In 1966, Democratic Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, entitled “The Arrogance of Power”, which he defined as “the tendency of great nations to equate power with virtue and major responsibilities with a universal mission.” A description that aptly describes the worldwide activities of the United States over the last few decades. As the Vietnam War raged, the Sen. continued “We are now engaged in a war to "defend freedom" in South Vietnam… The official war aims of the United States Government, as I understand them, are to defeat what is regarded as North Vietnamese aggression, to demonstrate the futility of what the communists call "wars of national liberation," and to create conditions under which the South Vietnamese people will be able freely to determine their own future. I have not the slightest doubt of the sincerity of the President and the Vice President and the Secretaries of State and Defense in propounding these aims. What I do doubt, and doubt very much, is the ability of the United States to achieve these aims by the means being used. I do not question the power of our weapons and the efficiency of our logistics; I cannot say these things delight me as they seem to delight some of our officials, but they are certainly impressive. What I do question is the ability of the United States, or France or any other Western nation, to go into a small, alien, undeveloped Asian nation and create stability where there is chaos, the will to fight where there is defeatism, democracy where there is no tradition of it and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life.” The Senator went on to say, “The cause of our difficulties in Southeast Asia is not a deficiency of power but an excess of the wrong kind of power which results in a feeling of impotence when it fails to achieve its desired ends. We are still acting like boy scouts dragging reluctant old ladies across streets they do not want to cross. We are trying to remake Vietnamese society, a task which certainly cannot be accomplished by force and which probably cannot be accomplished by any means available to outsiders. The objective may be desirable, but it is not feasible....”
Today, if we were to change the term “Asian nation” to “Islamic nation”, we might well find ourselves describing the situation in Iraq, or nearly anywhere else in the world where the United States has embarked on a self appointed crusade to “improve things”!
Yes, we are (for the moment) the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, as we were in the 1960s. And equally as certain we are just as arrogant, if not even more so. Historically we have set ourselves nearly impossible goals, and achieved them on a regular basis. Who would have believed that a loose confederation of impoverished former colonies could have claimed, tamed, and settled a very large part of North America, in slightly less than a century! In the 1860’s we decided we needed a transcontinental railroad, and promptly built it in record time, and did so in the face of incredible adversity. Who would have believed that we could advance from a large and somewhat clumsy agrigriarian nation in the 1930s, to the worlds premier industrial and military power, in only slightly more time than it took us to fight WW II? In 1960 we didn’t even know if manned spaceflight were possible, yet in less than ten years we watched enthralled as Americans walking on the surface of another planet! We believed then, as we believe now, that there is nothing America can’t do if we once set our minds to it. Except perhaps, build a free-wheeling democracy in a small nation that doesn’t want democracy. Are we really so arrogant as to believe that a people… any people… who have for centuries quite willingly lived under a rather medieval theocratic political system, really have a desire to almost overnight switch to our particular form of democracy, only because our politicians tell them that “our system is better”!? The Soviets told the entire world how much better their political system was, from 1917 until they collapsed in 1990. Not many people believed them either.
If America has a means to lead in the modern world, it is in large part by our own example. In our excessive involvement in the affairs of other countries, we are expending the economic lifeblood of the nation, and denying our own people the proper enjoyment of their resources. We are also denying the world the example of a free society enjoying its freedom to the fullest. Regrettable I think, in a nation that aspires to teach democracy to others, because as Burke said "Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other." A lesson America should have learned fifty years ago.
Why can’t we understand that America's true power lies not in our will to threaten, conquer, or intimidate, but in our ability to inspire? There is a temptation that seeps into the souls of even the most righteous men that leads them to bend the rules, and eventually the truth, to suit the perceived needs of the moment. Today we see greed, corruption, distain for the law, and an insatiable thirst for power openly displayed in this country, nearly everyplace we might look. That arrogance of power is deeply imbedded in our personal and business relations as well as our political relations, not only among ourselves, but with the rest of the world as well.
There are many respects in which America can be an intelligent example to the world. We have the opportunity to set an example of understanding in our relations with China, of practical cooperation in our relations with Russia, of reliable partnership in our relations with Western Europe, of helpfulness without moral presumption in our relations with developing nations, of avoiding the temptations of hegemony in our relations with Latin America, and of minding our own business in our relations with everybody. We have the opportunity to serve as an example of democracy to the world by the way in which we run our own society; America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should be "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all" but "the champion and vindicator only of her own." . . . We can demonstrate to the world that a free people can continue to live free even in the face of severe adversity, it’s certainly not necessary for them, or us, to adopt the ways and means of a totalitarian police state.
If we can bring ourselves to act, we will have overcome the arrogance of power.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Constitution
The United States of America is a rarity among nations in that we do not have rulers who serve at their pleasure. Political office is not inherited, and is not (supposedly) a lifetime sinecure. Instead, our founding fathers gave us a republic in which we are to periodically designate certain people to represent us in the halls of government, people who serve at our pleasure. As Abraham Lincoln so succinctly put it, our government is “Of the People, By the People, For the People”.
Although things often appear otherwise whenever Congress is in session, no authority in our government structure, from our local City Councilmen right on up to the President of the United States, have the legal power to indiscriminately order us do anything we do not wish to do. They can coax, they can cajole, they can suggest, they can lead, but they cannot order us to do anything without our permission! The thirteen colonies denied the divine right of kings, and the derived authority of government figures, in 1776. They proclaimed the authority of “The People”, a hitherto unknown concept that was adopted by the French revolution a few years later. We, in case anyone has forgotten, are the people, and all government authority in this nation devolves from us, the governed. Our authority is intended to be expressed by our elected representatives, whom we select and send to congress to speak in our behalf. The operative phrase here is “to speak in our behalf”, and not on behalf of a particular ideology, or for special interests.
We have a set of laws, our Constitution, that quite clearly specify the powers and the duties of the three branches of our federal government. That constitution (in the Tenth Amendment) also clearly states that all other powers are reserved to the individual states, or to the people. An addendum to the constitution specifically states that we have certain rights that the government may not interfere with. That particular section we call the Bill of Rights… However, it would appear of late that our government, without our permission, has decided that much of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, have no real meaning, and can safely be ignored at will.
A slew of recent books about the current administration's wars at home and abroad might leave you wondering if President Bush and Vice President Cheney are the new Axis of Evil. In excruciating detail, these books tell tales of torture, warrantless wiretaps, of arrest and imprisonment without trial. They show a relentless grab for presidential power and distain for what were thought to be solid constitutional limitations. The picture that emerges is so bleak that even serious journalists and scholars sometimes lean toward conspiracy theories. The administration's defenders, meanwhile, grow strident, claiming that the Bush administration is up against "a domestic insurgency" led by "journalistic devotees of the Vietnam syndrome," isolationists, "liberal internationalists" and (heaven forbid) "realists." The Bush and Cheney who emerge from these pages cherish secrecy, they deplore constraint and they sneer at dissent, so nothing and nobody can dissuade them from their chosen course. Reality checks are not allowed.
The views on presidential power held by the present administration will create many a problem for future presidents. Cheney and Bush will leave presidential powers enhanced at the expense of Congress and the courts, to the detriment of the checks and balances essential to our constitutional system. There's already some concern among Republicans fearful that Hillary Clinton will reap the benefits. After all, no president will want to see his or her imperial authority eroded. The expansive powers presently claimed and exercised by President Bush are now an immutable part of American history, not controversies, but facts. The worldwide war with terrorists that is so important to expanded presidential power will go on as well. What might have seemed farfetched political and military fantasies several years ago are inescapable realities today.
Nobody will argue that many of the domestic actions taken by the federal government since 9/11 are in direct violation of our constitutional rights. For all intents and purposes the so called “Patriot Act” effectively suspends the Constitution of the United States, establishes a police state, and allows the US President to pretty well do whatever he pleases irreguardless of the law. However, unlike many on the left (and more than a few on the right as well), I have a lot of trouble believing that all our problems are the result of a vast “Bush-Cheney Conspiracy”. Rather I submit that what we see happening today is the result of the current administration doing nothing more than taking advantage of several decades of congressional malfeasance! Congress has through the years handed over to the executive much of their constitutional authority, apparently as it interfered with their constant struggle to be reelected. Add to that, the judicial branch has been so busy with social and environmental activism that they have ignored their constitutional duty to see that the federal “balance of power” remained on an even keel.
Jack Goldsmith, who briefly served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, a conservative academic and generally a supporter of a strong executive, argues in his book "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration" that much of what was done in the early days after 9/11 is perfectly understandable. Threats seemed to be everywhere. A second wave of attacks appeared imminent and all but inevitable. "The President had to do what he had to do to protect the country," writes Goldsmith. "And the lawyers had to find some way to make what he did legal." However, unlike previous war presidents (Lincoln and FDR) who severely bent the Constitution in order to save it, and took responsibility for doing so, the Bush administration has hidden behind a wall of secrecy, as if public ignorance were the best way to give the president the powers he needed
In fact, the present situation is far from the civil war some writers would have us believe will soon be here, and certainly not the “shooting war” so popular in fiction. After all, with the steady errosion of our second ammendment rights, just what are we supposed to shoot with? Hunting rifles against tanks? Shotguns against attack helicopters? I don’t think so! But this is a good moment to take stock of the more subtle parts of these books: stories of score-settling at home, a new kind of enemy abroad, war profiteering and corruption, righteous intentions, grand visions, and bad information. If there is a recurrent theme, it's that the present administration set out to create its own reality, whether approaching the Bill of Rights like a little understood document, or readying itself for war in Iraq (and Iran?) with a steady diet of dubious intelligence.
Remember that every totalitarian state in recorded history has required three things to exist. They require extensive government secrecy, they require a foreign enemy to threaten the population, and they require a domestic enemy (usually imaginary) to justify a widespread internal security apparatus.
