As the 2008 Presidential Election is now so fast-approaching, I suppose that I should now take the opportunity to clearly state my sentiments on it. I think that Obama and McCain are essentially good people. But they have been corrupted by the political system which they inhabit and are not, I believe, capable of bringing about the fundamental reforms which our country truly needs.
For example, on foreign policy, McCain and Obama, both corrupted by the military-industrial complex and other pressures such as the militaristic and pro-Israel AIPAC, are American imperialists who will continue to police the world; who will not cut the bloated military budget; who will continue to espouse American exceptionalism; who totally ignore the humanitarian crisis among the Palestinian people on the Gaza Strip; who will, by their espoused policies, keep us in Iraq for an undetermined period of time (Obama with his "residual forces") and likely turn Iraq into a new Germany, or Vietnam, with American forces remaining there long after the fighting has ended. Both McCain and Obama will both mistakenly treat the "War on Terror" as an actual, physical war---when it should be instead a police and intelligence action. Obama wants to expand the size of the military by 100,000 people. Obama and McCain, it seems to me, will both be incapable of bringing needed reforms to American foreign policy, because they are interventionists who shall police the world because they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military-industrial complex, the defense industries who donate to their political campaigns.
I believe that both Obama and McCain will be similarly unable to bring reforms on the domestic front, particularly in the realm of addressing our economic problems. Both candidates have been corrupted by the influence of corporations on Wall Street, and they both voted for the $700 billion bail-out of Wall Street accordingly. Some of that bail-out is now being used by corporations to pay the salaries and bonuses of company executives. Obama/McCain, it seems to me, are too busy representing the interests of rich corporations to represent the interests of the working people, and I think that Obama/McCain will continue to maintain these qualities when they are elected, for the most part. They do not support and make no indication that they will fight for a living wage, fair trade policies (to protect the worker), cutting the military budget so that that money can be re-directed to education and infrastructure, blocking another bail-out of Wall Street, a prescription drug benefit which would pay for all of the prescription drugs of seniors, and many other such things which would benefit working people and those living in poverty. The only thing that may be accomplished, by Obama, due to great public demand, is a universal healthcare system, and even of that I am doubtful due to Obama's campaign contributions from insurance companies.
The issue of civil liberties is of specific importance. Obama and McCain both voted for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which harms the American right to privacy (by allowing law enforcement officials to search an individual's telephone, medical, e-mail, financial, and other records) and generally tramples upon constitutional rights. A number of the Patriot Act's provisions have been ruled unconstitutional by Federal courts. In addition, neither Obama nor McCain support the LGBT right to marry; Obama supports "civil unions" but not outright marriage, while McCain takes a "states'-rights" stance on the issue and is unsupportive of gay marriage and civil unions. But I contend that it is unconstitutional to discriminate and not allow this group to have the same rights as heterosexual people.
However, both Obama and McCain supported corporate liberties with the 2008 FISA (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act) bill. This bill provided immunity for telecommunications companies which helped the National Security Agency and the government spy on telephone conversations. Liberties for the ordinary citizens: bad; but liberties for corporations: good. Obama and McCain have, in these stated instances, ignored the civil liberties of working people while improving the civil liberties of corporations. One of these corporations granted immunity by the FISA bill passed in Congress was AT&T; a couple weeks later, should it have been any surprise when the AT&T logo was emblazoned on the official bag of the Democratic National Convention? AT&T was one of the convention's corporate sponsors. The two major candidates and parties have compromised individual liberty in favor of corporate liberty, and that is unacceptable.
The fact of the matter, it seems to me, is that the candidates will be unable to make needed reforms when they are immeshed in a system corrupted and controlled by entities who are opposed to these reforms. It is a broken system of government, one of concentrated power and wealth; one controlled by the few and not the many; one which is not truly a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. The appeal of Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader is that he seeks to reverse this. He wishes to give the power to the people and shift the power from the few to the many. He bucks corrupting corporations and special interests---he has fought corporations during his entire career as a consumer advocate. Nader opposed the Wall Street bail-out, the telecom immunity in the FISA bill, and the Patriot Act; he advocates cutting the bloated military budget and repealing America's militaristic foreign policies in the Middle East and elsewhere; he supports a living wage, fair trade policies (to protect manufacturing jobs), the repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act, and other things to give greater power to the workers; and etcetera.
