should stand before a duly empowered tribunal - civilian or military, as required by law - and answer for what I have done. A jury, hearing the full context in which my actions occurred, might choose to acquit me, but at least then the rule of law will have been honored. As it stands, the rule of law has been pushed aside, belittled, and downright ignored, and we can't blame that on al-Qaeda, can we?

[Shryke]

I dunno, I can't speak for the board members who reportedly said that. I think traditionally this sort of battle is reflective of the culture war, but I haven't followed the Texas board enough to know whether Democrats previously moved into "rewriting history" territory, as one moderate republican on the board reportedly exclaimed to McLeroy and his coalition.

Obviously it's not right whoever is doing it, as I said previously. Texas gets a special spotlight due to aforementioned reasons re: its decisions having implications for many other states.

Read the NYT article I linked. They've been "rewriting" subjects to be more Christian for awhile now. It's just that, with the way the system works, it's History this year.

Last year it was Science and Creationism only missed out on being taught in the classroom by 1 vote. "Teach the Debate" or whatever got through though.

As to whether rewriting textbooks with an agenda like this has been done before, there's been some, but it's usually much more localised. This is special because:

1) it's Texas, and thus effects almost the whole of the US

2) there's never been this kind of concerted organized effort to do it before. Pat Robertson and ilk have spent the last decade or something making this a personal crusade.