Although things often appear otherwise whenever Congress is in session, no authority in our government structure, from our local City Councilmen right on up to the President of the United States, have the legal power to indiscriminately order us do anything we do not wish to do. They can coax, they can cajole, they can suggest, they can lead, but they cannot order us to do anything without our permission! The thirteen colonies denied the divine right of kings, and the derived authority of government figures, in 1776. They proclaimed the authority of “The People”, a hitherto unknown concept that was adopted by the French revolution a few years later. We, in case anyone has forgotten, are the people, and all government authority in this nation devolves from us, the governed. Our authority is intended to be expressed by our elected representatives, whom we select and send to congress to speak in our behalf. The operative phrase here is “to speak in our behalf”, and not on behalf of a particular ideology, or for special interests.
We have a set of laws, our Constitution, that quite clearly specify the powers and the duties of the three branches of our federal government. That constitution (in the Tenth Amendment) also clearly states that all other powers are reserved to the individual states, or to the people. An addendum to the constitution specifically states that we have certain rights that the government may not interfere with. That particular section we call the Bill of Rights… However, it would appear of late that our government, without our permission, has decided that much of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, have no real meaning, and can safely be ignored at will.
A slew of recent books about the current administration's wars at home and abroad might leave you wondering if President Bush and Vice President Cheney are the new Axis of Evil. In excruciating detail, these books tell tales of torture, warrantless wiretaps, of arrest and imprisonment without trial. They show a relentless grab for presidential power and distain for what were thought to be solid constitutional limitations. The picture that emerges is so bleak that even serious journalists and scholars sometimes lean toward conspiracy theories. The administration's defenders, meanwhile, grow strident, claiming that the Bush administration is up against "a domestic insurgency" led by "journalistic devotees of the Vietnam syndrome," isolationists, "liberal internationalists" and (heaven forbid) "realists." The Bush and Cheney who emerge from these pages cherish secrecy, they deplore constraint and they sneer at dissent, so nothing and nobody can dissuade them from their chosen course. Reality checks are not allowed.
The views on presidential power held by the present administration will create many a problem for future presidents. Cheney and Bush will leave presidential powers enhanced at the expense of Congress and the courts, to the detriment of the checks and balances essential to our constitutional system. There's already some concern among Republicans fearful that Hillary Clinton will reap the benefits. After all, no president will want to see his or her imperial authority eroded. The expansive powers presently claimed and exercised by President Bush are now an immutable part of American history, not controversies, but facts. The worldwide war with terrorists that is so important to expanded presidential power will go on as well. What might have seemed farfetched political and military fantasies several years ago are inescapable realities today.
Nobody will argue that many of the domestic actions taken by the federal government since 9/11 are in direct violation of our constitutional rights. For all intents and purposes the so called “Patriot Act” effectively suspends the Constitution of the United States, establishes a police state, and allows the US President to pretty well do whatever he pleases irreguardless of the law. However, unlike many on the left (and more than a few on the right as well), I have a lot of trouble believing that all our problems are the result of a vast “Bush-Cheney Conspiracy”. Rather I submit that what we see happening today is the result of the current administration doing nothing more than taking advantage of several decades of congressional malfeasance! Congress has through the years handed over to the executive much of their constitutional authority, apparently as it interfered with their constant struggle to be reelected. Add to that, the judicial branch has been so busy with social and environmental activism that they have ignored their constitutional duty to see that the federal “balance of power” remained on an even keel.
Jack Goldsmith, who briefly served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, a conservative academic and generally a supporter of a strong executive, argues in his book "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration" that much of what was done in the early days after 9/11 is perfectly understandable. Threats seemed to be everywhere. A second wave of attacks appeared imminent and all but inevitable. "The President had to do what he had to do to protect the country," writes Goldsmith. "And the lawyers had to find some way to make what he did legal." However, unlike previous war presidents (Lincoln and FDR) who severely bent the Constitution in order to save it, and took responsibility for doing so, the Bush administration has hidden behind a wall of secrecy, as if public ignorance were the best way to give the president the powers he needed
In fact, the present situation is far from the civil war some writers would have us believe will soon be here, and certainly not the “shooting war” so popular in fiction. After all, with the steady errosion of our second ammendment rights, just what are we supposed to shoot with? Hunting rifles against tanks? Shotguns against attack helicopters? I don’t think so! But this is a good moment to take stock of the more subtle parts of these books: stories of score-settling at home, a new kind of enemy abroad, war profiteering and corruption, righteous intentions, grand visions, and bad information. If there is a recurrent theme, it's that the present administration set out to create its own reality, whether approaching the Bill of Rights like a little understood document, or readying itself for war in Iraq (and Iran?) with a steady diet of dubious intelligence.
Remember that every totalitarian state in recorded history has required three things to exist. They require extensive government secrecy, they require a foreign enemy to threaten the population, and they require a domestic enemy (usually imaginary) to justify a widespread internal security apparatus.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Ron Paul
I’m not in the habit of plugging any particular political candidate, unless of course I happen to be down at the local watering hole discussing politics with a few friends. I will however, often be heard chipping my teeth about some political idiot or other who has aroused my ire, at which time I have to be careful of loosing my temper and excessively raising my blood pressure. So, to keep my Doctor from getting overly concerned about my well being, I won’t have much to say about the political stance of the current Democratic presidential hopefuls, nor most of the Republican candidates either. It happens that I’m one of that vast multitude of independent voters in this country who generally don’t follow any particular party line. As so many other people claim, I like to think that I’m a political moderate, with fairly strong conservative leanings. Unlike many people in this country, I try to keep current on the issues and the various candidates’ position. When the candidates begin their political speeches you’ll generally find me over in the corner someplace, probably with a woebegone expression on my face, and most likely shaking my head in disgust. If however, the speaker is advocating infringement of my constitutional rights, or yet another scheme to bring on socialism, you’ll generally find me loudly screaming protests from atop my soapbox.
Today however I’m going to make a few comments about 72 year old Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of the Republican presidential hopefuls, who, contrary to most mainstream press reports, appears to be highly popular with many voters, and is conducting a rather unusual but highly effective campaign. It’s hard to say just what his political leaning actually is, essentially a mix of libertarian and constitutionalist ideas, and a bit of republicanism mixed in. Essentially a pariah to the GOP caucus, Rep Paul, who was the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate, does not hew to the party line, and thus is not a “good” republican worthy of party support. Interestingly enough he has gone from being a “nut” to a “nonentity” to a “fringe” to a “second tier” candidate in an amazingly short time, and he doesn’t appear to be slowing down a bit. During the early presidential debates last spring, leading GOP candidates treated Congressman Paul a bit like a libertarian nut. He was someone to be tolerated or mocked - and even the moderators acted like he was a distraction to endure until they could ask the big guns important questions. The media initially treated him like an interesting oddball, but an oddball nonetheless. Why? Because alone among the Republican candidates, Paul is strongly against the war in Iraq and is highly critical of American military presence anywhere in the Middle East. Of course I might point out that an “ignore him” strategy is not entirely out of fashion either. At least it’s apparently in vogue at MSNBC which wrote their headlines to deny Ron Paul the credit for another straw poll victory. The poll in question was at the recent Nevada Conservative Leadership Conference held in Sparks. In this, Ron Paul didn’t show up in person to shake hands, but he clearly finished first in the poll, while GOP front-runner Mitt Romney did appear, and finished a poor second. The MSNBC article is entitled "ROMNEY LOSES NV STRAW POLL" rather than "Ron Paul Wins NV Straw Poll", and while it mentions Paul’s win exactly once, eighty percent of the article is devoted to Romney. As one Internet commentator put it, "the resulting comments from Ron Paul supporters are priceless."
Attacks on candidate Paul are part of a trend toward belittling him and his constitutionalist message now that ignoring him hasn't worked - as he regularly continues to win straw polls and raise even more funds. The influx of money has helped Paul make his first TV ad in New Hampshire, a luxury several second-tier Republican candidates have yet to indulge in. And he's clearly found a following - if not among Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, then among an apparently widespread and rapidly growing coalition of “old style” conservatives, constitutionalists, disgruntled republicans, the libertarian right, and (perhaps) many of the anti-war left. Like Howard Dean in 2004, Paul has a huge following on the Internet and draws tons of traffic to his websites. He raised $5 million during the third quarter of 2007, giving him more money in the bank than John McCain. Now he's stunned Republican frontrunners by ringing up $4.3 million in donations during a one-day Internet fundraiser. Much like John Kennedy’s revolutionary use of television in 1960, Ron Paul seems to have discovered the political use of the Internet.
But his ideas are definitely catching on with many voters who are totally disgusted with “Republicrat” politics as usual. Here's what Paul said when asked about Republicans and the war: "Republicans have been conservative and anti-war and picked up the pieces when Democrats get us into trouble. It's a constitutional and conservative position. I don't feel out of place ... It discourages me that Republicans aren't open-minded enough to look at their history and look at a traditional Republican conservative position. Because they are going to lose another election if they don't...“ But while Paul's anger over Iraq has generated the headlines, it's his views on other core conservative Republican issues that may be fuelling his success. Paul is, as it happens, also firmly anti-abortion, pro-gun, and anti-NAFTA. He believes the freedoms and liberties of Americans have been threatened by the White House, and cites the Patriot Act as a particular danger. He favors a return to the gold standard, and a drastically reduced federal government that would be primarily responsible for defending America from outside attack and not a heck of a lot else. In a Ron Paul administration - au revoir Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Education. No one really expects that a new President can wave a magic wand and change policies that have been existent for years, in some cases even before the New Deal was foisted on the American people. It’s hoped what will happen is that a new congress, supporting a Paul administration, will slowly turn the ship of state back to its Constitutional roots and the Republic will be restored. Hard to believe? What’s even more unbelievable is that the American people should allow “politics as usual” to continue eroding the American way of life, and destroying U.S. sovereignty, by supporting candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties that are, in reality, nothing more than another set of puppet mouthpieces for globalized corporate campaign contributors and special interests.