A vote for Ralph Nader is a protest vote well worth making. It is a protest vote against corporate control of government in our country. It is a protest vote against all that has subverted our democracy, broken our system, corrupted our government, and silenced the voices of the people. It is a protest vote against compromising the general welfare in favor of the corporate welfare. It is a protest vote against the two corrupt parties who have not made much progress on any of the major issues for the past few decades, who have not succeeded in making needed reforms during these past few decades, and who are so immeshed in the corruption surrounding our government that for them to attempt to destroy it would be like someone attempting to cut off their own leg. And that protest vote is, in my view, the only vote worth making in this 2008 Presidential Election.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Moral Leadership
This is about Moral Leadership in the United States and the World. To start off with, perhaps I should define what "moral" means, in my view of the term. In my mind, moral does not mean religious, though many people seem to think that it does. I see morality as differentiating between right and wrong---I see morality as doing what is right and just and compassionate---as acting in a fashion that is respectful and loving of your fellow human beings and of the earth as a whole, and, naturally, not taking unnecessary action to harm your fellows and the earth---as demonstrating the common human decency which unites us all but which we often forget unites us. Acting upon these basic principles and ideas is, in my view, the definition of moral leadership. There is nothing religious about these ideas, unless religiosity is the same as humanity, and the human race and religion are not synonymous (the ideas within the Bible and other documents, it seems to me, however heretical this may be, are simply expressions of humanity).
So, now that I have informed you of my view of moral leadership, I suppose that the next thing to do is examine whether the United States's leadership has been consistently moral during the 20th and 21st centuries, the modern era. I am personally inclined to the opinion that morality has not been the primary concern of most leaders. I will provide some examples. During the years 1959 to 1975, fifty-eight thousand American soldiers were killed, over three hundred thousand were wounded, and millions of south-east Asian civilians were killed in the Vietnam War, a war that was sustained by lies and deceptions from American leaders. During the 1990's, five hundred thousand children died in Iraq for lack of adequate medical care, due to sanctions by the U.S. Government. During the years 2003 to 2008, over four thousand American soldiers--young men and women--have died in the Iraq War, as have tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, as the result of a purposeful deception by American leaders. And the United States is now also under criticism for the Iraqi displacement crisis: millions of Iraqis, over three million, have fled the country since the March 2003 United States invasion--a deplorable state of affairs. There have obviously been a number of leaders in recent history who have disregarded the restraints of conscience.
Recalling these historical and current events, it occurs to me that politics is an occupation where little to nothing is framed in moral terms, and yet it is the occupation which most requires morality, and deeply-heartfelt compassion, towards our fellow human beings. It is the occupation in which you have the most responsibility, in which the most lives are placed in your hands. Unfortunately, as Mao Tse-tung observed, "Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed." Harming your fellow human beings, especially unnecessarily, in warfare and other avenues, seems to me to be the height of immorality in leadership.
Perhaps, we as a country should ask ourselves a few questions regarding this current Iraq War and displacement crisis (though the questions could be just as applicable in other eras of United States history), using advanced interrogation techniques if necessary. We should ask: should we treat our fellow human beings better than this? Should we cause such upheaval and shatter so many lives? I suppose that what we should be asking ourselves, in moral terms, is if, as a country and as a people, we have the right to inflict such pain and suffering upon another people of another country? In my personal opinion, I answer with a resounding NO. I don't believe that we have the right to do these things--rather, I think that we have the responsibility, as the foremost superpower of the world, to refrain from abusing our power by attacking poorer countries than ours. The most powerful country is the one that should govern itself with the most wisdom and restraint, because it has the potential to inflict the most damage upon the earth. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." In my judgement, that statement, made decades ago, rings true to this day.