There's been plenty of tangible evidence to Paul’s appeal. He finished third in a recent straw poll at the "Values Voters" convention in Washington - ahead of Fred Thompson, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. And he's got a strong following among economic conservatives furious with President Bush's big-spending habits over the past seven years. It may be that Paul's supporters are not concentrated enough to help in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3rd. But he's dangerous enough that Republican insiders are worried, for his widespread followers are numerous, very vocal, intensely motivated, and quite easily stirred up.
One comment I recently read from the “Ron Paul Revolution” that I particularly liked is - “Americans have had enough. We're going to reclaim our country. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”
Today however I’m going to make a few comments about 72 year old Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of the Republican presidential hopefuls, who, contrary to most mainstream press reports, appears to be highly popular with many voters, and is conducting a rather unusual but highly effective campaign. It’s hard to say just what his political leaning actually is, essentially a mix of libertarian and constitutionalist ideas, and a bit of republicanism mixed in. Essentially a pariah to the GOP caucus, Rep Paul, who was the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate, does not hew to the party line, and thus is not a “good” republican worthy of party support. Interestingly enough he has gone from being a “nut” to a “nonentity” to a “fringe” to a “second tier” candidate in an amazingly short time, and he doesn’t appear to be slowing down a bit. During the early presidential debates last spring, leading GOP candidates treated Congressman Paul a bit like a libertarian nut. He was someone to be tolerated or mocked - and even the moderators acted like he was a distraction to endure until they could ask the big guns important questions. The media initially treated him like an interesting oddball, but an oddball nonetheless. Why? Because alone among the Republican candidates, Paul is strongly against the war in Iraq and is highly critical of American military presence anywhere in the Middle East. Of course I might point out that an “ignore him” strategy is not entirely out of fashion either. At least it’s apparently in vogue at MSNBC which wrote their headlines to deny Ron Paul the credit for another straw poll victory. The poll in question was at the recent Nevada Conservative Leadership Conference held in Sparks. In this, Ron Paul didn’t show up in person to shake hands, but he clearly finished first in the poll, while GOP front-runner Mitt Romney did appear, and finished a poor second. The MSNBC article is entitled "ROMNEY LOSES NV STRAW POLL" rather than "Ron Paul Wins NV Straw Poll", and while it mentions Paul’s win exactly once, eighty percent of the article is devoted to Romney. As one Internet commentator put it, "the resulting comments from Ron Paul supporters are priceless."
Attacks on candidate Paul are part of a trend toward belittling him and his constitutionalist message now that ignoring him hasn't worked - as he regularly continues to win straw polls and raise even more funds. The influx of money has helped Paul make his first TV ad in New Hampshire, a luxury several second-tier Republican candidates have yet to indulge in. And he's clearly found a following - if not among Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, then among an apparently widespread and rapidly growing coalition of “old style” conservatives, constitutionalists, disgruntled republicans, the libertarian right, and (perhaps) many of the anti-war left. Like Howard Dean in 2004, Paul has a huge following on the Internet and draws tons of traffic to his websites. He raised $5 million during the third quarter of 2007, giving him more money in the bank than John McCain. Now he's stunned Republican frontrunners by ringing up $4.3 million in donations during a one-day Internet fundraiser. Much like John Kennedy’s revolutionary use of television in 1960, Ron Paul seems to have discovered the political use of the Internet.
But his ideas are definitely catching on with many voters who are totally disgusted with “Republicrat” politics as usual. Here's what Paul said when asked about Republicans and the war: "Republicans have been conservative and anti-war and picked up the pieces when Democrats get us into trouble. It's a constitutional and conservative position. I don't feel out of place ... It discourages me that Republicans aren't open-minded enough to look at their history and look at a traditional Republican conservative position. Because they are going to lose another election if they don't...“ But while Paul's anger over Iraq has generated the headlines, it's his views on other core conservative Republican issues that may be fuelling his success. Paul is, as it happens, also firmly anti-abortion, pro-gun, and anti-NAFTA. He believes the freedoms and liberties of Americans have been threatened by the White House, and cites the Patriot Act as a particular danger. He favors a return to the gold standard, and a drastically reduced federal government that would be primarily responsible for defending America from outside attack and not a heck of a lot else. In a Ron Paul administration - au revoir Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Education. No one really expects that a new President can wave a magic wand and change policies that have been existent for years, in some cases even before the New Deal was foisted on the American people. It’s hoped what will happen is that a new congress, supporting a Paul administration, will slowly turn the ship of state back to its Constitutional roots and the Republic will be restored. Hard to believe? What’s even more unbelievable is that the American people should allow “politics as usual” to continue eroding the American way of life, and destroying U.S. sovereignty, by supporting candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties that are, in reality, nothing more than another set of puppet mouthpieces for globalized corporate campaign contributors and special interests.
There's been plenty of tangible evidence to Paul’s appeal. He finished third in a recent straw poll at the "Values Voters" convention in Washington - ahead of Fred Thompson, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. And he's got a strong following among economic conservatives furious with President Bush's big-spending habits over the past seven years. It may be that Paul's supporters are not concentrated enough to help in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3rd. But he's dangerous enough that Republican insiders are worried, for his widespread followers are numerous, very vocal, intensely motivated, and quite easily stirred up.
One comment I recently read from the “Ron Paul Revolution” that I particularly liked is - “Americans have had enough. We're going to reclaim our country. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The Law
Americans are justly proud of their nation, it’s history, and it’s people. With a touch of smugness, and a lot of history to back us up, we loudly proclaim ourselves to be “The land of the free, and the home of the brave”. Since the first colonists landed on our shores, we’ve been a people set apart from our European roots, highly independent, self sufficient, innovative, curious, adaptable, and nearly always looking to the future. A meld of all European cultures, and with not a just few folks from other parts of the world mixed in, America became a melting pot that produced a boisterous, hardy, rough and tumble lot, equally willing to shake hands and share a tot of whiskey with a stranger, or engage him in a knock-down drag out fight, as circumstances warranted. We had a strong independent streak, a well overdeveloped sense of right and wrong, and the good sense to keep our noses out of other peoples business, admirable traits that are quite definitely reflected in the wording of our Constitution. We became a people that proudly went when and where we pleased, allowing no interference and submitting to no limitations on our individual rights and freedom.
But in reality, just how free are we today? Well, we can go nearly anywhere and do almost anything we want, as long as we stay within the limitations of a long and constantly growing list of laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and directives, as ordered by a seemingly endless line of local, state, and federal governing bodies that severely restrict our activities. I guess it’s a necessity for bureaucratic purposes, but we start out by requiring a birth certificate, a piece of paper that tells all and sundry that we were born. If someone is standing right there in front of me, I suspect I can safely assume that he was born… for despite my private thoughts about a few people, I rather doubt they actually crawled out from under a rock. We require a social security number as well, ostensibly so the government can keep track of our earnings through the years, and hopefully supply us with an equitable pittance if we live long enough to retire. It’s also a real handy means of tracking our place of employment whenever the authorities decide they want to discuss some infraction of the rules with us. The law requires that we send our kids to school (in some cases a total waste of time and resources I think), thereby creating a paper trail of scholastic records that follow those young people throughout their lives. The law tells us what the kids are expected to study in school, although I do think that the three R’s are probably quite difficult enough in most cases. But have you ever really looked at the list of “subjects” required by law, and offered for scholastic credit these days!? Throughout our lives we’re followed by a paper trail, mandated by law, of school records, legal records, tax records, military records, employment records, financial records, census records, and the Lord only knows what other records the government has hidden away in the files!
If we own property we have to abide with planning and zoning rules, along with numerous building codes, neighborhood association rules, and property restrictions, all limiting what we may or may not do with our property. If we own a car or a truck, the law tells us what we can or can’t do with that vehicle and how it is to be equipped, along with requiring an assortment of permits, a drivers license, vehicle license, and of course insurance (heaven help us if we neglect to get all of them), along with a confusing jumble of regional traffic laws as well. If we want to go hunting or fishing, we have to abide by all sorts of fish and game rules and regulations, requiring licenses, tags, stamps, and permits. We’re supposed to be politically correct and sensitive to the feelings of others, no matter what those feelings might entail. And don’t forget that either, lest you be tried and convicted of bigotry and “hate crimes” as defined under an assortment of rather vague laws. I guess I’m confessing to committing a crime, but I really do hate it when the law orders the symbols of my religion removed from public display because they might disturb the tender sensitivities of someone of a different religion, but their religious symbols can be legally displayed despite my sensitivities. I also hate it when some people can indiscriminately kill Americans in the name of their religion, and we’re required by law to be considerate of their feelings!
The founders of our nation gave us a Constitutional Republic, and not (contrary to popular belief) the mob rule of an open democracy. Essentially we are expected to select the “brightest and best” of our citizens to represent our interests in the ruling of our nation. These elected representatives supposedly serve at our pleasure, and are expected to do what is best for the nation and by that what is best for the American people. In this day and age however, it seems that our “lawmakers” have taken the job title seriously and spend their time producing an endless series of new laws based on nearly every hare-brained scheme and dumb idea that comes along! Admittedly they will, on occasion, come up with something useful, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. It wouldn’t be so bad I expect, if every new law had a mandatory “sunset clause” attached, whereby it automatically expired after a given period of time. Such a provision would be particularly useful if we consider the vast number of hundred plus year old “Blue Laws” still on the books nationwide, and never having been repealed are still quite enforceable!
At the same time, and I will repeat, we are not a democracy. Nonetheless, following that “Democracy” idea, we have presidential candidates vying with each other to pass even more laws, spending what’s left of our public funds in vote buying social engineering schemes. Many of these candidates want to pass laws giving all kinds of money, benefits, and even social security to illegal immigrants. Leaving no child behind, we have laws requiring a massive increase in educational expenses, that will probably be expanded into government mandated classes in hard rock appreciation and the glories of the Hollywierd drug culture. Along with the drive for laws creating nationwide socialized medicine, we can also expect to see laws generating a nationwide children’s health insurance program that not only covers poverty stricken or low income families, but every child in the country including those whose fortunate parents make a few million dollars a year!
Laws, rules, regulations… government orders enforced by the police and the military, controlling and restricting every aspect of a supposedly free peoples existence. Laws, major and minor, that fill our overcrowded prisons with people convicted of all sorts of offenses, both serious crimes and some quite frivolous mistakes. In my mind, what we need are far fewer laws, and more common sense, in this country. Of course a little self-discipline on the part of many citizens wouldn’t hurt either, but in accordance with the law, neither parents nor our schools can teach that subject anymore.
But in reality, just how free are we today? Well, we can go nearly anywhere and do almost anything we want, as long as we stay within the limitations of a long and constantly growing list of laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and directives, as ordered by a seemingly endless line of local, state, and federal governing bodies that severely restrict our activities. I guess it’s a necessity for bureaucratic purposes, but we start out by requiring a birth certificate, a piece of paper that tells all and sundry that we were born. If someone is standing right there in front of me, I suspect I can safely assume that he was born… for despite my private thoughts about a few people, I rather doubt they actually crawled out from under a rock. We require a social security number as well, ostensibly so the government can keep track of our earnings through the years, and hopefully supply us with an equitable pittance if we live long enough to retire. It’s also a real handy means of tracking our place of employment whenever the authorities decide they want to discuss some infraction of the rules with us. The law requires that we send our kids to school (in some cases a total waste of time and resources I think), thereby creating a paper trail of scholastic records that follow those young people throughout their lives. The law tells us what the kids are expected to study in school, although I do think that the three R’s are probably quite difficult enough in most cases. But have you ever really looked at the list of “subjects” required by law, and offered for scholastic credit these days!? Throughout our lives we’re followed by a paper trail, mandated by law, of school records, legal records, tax records, military records, employment records, financial records, census records, and the Lord only knows what other records the government has hidden away in the files!
If we own property we have to abide with planning and zoning rules, along with numerous building codes, neighborhood association rules, and property restrictions, all limiting what we may or may not do with our property. If we own a car or a truck, the law tells us what we can or can’t do with that vehicle and how it is to be equipped, along with requiring an assortment of permits, a drivers license, vehicle license, and of course insurance (heaven help us if we neglect to get all of them), along with a confusing jumble of regional traffic laws as well. If we want to go hunting or fishing, we have to abide by all sorts of fish and game rules and regulations, requiring licenses, tags, stamps, and permits. We’re supposed to be politically correct and sensitive to the feelings of others, no matter what those feelings might entail. And don’t forget that either, lest you be tried and convicted of bigotry and “hate crimes” as defined under an assortment of rather vague laws. I guess I’m confessing to committing a crime, but I really do hate it when the law orders the symbols of my religion removed from public display because they might disturb the tender sensitivities of someone of a different religion, but their religious symbols can be legally displayed despite my sensitivities. I also hate it when some people can indiscriminately kill Americans in the name of their religion, and we’re required by law to be considerate of their feelings!
The founders of our nation gave us a Constitutional Republic, and not (contrary to popular belief) the mob rule of an open democracy. Essentially we are expected to select the “brightest and best” of our citizens to represent our interests in the ruling of our nation. These elected representatives supposedly serve at our pleasure, and are expected to do what is best for the nation and by that what is best for the American people. In this day and age however, it seems that our “lawmakers” have taken the job title seriously and spend their time producing an endless series of new laws based on nearly every hare-brained scheme and dumb idea that comes along! Admittedly they will, on occasion, come up with something useful, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. It wouldn’t be so bad I expect, if every new law had a mandatory “sunset clause” attached, whereby it automatically expired after a given period of time. Such a provision would be particularly useful if we consider the vast number of hundred plus year old “Blue Laws” still on the books nationwide, and never having been repealed are still quite enforceable!
At the same time, and I will repeat, we are not a democracy. Nonetheless, following that “Democracy” idea, we have presidential candidates vying with each other to pass even more laws, spending what’s left of our public funds in vote buying social engineering schemes. Many of these candidates want to pass laws giving all kinds of money, benefits, and even social security to illegal immigrants. Leaving no child behind, we have laws requiring a massive increase in educational expenses, that will probably be expanded into government mandated classes in hard rock appreciation and the glories of the Hollywierd drug culture. Along with the drive for laws creating nationwide socialized medicine, we can also expect to see laws generating a nationwide children’s health insurance program that not only covers poverty stricken or low income families, but every child in the country including those whose fortunate parents make a few million dollars a year!
Laws, rules, regulations… government orders enforced by the police and the military, controlling and restricting every aspect of a supposedly free peoples existence. Laws, major and minor, that fill our overcrowded prisons with people convicted of all sorts of offenses, both serious crimes and some quite frivolous mistakes. In my mind, what we need are far fewer laws, and more common sense, in this country. Of course a little self-discipline on the part of many citizens wouldn’t hurt either, but in accordance with the law, neither parents nor our schools can teach that subject anymore.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Appeasement
There’s an old saying that’s seemingly been around forever, “If you can’t learn the lessons of history, then you’re cursed to relive them.” It’s pretty much the same thing as when your Dad told you that he was trying to save you from making the same mistakes he made. Unfortunately for most of us, we hear, but we don’t listen, and we suffer the consequences as a result. There are reasons to study history… to understand the mistakes made in the past, and use that knowledge to avoid making those same mistakes now. But I guess its human nature to learn the hard way, and it appears we’re on the verge of doing it again.
Sixty years ago appeasement cost millions of Jews their lives, as England and France negotiated and hesitated far too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to meaningless agreements. Appeasement legitimized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, suppressive and quite murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though they had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, Europeans debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do their work for them, and not incidentally saving tens of thousands of Muslim lives.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now ignores suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is discovered that the loudest critics of the American war in Iraq made tens of billions of illicit dollars in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.And now we are faced with other forms of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Europe? By suggesting that they really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany! A substantial fraction of the German Government, and if the polls are correct the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will spare them from the wrath of fanatical Muslims. I recall the pictures of Neville Chamberlain waving the White Paper signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the western public and its political leadership catch on? There is a sort of crusade underway, a crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against Western societies, and fully intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It’s a conflict that will probably continue longer than any war of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be “appeased” by the liberals much touted compromise, nor tamed by tolerance and accommodation, but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for a sign of weakness.
For his policies, President Bush risks the fall of the dollar, additional national debt, a massive burden on the American economy, and political suicide… because unlike almost all of Europe, he realizes what is at stake - literally everything. While Europeans criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, they timidly defend their Social Welfare systems. “Stay out of it!” they wail, “It could get expensive!” In this country we'd rather discuss reducing our workweek, the costs of health care, or the price of gasoline. Or listen to the anti-was crowd preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists… understand and forgive". Today, we find America’s liberals preaching much the same thing as their European brethren, all conveniently forgetting that if you once pay the Danegeld you still have the Danes to contend with, and they will be back next year, with even greater demands.
The somewhat misnamed “War on Terror” is not being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are merely individual battles in a world wide war that pits the western concept of a free and open civilization against a fifteen hundred year old dictatorial religion founded in the deserts of the mid-east by a warlike nomadic society, and based on total subjugation to the will of a few “rulers”. The first crusade of 1095 AD was ostensibly fought to free the holy land from non-Christians, or at least that was the general excuse. It was also fought to halt Muslim excursions (read “invasions”) into western Christian lands, most notably the vestiges of the Eastern Holy Roman Empire in Constantinople. That crusade was marginally successful only because the Arabic Muslims were disorganized both politically and militarily. They also had no real idea of how to fight the heavily armored knights of Europe. Over the following centuries the Arabs became better organized, and adopted the highly mobile light cavalry tactics of the eastern steppe nomads, to which the western knights in their turn could not adapt. The following crusades became an ongoing war of attrition which the west was ill suited to sustain, and subsequently Europe lost its tenuous hold on the Holy Land.
Since those long ago days, the Arabic style of war changed little until the twentieth century and the massive influx of western “petro-dollars”. With that money they could buy the modern toys of the more developed nations. Today we see Arab national armies equipped with modern western weapons, which for the most part they little understand and are generally ill suited to use against our western armies. However, the Arabic fundamentalists understand this problem, and unlike the west are adapting to the changing times. They are not fighting us tank for tank, or jet fighter for jet fighter. Instead they utilize a form of guerrilla warfare, terror, pitting the snipers bullet, IED, and suicide bomber against civilians. Guerrilla warfare is something that western leaders have been notoriously slow to understand, and against which our conventional military wisdom has had little success over the last fifty years.
Fortunately for the west, the Arabs are again politically disorganized, and divided along religious lines. But we, in our arrogance, mistakenly assume that Islamic fundamentalists think in the same manner we do, that they have similar values, and that they can be swayed by our logic. We thought much the same about Hitler, and about the Communists. We failed to heed the warnings of Mien Kampf, and got WW II as the result. We ignored the Communist Manifesto, and got the Cold War. Today we fail to heed the warnings of the Quran, and hope to “appease” fundamentalist Islam.
It would seem that far too many of our national leaders refuse to learn from history, and once again are sentencing us to relive it.
Sixty years ago appeasement cost millions of Jews their lives, as England and France negotiated and hesitated far too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to meaningless agreements. Appeasement legitimized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, suppressive and quite murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though they had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, Europeans debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do their work for them, and not incidentally saving tens of thousands of Muslim lives.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now ignores suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is discovered that the loudest critics of the American war in Iraq made tens of billions of illicit dollars in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.And now we are faced with other forms of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Europe? By suggesting that they really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany! A substantial fraction of the German Government, and if the polls are correct the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will spare them from the wrath of fanatical Muslims. I recall the pictures of Neville Chamberlain waving the White Paper signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the western public and its political leadership catch on? There is a sort of crusade underway, a crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against Western societies, and fully intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It’s a conflict that will probably continue longer than any war of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be “appeased” by the liberals much touted compromise, nor tamed by tolerance and accommodation, but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for a sign of weakness.