I have defined what my idea of moral leadership is, and I have provided examples of leadership which has not been particularly moral during the modern era. What to do now? Well, naturally, I would like to provide my ideas on why leaders are so often tempted to immorality---and I would like to express my ideas on the age-old question of whether humankind is inherently good or inherently evil.
You often hear the argument about whether humankind is inherently good, and moral, or inherently evil. Naturally, when I hear an argument, I can't help but join in and provide my two cents, whether they are two wheat pennies from the 1800's or two old beaten up pennies from the year 2006. As an argumentative creature of the highest order, I feel inclined to assert my belief that, when a person is born, they have a natural tendency towards one side of the spectrum (of good and evil) or the other, but human beings do have both good and bad in them, and their conditions in life, and living in general, determines how exactly these tendencies develop---or if they do. Morality or immorality is not inherent in us--we all are split, we all have to choose according to our own developed characters. Though we may lean greatly towards one or the other, we will always, for the entirety of our lives, have some of both good and evil in us. It seems to me that humanity, fallible and wonderful, is what is truly inherent in us all.
And I am afraid that the leaders of humanity are no exception to this rule (of course; rulers are no less human than the ruled). But, for the leaders, an extra factor is added to how they slide along the good-evil spectrum, a factor which most people living daily life do not have or choose to take part in: power. Leaders of the human race, with great corrupting power in their hands, are very often tempted to the immoral side of themselves. They are tempted to embark upon unjust wars to increase their own power, and other such acts. To resist this, a leader must have extraordinary character, or have constant oversight to ensure that they do not abuse their powers---in many cases, such as initiating an unjust war or secretly torturing people, power abuse can be quite immoral. Leaders who are not provided with oversight very often succumb to their temptations. Power corrupts the fallible human being. The act of having abusable power adds another dimension to the human mind, a dimension in which human morality, and human conscience, is challenged.
So, now that I have informed you of my view of moral leadership, I suppose that the next thing to do is examine whether the United States's leadership has been consistently moral during the 20th and 21st centuries, the modern era. I am personally inclined to the opinion that morality has not been the primary concern of most leaders. I will provide some examples. During the years 1959 to 1975, fifty-eight thousand American soldiers were killed, over three hundred thousand were wounded, and millions of south-east Asian civilians were killed in the Vietnam War, a war that was sustained by lies and deceptions from American leaders. During the 1990's, five hundred thousand children died in Iraq for lack of adequate medical care, due to sanctions by the U.S. Government. During the years 2003 to 2008, over four thousand American soldiers--young men and women--have died in the Iraq War, as have tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, as the result of a purposeful deception by American leaders. And the United States is now also under criticism for the Iraqi displacement crisis: millions of Iraqis, over three million, have fled the country since the March 2003 United States invasion--a deplorable state of affairs. There have obviously been a number of leaders in recent history who have disregarded the restraints of conscience.
Recalling these historical and current events, it occurs to me that politics is an occupation where little to nothing is framed in moral terms, and yet it is the occupation which most requires morality, and deeply-heartfelt compassion, towards our fellow human beings. It is the occupation in which you have the most responsibility, in which the most lives are placed in your hands. Unfortunately, as Mao Tse-tung observed, "Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed." Harming your fellow human beings, especially unnecessarily, in warfare and other avenues, seems to me to be the height of immorality in leadership.
Perhaps, we as a country should ask ourselves a few questions regarding this current Iraq War and displacement crisis (though the questions could be just as applicable in other eras of United States history), using advanced interrogation techniques if necessary. We should ask: should we treat our fellow human beings better than this? Should we cause such upheaval and shatter so many lives? I suppose that what we should be asking ourselves, in moral terms, is if, as a country and as a people, we have the right to inflict such pain and suffering upon another people of another country? In my personal opinion, I answer with a resounding NO. I don't believe that we have the right to do these things--rather, I think that we have the responsibility, as the foremost superpower of the world, to refrain from abusing our power by attacking poorer countries than ours. The most powerful country is the one that should govern itself with the most wisdom and restraint, because it has the potential to inflict the most damage upon the earth. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." In my judgement, that statement, made decades ago, rings true to this day.
I have defined what my idea of moral leadership is, and I have provided examples of leadership which has not been particularly moral during the modern era. What to do now? Well, naturally, I would like to provide my ideas on why leaders are so often tempted to immorality---and I would like to express my ideas on the age-old question of whether humankind is inherently good or inherently evil.
You often hear the argument about whether humankind is inherently good, and moral, or inherently evil. Naturally, when I hear an argument, I can't help but join in and provide my two cents, whether they are two wheat pennies from the 1800's or two old beaten up pennies from the year 2006. As an argumentative creature of the highest order, I feel inclined to assert my belief that, when a person is born, they have a natural tendency towards one side of the spectrum (of good and evil) or the other, but human beings do have both good and bad in them, and their conditions in life, and living in general, determines how exactly these tendencies develop---or if they do. Morality or immorality is not inherent in us--we all are split, we all have to choose according to our own developed characters. Though we may lean greatly towards one or the other, we will always, for the entirety of our lives, have some of both good and evil in us. It seems to me that humanity, fallible and wonderful, is what is truly inherent in us all.
And I am afraid that the leaders of humanity are no exception to this rule (of course; rulers are no less human than the ruled). But, for the leaders, an extra factor is added to how they slide along the good-evil spectrum, a factor which most people living daily life do not have or choose to take part in: power. Leaders of the human race, with great corrupting power in their hands, are very often tempted to the immoral side of themselves. They are tempted to embark upon unjust wars to increase their own power, and other such acts. To resist this, a leader must have extraordinary character, or have constant oversight to ensure that they do not abuse their powers---in many cases, such as initiating an unjust war or secretly torturing people, power abuse can be quite immoral. Leaders who are not provided with oversight very often succumb to their temptations. Power corrupts the fallible human being. The act of having abusable power adds another dimension to the human mind, a dimension in which human morality, and human conscience, is challenged.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The National Initiative for Democracy
The National Initiative for Democracy was first proposed by Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel, who served in the Senate from 1969 to 1981 and who later ran for the 2008 presidential nominations of the Democratic and Libertarian parties. I first learned of the National Initiative for Democracy during Gravel’s 2008 presidential campaign. This proposal will, in short, empower the American people as lawmakers in partnership with their elected officials, to make laws on all of the issues that affect their lives. The power to make laws will be provided through a national referendum system, the kind of initiative that is currently used statewide in 24 states and which has been used successfully in the country of Switzerland for centuries. I believe that this proposal is necessary in the United States in order to shift power back to American people from who has it now, political and financial elites and their moneyed special interests. I believe that this proposal is necessary to create a more egalitarian and democratic form of government, in which every single citizen in the United States has power in deciding the issues that affect their lives.
Let’s examine a quote from Cicero, the great Roman orator and statesman, “Freedom is participation in power.” Ralph Nader, when I went to an event of his in July 2008, said that he had been to many dictatorships in his life, and that they have nearly as much personal freedom as a democracy—you can live where you want, marry who you would like to, eat what you like, go fishing if you want to—your daily, personal events are not under government scrutiny. What is the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy? Why, in a democracy, you can exercise civic engagement and act freely in the realm of politics—in a dictatorship, you cannot. The real freedom, that differentiates free countries from others, is participation in civics. Participation in power, Nader noted, is the real freedom. If freedom is participation in power, then that leads to the logic that, if you don’t participate in power, then you don’t have any freedom. What is the central power of government in the United States? Some people believe that the exercise of power is when you go to the polls to vote for one candidate or the other on Election Day, but it seems to me that, really, what you are doing is giving your power away to corrupt elected officials who make many promises but keep few of them. The central power of government is not voting—it is law-making—those who make the laws have power over all aspects of the country and system—even over those sacred voters who go to vote on election day—the law-makers can determine where, how, or if you vote. In order to have real participation in the power of government, and some control over their government and lives, the people must exercise the power to make laws, the central power of government.