For his policies, President Bush risks the fall of the dollar, additional national debt, a massive burden on the American economy, and political suicide… because unlike almost all of Europe, he realizes what is at stake - literally everything. While Europeans criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, they timidly defend their Social Welfare systems. “Stay out of it!” they wail, “It could get expensive!” In this country we'd rather discuss reducing our workweek, the costs of health care, or the price of gasoline. Or listen to the anti-was crowd preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists… understand and forgive". Today, we find America’s liberals preaching much the same thing as their European brethren, all conveniently forgetting that if you once pay the Danegeld you still have the Danes to contend with, and they will be back next year, with even greater demands.
The somewhat misnamed “War on Terror” is not being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are merely individual battles in a world wide war that pits the western concept of a free and open civilization against a fifteen hundred year old dictatorial religion founded in the deserts of the mid-east by a warlike nomadic society, and based on total subjugation to the will of a few “rulers”. The first crusade of 1095 AD was ostensibly fought to free the holy land from non-Christians, or at least that was the general excuse. It was also fought to halt Muslim excursions (read “invasions”) into western Christian lands, most notably the vestiges of the Eastern Holy Roman Empire in Constantinople. That crusade was marginally successful only because the Arabic Muslims were disorganized both politically and militarily. They also had no real idea of how to fight the heavily armored knights of Europe. Over the following centuries the Arabs became better organized, and adopted the highly mobile light cavalry tactics of the eastern steppe nomads, to which the western knights in their turn could not adapt. The following crusades became an ongoing war of attrition which the west was ill suited to sustain, and subsequently Europe lost its tenuous hold on the Holy Land.
Since those long ago days, the Arabic style of war changed little until the twentieth century and the massive influx of western “petro-dollars”. With that money they could buy the modern toys of the more developed nations. Today we see Arab national armies equipped with modern western weapons, which for the most part they little understand and are generally ill suited to use against our western armies. However, the Arabic fundamentalists understand this problem, and unlike the west are adapting to the changing times. They are not fighting us tank for tank, or jet fighter for jet fighter. Instead they utilize a form of guerrilla warfare, terror, pitting the snipers bullet, IED, and suicide bomber against civilians. Guerrilla warfare is something that western leaders have been notoriously slow to understand, and against which our conventional military wisdom has had little success over the last fifty years.
Fortunately for the west, the Arabs are again politically disorganized, and divided along religious lines. But we, in our arrogance, mistakenly assume that Islamic fundamentalists think in the same manner we do, that they have similar values, and that they can be swayed by our logic. We thought much the same about Hitler, and about the Communists. We failed to heed the warnings of Mien Kampf, and got WW II as the result. We ignored the Communist Manifesto, and got the Cold War. Today we fail to heed the warnings of the Quran, and hope to “appease” fundamentalist Islam.
It would seem that far too many of our national leaders refuse to learn from history, and once again are sentencing us to relive it.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Candidates
I’ve stated repeatedly that I for one am not real impressed with the Presidential candidates currently parading themselves before the voters. For the most part they strike me as being little more than a mob of Ho-Hum “kinder, gentler” wimps with not a lot of leadership traits, which, considering the global mess we’ve managed to get ourselves into during the course of the last few regimes is about the last thing we need in the White House! The concept of a kinder, gentler world is all well and fine I suppose, and would probably be a very nice place to live, as long as they leave the socialism part out of it. But to make that happen, the rest of the world has to agree with the idea, and everyone would have to work towards that lofty end. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, it’s also an unachievable goal, and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future for that matter. Comparing today’s geopolitics to the sea, those are shark infested waters out there, and certainly no place for a peaceful little sardine to be swimming around in if he hopes to survive. In today’s world you had better be the biggest shark around if you don’t want to be somebody else’s supper! As a sop to the bleeding hearts among us I’ll add that the big shark doesn’t necessarily have to be an aggressive bully either, just big and bad enough that nobody else wants to pick a fight with him. Unfortunately the United States no longer meets those standards, instead we’ve become little more than the biggest, fattest, juiciest sardine in the sea, and the real sharks are quickly gathering ‘round.
The president of the United States is inevitably faced with two broad categories of problems, usually defined as Foreign policy and Domestic policy, and he’d better be an expert on both subjects. Then of course he has a few other concerns such as a congress that seemingly can’t agree with anybody about anything, bloodthirsty political opponents, a sensation seeking media that has learned to make immense mountains out of minor molehills, a politically ignorant population, special interests, and a bureaucracy that’s out to grab everything they can. To be successful he’s got to be brilliant, courageous, a master of diplomacy, an expert in the military sciences, an economist, a world class administrator, an accomplished public speaker, and a “man of the people” preferably with the Wisdom of Solomon. I also think it would help to have an extensive background in tightrope walking.
All the current candidates claim to have “experience” of course, although none of them have ever occupied the Oval Office, or faced the problems that come with the job. Instead we get some with experience in congress to one extent or another. A few have been the governors of their home states or big city mayors. Some have assorted corporate executive experience as well. One is even a medical doctor. Hillary is the only candidate that’s actually lived in the white house, but as “co-president” she seemed to spend most of her time firing the travel office people, and apologizing for Bill’s interest in interns and his difficulties in understanding the simpler words in the English language. None of the candidates are very charismatic, and for the most part are hardly known outside their home states. While I hear a lot of talk about how they’re going to do this, that, or the other thing, I don’t hear much about the important things, like how they plan to get all these bright ideas past congress and other special interest groups, nor of how they figure to finance things.
I found an interesting internet website that’s a computerized matrix combining the various candidates and their stance on the primary issues. It’s open to the public, wherein you can “vote” on how much you agree or disagree with the particular position of any candidate. On a scale of nine, with “one” being strongly agreed with, “five” being indifferent, and “nine” being strongly disagreed with, all the candidates were rated at a more or less “Blah” four, five, and six by the respondents, with some being only a bit more popular on certain issues than others. For viewers with a mathematical bent the voter statistics are given, but for the rest of us the results are color coded, with bright red being strongly disagree, and bright green being strongly agree. The five issues considered are; the economy, energy, health care, immigration, and the war in Iraq.
The condition of the national economy generates a lot of bright ideas and instant cures among the candidates, but the respondent rating is a more or less indifferent “five” in all cases. Energy independence seems to be about the same, with Bill Richardson’s ideas being the most popular at a three. The response to health care proposals is also rather indifferent, with Chris Dodd being the least popular by a very small margin. The immigration issue is much the same, with Ron Paul having by far the most popular stance at a resounding three, and Chris Dodd the least popular. Despite all the media coverage, the proposals for ending the war in Iraq can only be analyzed as varying levels of indifference! Here, Joe Biden and Ron Paul’s ideas are tied for being the most agreed with, and Tom Tancredo leads the pack in disagreement. Keeping in mind that the ratings change with every vote, Obama is the most popular Democrat at the time of this writing, and Ron Paul is the leading Republican. However, no candidate is yet a clear winner on any issue.
Perhaps these presidential hopefuls should start looking for a different set of issues to pillory their opponents with? How about things like the burgeoning bureaucracy, looming national bankruptcy, public education, tax reform, our worn out highways, and the rather run down condition of the military? Perhaps they could explain their position on homeland security, domestic spying, constitutional law, and our slowly disappearing Bill of Rights. Personally I’m very interested in what we’re going to do about manned space development as well, although I don’t hear much from any candidate on that subject.
All in all I guess the somewhat mediocre quality of the candidates we’ve been offered over the last few years is really a blessing in disguise. If we think about the congressional powers that have been meekly surrendered to the president, along with the powers of the Patriot Act and the long standing Executive Orders law, it’s not the least bit unimaginable that a strong and ambitious president could make himself dictator in short order. Nor is that unprecedented, remember that Adolf Hitler went from being the lawfully elected Chancellor of Weimar Germany to absolute dictator of the Third Reich, completely in accordance with existing German laws, and seemingly did it overnight.
As the great hot air machine on capitol hill seems to be little more than a debating society nowdays, perhaps our next President should make an issue of insisting Congress repeal some of those laws, and take back the authority granted them by our constitution.
The president of the United States is inevitably faced with two broad categories of problems, usually defined as Foreign policy and Domestic policy, and he’d better be an expert on both subjects. Then of course he has a few other concerns such as a congress that seemingly can’t agree with anybody about anything, bloodthirsty political opponents, a sensation seeking media that has learned to make immense mountains out of minor molehills, a politically ignorant population, special interests, and a bureaucracy that’s out to grab everything they can. To be successful he’s got to be brilliant, courageous, a master of diplomacy, an expert in the military sciences, an economist, a world class administrator, an accomplished public speaker, and a “man of the people” preferably with the Wisdom of Solomon. I also think it would help to have an extensive background in tightrope walking.
All the current candidates claim to have “experience” of course, although none of them have ever occupied the Oval Office, or faced the problems that come with the job. Instead we get some with experience in congress to one extent or another. A few have been the governors of their home states or big city mayors. Some have assorted corporate executive experience as well. One is even a medical doctor. Hillary is the only candidate that’s actually lived in the white house, but as “co-president” she seemed to spend most of her time firing the travel office people, and apologizing for Bill’s interest in interns and his difficulties in understanding the simpler words in the English language. None of the candidates are very charismatic, and for the most part are hardly known outside their home states. While I hear a lot of talk about how they’re going to do this, that, or the other thing, I don’t hear much about the important things, like how they plan to get all these bright ideas past congress and other special interest groups, nor of how they figure to finance things.