These laws would be made on a majoritarian basis. Some people have qualms about this because it sounds like a tyranny of the majority over the minority. But, I assure you, there are safeguards to prevent this from being the case. First of all, the people make the laws in partnership with their elected officials—these national ballots initiatives will simply be a fourth, stabilizing leg on the currently three-legged stool. The Supreme Court can check the laws of the people, and declare them unconstitutional if they appear to be unconstitutional and detrimental to the rights of the minority. The minority of the population is still provided with protection. Secondly, it is important to note that, if you aren’t ruled by the majority, then you are ruled by the minority. There is no in-between. Right now, the United States is being ruled by a rich minority that does things that are in their own self-interest, and in the self-interest of other moneyed entities such as corporations. Political elites and financial elites are often the same people, because of how intricately politics and wealth are intertwined. Everyone knows what a corrupting effect that money and special interests have upon our representatives in Washington; this influence, it seems to me, has directed our representatives away from representing their constituents and towards representing the major entities that donate to their campaigns. Is it better for the majority to be governed by the minority, or is it better for the majority to be governed by the majority? It seems to me that, especially considering the vast corruption of modern politics, that it would be better for the majority, rather than the rich and corrupt minority, to govern itself. Those who are affected by the laws should be the ones who make the laws—the people should, by way of the National Initiative, be able to make policy on all of the issues that affect their lives—that power should not be relegated to a minority corrupted by money and power.
Efforts are currently being made to enact the National Initiative for Democracy, this historic proposal to allow the people to have the right to make laws in partnership with their elected officials and change the paradigm of human governance. There is a website for the National Initiative, ni4d.org, where you can vote for its enactment. In order to be enacted, it must receive an affirmative vote of over half of the actively voting population—in other words, over half the number of people who voted in the last presidential election—in other words, the National Initiative requires about sixty million affirmative votes. For those of you wondering whether this process is legal or constitutional, it is founded on the legal basis of the “First Principles”—affirming the constituent sovereign's right and the legislative power of the People to create or alter governments, constitutions, charters, and laws—these principles were what allowed the Founding Fathers to colonize America, declare our independence from Great Britain, and write the Constitution in the first place. I urge you, fellow citizens of the United States, to go the National Initiative’s website, ni4d.org, to explore further the great proposal of the National Initiative for Democracy, and I urge you, my fellow citizens, to vote for the National Initiative. Claim your right as a free citizen of the United States to participate in power.
http://ni4d.org/
Let’s examine a quote from Cicero, the great Roman orator and statesman, “Freedom is participation in power.” Ralph Nader, when I went to an event of his in July 2008, said that he had been to many dictatorships in his life, and that they have nearly as much personal freedom as a democracy—you can live where you want, marry who you would like to, eat what you like, go fishing if you want to—your daily, personal events are not under government scrutiny. What is the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy? Why, in a democracy, you can exercise civic engagement and act freely in the realm of politics—in a dictatorship, you cannot. The real freedom, that differentiates free countries from others, is participation in civics. Participation in power, Nader noted, is the real freedom. If freedom is participation in power, then that leads to the logic that, if you don’t participate in power, then you don’t have any freedom. What is the central power of government in the United States? Some people believe that the exercise of power is when you go to the polls to vote for one candidate or the other on Election Day, but it seems to me that, really, what you are doing is giving your power away to corrupt elected officials who make many promises but keep few of them. The central power of government is not voting—it is law-making—those who make the laws have power over all aspects of the country and system—even over those sacred voters who go to vote on election day—the law-makers can determine where, how, or if you vote. In order to have real participation in the power of government, and some control over their government and lives, the people must exercise the power to make laws, the central power of government.