I found an interesting internet website that’s a computerized matrix combining the various candidates and their stance on the primary issues. It’s open to the public, wherein you can “vote” on how much you agree or disagree with the particular position of any candidate. On a scale of nine, with “one” being strongly agreed with, “five” being indifferent, and “nine” being strongly disagreed with, all the candidates were rated at a more or less “Blah” four, five, and six by the respondents, with some being only a bit more popular on certain issues than others. For viewers with a mathematical bent the voter statistics are given, but for the rest of us the results are color coded, with bright red being strongly disagree, and bright green being strongly agree. The five issues considered are; the economy, energy, health care, immigration, and the war in Iraq.
The condition of the national economy generates a lot of bright ideas and instant cures among the candidates, but the respondent rating is a more or less indifferent “five” in all cases. Energy independence seems to be about the same, with Bill Richardson’s ideas being the most popular at a three. The response to health care proposals is also rather indifferent, with Chris Dodd being the least popular by a very small margin. The immigration issue is much the same, with Ron Paul having by far the most popular stance at a resounding three, and Chris Dodd the least popular. Despite all the media coverage, the proposals for ending the war in Iraq can only be analyzed as varying levels of indifference! Here, Joe Biden and Ron Paul’s ideas are tied for being the most agreed with, and Tom Tancredo leads the pack in disagreement. Keeping in mind that the ratings change with every vote, Obama is the most popular Democrat at the time of this writing, and Ron Paul is the leading Republican. However, no candidate is yet a clear winner on any issue.
Perhaps these presidential hopefuls should start looking for a different set of issues to pillory their opponents with? How about things like the burgeoning bureaucracy, looming national bankruptcy, public education, tax reform, our worn out highways, and the rather run down condition of the military? Perhaps they could explain their position on homeland security, domestic spying, constitutional law, and our slowly disappearing Bill of Rights. Personally I’m very interested in what we’re going to do about manned space development as well, although I don’t hear much from any candidate on that subject.
All in all I guess the somewhat mediocre quality of the candidates we’ve been offered over the last few years is really a blessing in disguise. If we think about the congressional powers that have been meekly surrendered to the president, along with the powers of the Patriot Act and the long standing Executive Orders law, it’s not the least bit unimaginable that a strong and ambitious president could make himself dictator in short order. Nor is that unprecedented, remember that Adolf Hitler went from being the lawfully elected Chancellor of Weimar Germany to absolute dictator of the Third Reich, completely in accordance with existing German laws, and seemingly did it overnight.
As the great hot air machine on capitol hill seems to be little more than a debating society nowdays, perhaps our next President should make an issue of insisting Congress repeal some of those laws, and take back the authority granted them by our constitution.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Police State
“The Constitution of the United States was written by 55 men—and one ghost,” wrote military historian Dave R. Palmer. The nation’s Founders were quite well aware of Oliver Cromwell, who led the revolution that deposed King Charles I and established civil government in Great Britain. That democracy was short lived because when the newly formed Parliament refused to meet Cromwell’s demands, he used the army to seize power, establishing himself as Great Britain’s “Lord Protector.” To America’s Founding Fathers, the lesson was obvious: standing armies threaten liberty. Which explains why our Constitution divides control of the military between the executive and legislative branches of the government.
What America’s Founders did not foresee was the cold war era, where war could break out in a matter of moments, and widespread death and destruction was only a missile launch away. The war powers act was passed to allow the sitting president the authority to defend the nation (read “vaporize the Soviet Union”) in the event of a nuclear attack, where time would not allow Congress to issue a formal declaration of war. I suspect that if the cold war had turned hot, whatever was left of Congress, hunkered down in the national command bunker, would have been asked to issue a declaration of war, just to make things nice and legal of course. However, the War Powers Act was not intended to allow the President to indiscriminately start wars on his own. Just to confuse the issue even more, congress has not seen fit to rescind the war powers act in the seventeen years since the cold war ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today there’s even a movement afoot within the executive branch to militarize our borders, and to rescind the “Posse Comitatis” laws, which would give the president unlimited power to do anything he wants with the military, inside the United States.
In addition to handing their military authority over to the President, Congress also happily allows the president to control a small army of civilian police. The Secret Service, the National Park Police, the Transportation Security Administration, FBI, ATF, US Marshals Service, and dozens of other executive agencies act solely at the president’s behest and under his authority. It’s also been my understanding that the US Constitution does not give the federal government any law enforcement powers, instead leaving that authority with the Several States. The US Marshal Service was founded to police the vast western territories before they gained statehood. The FBI was only intended to be an investigative agency to assist the various state law enforcement organizations, and without any powers of arrest. The Secret Service was formed to chase down counterfeiters, not to protect the president! But instead of checking the expansion of executive police powers, members of Congress have virtually abandoned their oversight responsibilities, and allowed the president to become the virtual dictator of a shadowy Federal police state!
Although the growth of federal police powers began well before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the threat of terrorism is now used to justify their continued expansion. Restrictions on individual freedom are completely unchallenged as long as they are called “security measures.” After 9/11, the president closed the Statue of Liberty. Liberty Island has since reopened, but people can no longer go inside the statue to overlook New York City and the harbor. The statue that stands as a beacon of courage and freedom has now been closed off because of fear. Independence Hall in Philadelphia now resembles a heavily guarded prison facility. In Washington, D.C., entrances to public buildings are blocked by metal detectors and armed guards. Drivers near the Capitol can be randomly stopped by police on city streets and their cars searched by bomb sniffing dogs. Visiting museums requires waiting in long lines while backpacks and pocketbooks are searched. The Park Service has turned the Washington Monument into a surveillance tower, placing cameras on its observation deck that record activity on the National Mall and beyond. The Park Police fence off the National Mall before such events as the Fourth of July festivities and herd visitors in through checkpoints, which they no longer pretend are purely anti-terrorism measures. Park officials have admitted that they search picnic baskets and coolers for contraband, “alcoholic beverages, glass bottles, fireworks.”
In October 2001 Osama bin Laden boasted that terrorist attacks would achieve their purpose:
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The United States government will lead the American people into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” Life in the United States remains fairly good so far, and is a far cry from bin Laden’s “unbearable hell.” But some recent changes are rather worrying. Long lines, insistent searches, and odious identification requirements are becoming routine. Unwarranted intrusion and inconvenience are becoming the American way of life. To counter this insidious push for diminished liberty, we must examine the arguments behind it. The most common of course is that 9/11 “changed everything.” But life was also changed forever with the invention of gunpowder, aerial warfare, and of the atomic bomb. History is in large part the story of aggression, and restricting our freedoms certainly can’t stop that aggression.
Another argument used to justify excessive security at public landmarks is that police are merely “protecting the symbols of democracy.” But the symbol of democracy is an open society, not an ominous police presence. Terrorists have already hit our national monuments through the years, the difference being that after those earlier attacks, the government did not respond with hysteria. The war against terrorism is in large part a war against fear. To win this war, all Americans must accept the reality that our society will never be able to afford an environment that is totally free of risk from terrorist attacks. Nor would most Americans want to live with the restrictions that such a risk-free environment would demand. Then too, our nation’s leaders must be willing to demonstrate courage. Freedom prevailed in other times of national emergency only because our leaders did not succumb to fear. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated during the worst days of the Cold War, many in his administration feared his death was the start of a coup. If so, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson, would likely be the next target. Yet when Kennedy’s widow announced her intention to walk from the White House to her husband’s funeral, Johnson helped lead the procession that marched through the streets of downtown Washington rather than hiding out in the White House war room.
After winning rather vicious wars against the empires of Great Britain, Germany (twice), Japan, and the Soviet Union, will America now lose its freedom to a handful of religious zealots? “Terrorism succeeds,” said the late senator Patrick Moynihan, “when people become terrified.” Sadly, such success looms, unless America’s leaders begin defending our freedom and our Constitution, rather than giving in to their fears.
What America’s Founders did not foresee was the cold war era, where war could break out in a matter of moments, and widespread death and destruction was only a missile launch away. The war powers act was passed to allow the sitting president the authority to defend the nation (read “vaporize the Soviet Union”) in the event of a nuclear attack, where time would not allow Congress to issue a formal declaration of war. I suspect that if the cold war had turned hot, whatever was left of Congress, hunkered down in the national command bunker, would have been asked to issue a declaration of war, just to make things nice and legal of course. However, the War Powers Act was not intended to allow the President to indiscriminately start wars on his own. Just to confuse the issue even more, congress has not seen fit to rescind the war powers act in the seventeen years since the cold war ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today there’s even a movement afoot within the executive branch to militarize our borders, and to rescind the “Posse Comitatis” laws, which would give the president unlimited power to do anything he wants with the military, inside the United States.
In addition to handing their military authority over to the President, Congress also happily allows the president to control a small army of civilian police. The Secret Service, the National Park Police, the Transportation Security Administration, FBI, ATF, US Marshals Service, and dozens of other executive agencies act solely at the president’s behest and under his authority. It’s also been my understanding that the US Constitution does not give the federal government any law enforcement powers, instead leaving that authority with the Several States. The US Marshal Service was founded to police the vast western territories before they gained statehood. The FBI was only intended to be an investigative agency to assist the various state law enforcement organizations, and without any powers of arrest. The Secret Service was formed to chase down counterfeiters, not to protect the president! But instead of checking the expansion of executive police powers, members of Congress have virtually abandoned their oversight responsibilities, and allowed the president to become the virtual dictator of a shadowy Federal police state!
Although the growth of federal police powers began well before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the threat of terrorism is now used to justify their continued expansion. Restrictions on individual freedom are completely unchallenged as long as they are called “security measures.” After 9/11, the president closed the Statue of Liberty. Liberty Island has since reopened, but people can no longer go inside the statue to overlook New York City and the harbor. The statue that stands as a beacon of courage and freedom has now been closed off because of fear. Independence Hall in Philadelphia now resembles a heavily guarded prison facility. In Washington, D.C., entrances to public buildings are blocked by metal detectors and armed guards. Drivers near the Capitol can be randomly stopped by police on city streets and their cars searched by bomb sniffing dogs. Visiting museums requires waiting in long lines while backpacks and pocketbooks are searched. The Park Service has turned the Washington Monument into a surveillance tower, placing cameras on its observation deck that record activity on the National Mall and beyond. The Park Police fence off the National Mall before such events as the Fourth of July festivities and herd visitors in through checkpoints, which they no longer pretend are purely anti-terrorism measures. Park officials have admitted that they search picnic baskets and coolers for contraband, “alcoholic beverages, glass bottles, fireworks.”
In October 2001 Osama bin Laden boasted that terrorist attacks would achieve their purpose:
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The United States government will lead the American people into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” Life in the United States remains fairly good so far, and is a far cry from bin Laden’s “unbearable hell.” But some recent changes are rather worrying. Long lines, insistent searches, and odious identification requirements are becoming routine. Unwarranted intrusion and inconvenience are becoming the American way of life. To counter this insidious push for diminished liberty, we must examine the arguments behind it. The most common of course is that 9/11 “changed everything.” But life was also changed forever with the invention of gunpowder, aerial warfare, and of the atomic bomb. History is in large part the story of aggression, and restricting our freedoms certainly can’t stop that aggression.
Another argument used to justify excessive security at public landmarks is that police are merely “protecting the symbols of democracy.” But the symbol of democracy is an open society, not an ominous police presence. Terrorists have already hit our national monuments through the years, the difference being that after those earlier attacks, the government did not respond with hysteria. The war against terrorism is in large part a war against fear. To win this war, all Americans must accept the reality that our society will never be able to afford an environment that is totally free of risk from terrorist attacks. Nor would most Americans want to live with the restrictions that such a risk-free environment would demand. Then too, our nation’s leaders must be willing to demonstrate courage. Freedom prevailed in other times of national emergency only because our leaders did not succumb to fear. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated during the worst days of the Cold War, many in his administration feared his death was the start of a coup. If so, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson, would likely be the next target. Yet when Kennedy’s widow announced her intention to walk from the White House to her husband’s funeral, Johnson helped lead the procession that marched through the streets of downtown Washington rather than hiding out in the White House war room.
After winning rather vicious wars against the empires of Great Britain, Germany (twice), Japan, and the Soviet Union, will America now lose its freedom to a handful of religious zealots? “Terrorism succeeds,” said the late senator Patrick Moynihan, “when people become terrified.” Sadly, such success looms, unless America’s leaders begin defending our freedom and our Constitution, rather than giving in to their fears.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Climate Change
So far the presidential candidates haven’t had much to say about climate change or global warming. However, as the election draws nearer I’d expect to hear a lot of bright ideas about the subject, although I’m not real confident that they can pass an effective law against long hot summers. Oh well, somebody will try I’m sure.
The blame for the present global temperature rise is generally laid at the feet of western industrialized civilization and its genius for generating clouds of greenhouse gases that trap sunlight in the atmosphere. The world’s incessant demand for more and more energy has pressed us into consuming the fossil fuels that nature required millions of years to lay down, in little more than a hundred years. Consumption of these fuels, (oil, coal, and natural gas), primarily by burning them, releases a number of waste products that are popularly called “Greenhouse Gases”. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and others), allow the suns visible and ultraviolet light to enter the atmosphere freely, but when sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat), acting as a balance to maintain a steady temperature. Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. These gases naturally blanket the Earth and keep it about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without them. Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, leaving a few scientists and many non-scientists believing this is because of an increase in concentration of the main greenhouse gases. People call this climate change “Global Warming.”
But another possible culprit is fast emerging. For centuries, scientists have known that the Sun is less steady than sunbathing and casual observation suggest. It has seasons and storms and rhythms of activity, its sunspots and flares appearing in cycles roughly 11 years long. But only in the last decade or so have these and other solar variations begun to be tied to climate shifts on Earth -- first tenuously, and more solidly of late. Today, a growing number of scientists contend that the Sun's fickleness might rival human pollution as a factor in climatic change. And some research, though sketchy and much debated, suggests that the Sun's variability could account for virtually all of the global warming measured to date. Others dismiss the possibility of such an influence, even while they agree the solar factor should be studied more thoroughly.
Global warming skeptics freely admit that earth’s climate is changing for one reason or another. However, they also challenge many of the claims that it is solely due to the activities of humankind over the last 150 years, stating that those claims are based on “junk science” and are heavily biased in favor of the desired results. Junk science can often be detected when the discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists. Then we have the politicization of science, which occurs when government, big business, or special interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which might differ from their prefered viewpoint, or to influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted. Please note that these special interest groups can range from the local power company to the Serria Club.
Fears are that if humans keep producing such gases at increasing rates, the results will be negative in nature, causing severe changes in the Earths climate. It’s claimed by alarmists that these changes to the environment will most likely cause negative effects on society, such as a lower level of general health and decreasing economic development. At the same time, we have climate records that indicate we’re presently coming out of a mini ice-age, and that the Earths “normal” temperature is several degrees higher than we see at present. During the time of the dinosaurs the global mean temperature was approximately 35* F higher than today, with the tropics extending nearly to the current polar regions!
The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations. The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement, despite the fact that they emit even more greenhouse gases than the United States. Essentially, the Kyoto agreement severely penalizes the western nations, while doing nothing about the rapidly increasing emissions from industries of the developing countries. Under Kyoto, China is free to continue producing unlimited greenhouse gases even though it has recently become the world’s single largest producer.
While the environmentalists weep and wail about the soon to be announced total collapse of nature (for which Al Gore will probably win another Oscar), many countries and much of the multi-national corporate world are making money hand over fist buying, selling, and trading “carbon credits” issued under the aegis of the Kyoto protocol. These credits are issued for not producing greenhouse gases. Al Gore castigates President Bush for not signing the Kyoto agreement even while visiting his Hollywierd friends in a gas guzzling, smog generating SUV. Environmental activists collect outrageous speaking fees for telling the rest of the world how environmentally insensitive Americans are. The Sierra Club leaders fly around in private jets while drawing six figure salaries from their membership for “directing” the clean air and water drive. The rest of us are supposed to pay for everything while living a stone-age, non-technical existence I guess.
Dunno about anybody else in this neck of the woods, but my poor old aching joints definitely support global warming!
The blame for the present global temperature rise is generally laid at the feet of western industrialized civilization and its genius for generating clouds of greenhouse gases that trap sunlight in the atmosphere. The world’s incessant demand for more and more energy has pressed us into consuming the fossil fuels that nature required millions of years to lay down, in little more than a hundred years. Consumption of these fuels, (oil, coal, and natural gas), primarily by burning them, releases a number of waste products that are popularly called “Greenhouse Gases”. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and others), allow the suns visible and ultraviolet light to enter the atmosphere freely, but when sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat), acting as a balance to maintain a steady temperature. Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. These gases naturally blanket the Earth and keep it about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without them. Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, leaving a few scientists and many non-scientists believing this is because of an increase in concentration of the main greenhouse gases. People call this climate change “Global Warming.”
But another possible culprit is fast emerging. For centuries, scientists have known that the Sun is less steady than sunbathing and casual observation suggest. It has seasons and storms and rhythms of activity, its sunspots and flares appearing in cycles roughly 11 years long. But only in the last decade or so have these and other solar variations begun to be tied to climate shifts on Earth -- first tenuously, and more solidly of late. Today, a growing number of scientists contend that the Sun's fickleness might rival human pollution as a factor in climatic change. And some research, though sketchy and much debated, suggests that the Sun's variability could account for virtually all of the global warming measured to date. Others dismiss the possibility of such an influence, even while they agree the solar factor should be studied more thoroughly.
Global warming skeptics freely admit that earth’s climate is changing for one reason or another. However, they also challenge many of the claims that it is solely due to the activities of humankind over the last 150 years, stating that those claims are based on “junk science” and are heavily biased in favor of the desired results. Junk science can often be detected when the discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists. Then we have the politicization of science, which occurs when government, big business, or special interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which might differ from their prefered viewpoint, or to influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted. Please note that these special interest groups can range from the local power company to the Serria Club.
Fears are that if humans keep producing such gases at increasing rates, the results will be negative in nature, causing severe changes in the Earths climate. It’s claimed by alarmists that these changes to the environment will most likely cause negative effects on society, such as a lower level of general health and decreasing economic development. At the same time, we have climate records that indicate we’re presently coming out of a mini ice-age, and that the Earths “normal” temperature is several degrees higher than we see at present. During the time of the dinosaurs the global mean temperature was approximately 35* F higher than today, with the tropics extending nearly to the current polar regions!
The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations. The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement, despite the fact that they emit even more greenhouse gases than the United States. Essentially, the Kyoto agreement severely penalizes the western nations, while doing nothing about the rapidly increasing emissions from industries of the developing countries. Under Kyoto, China is free to continue producing unlimited greenhouse gases even though it has recently become the world’s single largest producer.
While the environmentalists weep and wail about the soon to be announced total collapse of nature (for which Al Gore will probably win another Oscar), many countries and much of the multi-national corporate world are making money hand over fist buying, selling, and trading “carbon credits” issued under the aegis of the Kyoto protocol. These credits are issued for not producing greenhouse gases. Al Gore castigates President Bush for not signing the Kyoto agreement even while visiting his Hollywierd friends in a gas guzzling, smog generating SUV. Environmental activists collect outrageous speaking fees for telling the rest of the world how environmentally insensitive Americans are. The Sierra Club leaders fly around in private jets while drawing six figure salaries from their membership for “directing” the clean air and water drive. The rest of us are supposed to pay for everything while living a stone-age, non-technical existence I guess.
Dunno about anybody else in this neck of the woods, but my poor old aching joints definitely support global warming!
Monday, October 8, 2007
Issues
With the presidential election fast approaching, the politicians are all making fine sounding pronouncements of what legislation they hope to pass, and of what they’ll accomplish once in office. Some of these things they could actually do, if they can get a majority of congressmen to agree with their ideas, and if they can find the funding. A lot of the things they promise, they simply can’t do, for any number of perfectly sound reasons.