These laws would be made on a majoritarian basis. Some people have qualms about this because it sounds like a tyranny of the majority over the minority. But, I assure you, there are safeguards to prevent this from being the case. First of all, the people make the laws in partnership with their elected officials—these national ballots initiatives will simply be a fourth, stabilizing leg on the currently three-legged stool. The Supreme Court can check the laws of the people, and declare them unconstitutional if they appear to be unconstitutional and detrimental to the rights of the minority. The minority of the population is still provided with protection. Secondly, it is important to note that, if you aren’t ruled by the majority, then you are ruled by the minority. There is no in-between. Right now, the United States is being ruled by a rich minority that does things that are in their own self-interest, and in the self-interest of other moneyed entities such as corporations. Political elites and financial elites are often the same people, because of how intricately politics and wealth are intertwined. Everyone knows what a corrupting effect that money and special interests have upon our representatives in Washington; this influence, it seems to me, has directed our representatives away from representing their constituents and towards representing the major entities that donate to their campaigns. Is it better for the majority to be governed by the minority, or is it better for the majority to be governed by the majority? It seems to me that, especially considering the vast corruption of modern politics, that it would be better for the majority, rather than the rich and corrupt minority, to govern itself. Those who are affected by the laws should be the ones who make the laws—the people should, by way of the National Initiative, be able to make policy on all of the issues that affect their lives—that power should not be relegated to a minority corrupted by money and power.
Efforts are currently being made to enact the National Initiative for Democracy, this historic proposal to allow the people to have the right to make laws in partnership with their elected officials and change the paradigm of human governance. There is a website for the National Initiative, ni4d.org, where you can vote for its enactment. In order to be enacted, it must receive an affirmative vote of over half of the actively voting population—in other words, over half the number of people who voted in the last presidential election—in other words, the National Initiative requires about sixty million affirmative votes. For those of you wondering whether this process is legal or constitutional, it is founded on the legal basis of the “First Principles”—affirming the constituent sovereign's right and the legislative power of the People to create or alter governments, constitutions, charters, and laws—these principles were what allowed the Founding Fathers to colonize America, declare our independence from Great Britain, and write the Constitution in the first place. I urge you, fellow citizens of the United States, to go the National Initiative’s website, ni4d.org, to explore further the great proposal of the National Initiative for Democracy, and I urge you, my fellow citizens, to vote for the National Initiative. Claim your right as a free citizen of the United States to participate in power.
http://ni4d.org/
Monday, October 6, 2008
We have committed a historic blunder
Can you imagine how different our country's history would be today if, in 1932, instead of creating public works programs and other policies to help the working citizen, Franklin D. Roosevelt simply gave billions of dollars to banks and corporations in a massive government bail-out? This past week, our country has committed a great historic blunder. The U.S. Congress has passed, and President Bush has signed, a $700 billion bail-out bill for failing corporations on Wall Street. We have, unlike Franklin Roosevelt decades ago, addressed the symptoms of the economic problems rather than the causes. The problems did not start with Wall Street and then trickle down; the problems began on Main Street, with people losing their jobs and being unable to pay their mortgages and other bills, and then spread to Wall Street. This bail-out bill will solve nothing because it does not address the causes of the problems. This bail-out bill will not patch the gaping hole in our Ship of Economy which is causing it to fill up with water and sink. This bail-out bill is not right, because it protects corporations from the consequences of their corrupt and reckless practices while neglecting the struggling average American. And what is not right shall never be advantageous, for, as Cicero wrote, "Advantage can never conflict with right. That is why Socrates, as the tradition goes, used to curse men who had first begun to differentiate between these two things which nature had made inseparable---everything which is morally right is advantageous, and there can be no advantage in anything that is not right." Right and advantage are one and inseparable, now and forever.
Despite this, leaders in Congress and in the White House, including the two major-party presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, passed and signed the bail-out bill this past Friday. The fools in Washington have bumbled things up again. That day, I spoke to my grandmother, who asked me what I thought would happen now that this bail-out bill had been passed. I said, "I think that things will get temporarily better, and then much worse, because we haven't addressed the causes of the economic problems. We need to address high jobless rates (currently 6.1%, the highest in over a decade); the inability of people to pay their mortgages, to pay their other bills, to make a half-decent living in this country and be able to have a house and other economic opportunities." My grandmother said, "I think that you might be right." However, apparently, things shan't even get better before they get worse. They are getting worse already. The DOW plunged over 300 points today, putting the DOW below 10,000 points for the first time since 2004. Most everything in the Stock Market was heavily in the red. But there is no FDR in sight this time. There is no great leadership present to direct us along a better and alternative way. All leaders and prospective leaders have fallen right into line to sing along to bail-out tune, save for a few truly principled and good individuals such as Representative Dennis Kucinich.
I have to tell you, I think that every bit of this current economic situation is just utter insanity. Having a debt-based economy brought it and our country down, and so, naturally, the way to solve that would be to accumlate more government debt by way of bail-outs. The more money we print to fund the bail-outs, the further the American dollar will be de-valued, and, the more money that we borrow from China to fund these bail-outs, the more destruction that a debt-based economy will wreak upon our society. Were the people who voted for the bail-out bill even thinking and aware when they enunciated the word, "Yea!" Perhaps they were thinking, "Yea! I get another term in office, because now my corporate interests will be appeased because of this $700 billion bail-out, and the people in my congressional district will be appeased because of the $150 billion of added ear-marks just for them!" I have to be honest with you, this is just killing me, and not in a funny way like a good joke would. This is as serious as a 76-year-old man having to go back to work after his second heart attack because he needs the health insurance from the company. And this is personal---I know that man, and there are noble others like him. Where are the people who are supposed to help him? Well, apparently, they're all busy shoving money down the throats of their corporate sponsors with this $700 billion bail-out. It is truly sickening.
Instead of creating public works programs, establishing a single-payer healthcare system, creating a prescription drug benefit that pays for the prescriptions of all seniors, instituting a living wage and Fair Trade policies to protect the worker (the fundamental element of our economy), and re-evaluting our debt-based financial system, all we are doing is bailing out big corporations to save them from the consequences of their reckless practices while totally neglecting Main Street and the causes of the problems, and we expect these actions to prevent an economic crisis! Can you imagine, can you just imagine, how different and more terrible our country's history would be if all FDR had done was exactly what we are doing now?
Despite this, leaders in Congress and in the White House, including the two major-party presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, passed and signed the bail-out bill this past Friday. The fools in Washington have bumbled things up again. That day, I spoke to my grandmother, who asked me what I thought would happen now that this bail-out bill had been passed. I said, "I think that things will get temporarily better, and then much worse, because we haven't addressed the causes of the economic problems. We need to address high jobless rates (currently 6.1%, the highest in over a decade); the inability of people to pay their mortgages, to pay their other bills, to make a half-decent living in this country and be able to have a house and other economic opportunities." My grandmother said, "I think that you might be right." However, apparently, things shan't even get better before they get worse. They are getting worse already. The DOW plunged over 300 points today, putting the DOW below 10,000 points for the first time since 2004. Most everything in the Stock Market was heavily in the red. But there is no FDR in sight this time. There is no great leadership present to direct us along a better and alternative way. All leaders and prospective leaders have fallen right into line to sing along to bail-out tune, save for a few truly principled and good individuals such as Representative Dennis Kucinich.