The war in Iraq appears to be a leading bone of contention, with the Democrats generally wanting to pull out, and the Republicans generally figuring to stay the course. Personally I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, as we had to many other and less combative ways and means of eliminating Hussein as a power in the mid-east. But the fact remains, we did invade, we did eliminate the existing power structure, American air strikes certainly didn’t do the Iraqi infrastructure any good, economic sanctions did more harm to the Iraqi people than to the regime, and now we more or less demand that they form a democratic government that meets with our approval. We’ve made ourselves responsible for the present mess, and like it of not, we’re morally responsible for cleaning things up. Then to, if the United States abruptly walks away from Iraq, we’d be leaving a power vacuum and a full blown civil war in our wake, one that can only be advantageous to our real enemy, fundamentalist Islam. Consider also, if we walk, there’s no reason for any of the mid-eastern peoples or governments to ever again trust the United States, or believe anything we say. We’d have the same sort of situation that followed our surrender in Vietnam, where our friends of 1970 were left in the lurch, and they certainly don’t trust our word very far today.
Another favored talking point concerns taxes. Like most Americans I’d surely like to see a massive tax cut as proposed by many of the republican candidates. But that isn’t going to do this country any good at all! We don’t need the tax increase and massive expenditures proposed by a number of democratic candidates either. What I’d propose is that we leave the taxes at about the current level, make the tax system more equitable for all of us, and devise a massive cut in expenditures. With that, we could use the surplus to pay down the debt, and edge away from a looming national bankruptcy. Despite the claims of Wall Street financial gurus, it’s not the job of the US government (or American taxpayers) to keep their stockholders rolling in dough! What do they expect the government to do when the treasury runs dry, or the taxpayers run out of patience, start selling the rest of us into slavery!? The stock market is where you put some of the extra cash you’ve got on hand and don’t know what else to do with. It’s not supposed to be a national gambling casino in which you bet your life savings so that some business executive can make an obscene salary, leaving the US taxpayer to pick up the tab when things go sour!
Yet another point of contention is national security, mostly the arguments over the department of homeland security. Some people want to completely eliminate the whole thing, while others want to massively expand the department and its powers. I for one fail to understand just why we need such a department in the first place, unless it’s to provide work for a lot of unemployed paper shufflers. I’d think the federal money being tossed at homeland security would be much better spent in securing our borders, and perhaps helping the Canadians secure theirs as well. Instead, the government has pretty well managed to ignore the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and rapidly turning us into a police state, while managing to antagonize a lot of formerly friendly countries with a flurry of senseless rules and regulations about passports, secure identification cards, and air travel. Our borders are effectively wide open as is demonstrated by the continuing flood of illegal immigrants. Our ports certainly aren’t secure despite all the promises from Washington. What I understand is called “airline security” consists of a bunch of people confiscating nail clippers and bottled water, while looking for hidden facial expressions. Profiling is out of the question for political reasons, despite the terrorist threat coming from a known and specific group of people. Instead of looking at wild-eyed Arabic types, we have a no-fly list of “terrorist suspects” that might have been randomly selected from the local phone book!
The government has created yet another layer of supervision for the various intelligence agencies, with of course yet another hidden budget. I find it quite strange that we need a new agency to do exactly the job that the CIA was created to do back in the 1940’s, that of overseeing all US intelligence efforts! For decades the government has ignored the interagency turf wars in the intelligence community, and has not supported the CIA mandate in doing its job. Instead, the agency takes the rap whenever we have a perceived intelligence failure, no matter which agency originated the problem. How about we eliminate this “Intelligence Czar” position (and the entire office), and just enforce the rules allowing the CIA to do what it’s supposed to be doing?
The last newsletter I received from Sen. Larry Craig gave the results of a straw poll conducted among Idahoans, indicating what subjects they felt were most important, and should have a high priority in being addressed by Congress. 31.6% felt that immigration was the most important subject, closely followed by the war in Iraq with 28.0%. 9.5% felt that the economy should receive immediate attention, 6.9% were greatly concerned with health care, and only 4.8% indicated that national security was of major importance. Following the top five, only 4.4% of the respondents were worried about Congressional ethics.
Strangely enough, I would think that ethics and morality, not just in congress either, would be considered a very important subject by most Americans. After all, the folks we elect to various government offices are representing us before the entire world. These people hold the reputation of our nation, the well being of our citizens, indeed our very lives, in their hands! The President of the United States, with his red and gold phones, controls more naked power than any other man in the history of the world. I for one certainly don’t wish to have my life decided by anyone who would sell my future (such as it is), to the highest bidder! Public office is far to important to be decided by voters considering little more than physical appearances and trivial personalities. I’d much rather have a crotchety guy like Harry Truman in the white house, than another photogenic Slick Willie Clinton! There isn’t a one of the leading candidates today, of either party, that I’d trust to take out the trash, much less lead this country in what’s proving to be a very dangerous 21st century!
Perhaps the voters should do some really serious thinking about the issues and the candidates, before the 2008 election rolls around.
The war in Iraq appears to be a leading bone of contention, with the Democrats generally wanting to pull out, and the Republicans generally figuring to stay the course. Personally I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, as we had to many other and less combative ways and means of eliminating Hussein as a power in the mid-east. But the fact remains, we did invade, we did eliminate the existing power structure, American air strikes certainly didn’t do the Iraqi infrastructure any good, economic sanctions did more harm to the Iraqi people than to the regime, and now we more or less demand that they form a democratic government that meets with our approval. We’ve made ourselves responsible for the present mess, and like it of not, we’re morally responsible for cleaning things up. Then to, if the United States abruptly walks away from Iraq, we’d be leaving a power vacuum and a full blown civil war in our wake, one that can only be advantageous to our real enemy, fundamentalist Islam. Consider also, if we walk, there’s no reason for any of the mid-eastern peoples or governments to ever again trust the United States, or believe anything we say. We’d have the same sort of situation that followed our surrender in Vietnam, where our friends of 1970 were left in the lurch, and they certainly don’t trust our word very far today.
Another favored talking point concerns taxes. Like most Americans I’d surely like to see a massive tax cut as proposed by many of the republican candidates. But that isn’t going to do this country any good at all! We don’t need the tax increase and massive expenditures proposed by a number of democratic candidates either. What I’d propose is that we leave the taxes at about the current level, make the tax system more equitable for all of us, and devise a massive cut in expenditures. With that, we could use the surplus to pay down the debt, and edge away from a looming national bankruptcy. Despite the claims of Wall Street financial gurus, it’s not the job of the US government (or American taxpayers) to keep their stockholders rolling in dough! What do they expect the government to do when the treasury runs dry, or the taxpayers run out of patience, start selling the rest of us into slavery!? The stock market is where you put some of the extra cash you’ve got on hand and don’t know what else to do with. It’s not supposed to be a national gambling casino in which you bet your life savings so that some business executive can make an obscene salary, leaving the US taxpayer to pick up the tab when things go sour!
Yet another point of contention is national security, mostly the arguments over the department of homeland security. Some people want to completely eliminate the whole thing, while others want to massively expand the department and its powers. I for one fail to understand just why we need such a department in the first place, unless it’s to provide work for a lot of unemployed paper shufflers. I’d think the federal money being tossed at homeland security would be much better spent in securing our borders, and perhaps helping the Canadians secure theirs as well. Instead, the government has pretty well managed to ignore the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and rapidly turning us into a police state, while managing to antagonize a lot of formerly friendly countries with a flurry of senseless rules and regulations about passports, secure identification cards, and air travel. Our borders are effectively wide open as is demonstrated by the continuing flood of illegal immigrants. Our ports certainly aren’t secure despite all the promises from Washington. What I understand is called “airline security” consists of a bunch of people confiscating nail clippers and bottled water, while looking for hidden facial expressions. Profiling is out of the question for political reasons, despite the terrorist threat coming from a known and specific group of people. Instead of looking at wild-eyed Arabic types, we have a no-fly list of “terrorist suspects” that might have been randomly selected from the local phone book!
The government has created yet another layer of supervision for the various intelligence agencies, with of course yet another hidden budget. I find it quite strange that we need a new agency to do exactly the job that the CIA was created to do back in the 1940’s, that of overseeing all US intelligence efforts! For decades the government has ignored the interagency turf wars in the intelligence community, and has not supported the CIA mandate in doing its job. Instead, the agency takes the rap whenever we have a perceived intelligence failure, no matter which agency originated the problem. How about we eliminate this “Intelligence Czar” position (and the entire office), and just enforce the rules allowing the CIA to do what it’s supposed to be doing?
The last newsletter I received from Sen. Larry Craig gave the results of a straw poll conducted among Idahoans, indicating what subjects they felt were most important, and should have a high priority in being addressed by Congress. 31.6% felt that immigration was the most important subject, closely followed by the war in Iraq with 28.0%. 9.5% felt that the economy should receive immediate attention, 6.9% were greatly concerned with health care, and only 4.8% indicated that national security was of major importance. Following the top five, only 4.4% of the respondents were worried about Congressional ethics.
Strangely enough, I would think that ethics and morality, not just in congress either, would be considered a very important subject by most Americans. After all, the folks we elect to various government offices are representing us before the entire world. These people hold the reputation of our nation, the well being of our citizens, indeed our very lives, in their hands! The President of the United States, with his red and gold phones, controls more naked power than any other man in the history of the world. I for one certainly don’t wish to have my life decided by anyone who would sell my future (such as it is), to the highest bidder! Public office is far to important to be decided by voters considering little more than physical appearances and trivial personalities. I’d much rather have a crotchety guy like Harry Truman in the white house, than another photogenic Slick Willie Clinton! There isn’t a one of the leading candidates today, of either party, that I’d trust to take out the trash, much less lead this country in what’s proving to be a very dangerous 21st century!
Perhaps the voters should do some really serious thinking about the issues and the candidates, before the 2008 election rolls around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)