I have to tell you, I think that every bit of this current economic situation is just utter insanity. Having a debt-based economy brought it and our country down, and so, naturally, the way to solve that would be to accumlate more government debt by way of bail-outs. The more money we print to fund the bail-outs, the further the American dollar will be de-valued, and, the more money that we borrow from China to fund these bail-outs, the more destruction that a debt-based economy will wreak upon our society. Were the people who voted for the bail-out bill even thinking and aware when they enunciated the word, "Yea!" Perhaps they were thinking, "Yea! I get another term in office, because now my corporate interests will be appeased because of this $700 billion bail-out, and the people in my congressional district will be appeased because of the $150 billion of added ear-marks just for them!" I have to be honest with you, this is just killing me, and not in a funny way like a good joke would. This is as serious as a 76-year-old man having to go back to work after his second heart attack because he needs the health insurance from the company. And this is personal---I know that man, and there are noble others like him. Where are the people who are supposed to help him? Well, apparently, they're all busy shoving money down the throats of their corporate sponsors with this $700 billion bail-out. It is truly sickening.
Instead of creating public works programs, establishing a single-payer healthcare system, creating a prescription drug benefit that pays for the prescriptions of all seniors, instituting a living wage and Fair Trade policies to protect the worker (the fundamental element of our economy), and re-evaluting our debt-based financial system, all we are doing is bailing out big corporations to save them from the consequences of their reckless practices while totally neglecting Main Street and the causes of the problems, and we expect these actions to prevent an economic crisis! Can you imagine, can you just imagine, how different and more terrible our country's history would be if all FDR had done was exactly what we are doing now?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
On the Economy and Government Bail-outs
In this taxpayer-financed bail-out of Wall Street, the government will be buying up mortgage-backed securities and other toxic assets from the companies that are failing. Perhaps I can explain in plain language what it is that the government is doing---what they are purchasing. For example, what are mortgage-backed securities? Security is just another word for investment. You make an investment in a company that lends out money to other people for mortgages. These companies lend the money that you invest, and, when a person pays back their mortgage payment, there is a certain 7-8% interest charged. So, your money (your investment) in the mortgage company grows by 7-8%. Used to, most people would pay their mortgages---unlike car payments, which are more often defaulted on---and so mortgage-backed securities are looked upon as a safer investment. They might not pay as well as perhaps the Stock Market would, but they have been looked upon as a safer investment. But, now that there are all of these economic problems and people can't pay their mortgages on their homes, these mortgage-backed securities in these big companies have been failing, crashing, and burning. And so, the government is buying and taking possession of these mortgage-backed securities and other toxic assets like them from these failing companies, in the hopes that this measure will at least temporarily save these companies and stop them from failing utterly.
The problem is, you don't know exactly how much all of these purchases will cost until you make them. Unfortunately, there's not a price tag like you would see on a television at a store. The government has set the number of about $700 billion for these bail-outs, though there is no real certainty that that is indeed what these assets are worth. According to some business sources, such as New York Times Business Columnist Joe Nocera, the actual price-tag for these bail-outs could be over a trillion dollars. If this proposal of the Bush Administration and others is approved by Congress, then they will have once again handed the U.S. Government a blank check to spend as much as they please to bail out these corporate entities. We can't even afford this kind of opulence, but this wouldn't be all right even if we could. The government will have to print more money in order to buy these mortage-backed securities and bail out these companies. Printing more money will decrease the value of the money already in circulation, and, as a result, the dollar will further weaken. This bail-out will just continue the destructive nature of our debt-based economy, and it won't increase regulation of speculation or solve any long-term problems regarding our financial system.
The fact of the matter is that bail-outs are not the magical solution, the panacea, like President Bush and other proponents make this out to be. In their view, if bail-outs are not approved, then the economy will collapse, and, if they are approved, the economy will be saved. President Bush got onto the television (somehow) the other night and put the fear into everyone that the economy will collapse if these bail-outs are not approved. Fear is a very powerful thing which has been used for centuries to rob people of their powers of logic and reason, throwing them into a wild panic which is blind to everything but their consuming fear. This tactic has worked before, and it will likely work again.
In opposing such a Wall Street bail-out plan, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich has been working on an alternative, comprehensive plan for a “Main Street economic recovery”, in which, it is stated, both the economy will be stimulated and a fair deal will be provided to the American people. Kucinich’s plan decidedly is made up of a different kind of more long-term thinking than what is currently convention and policy at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Aspects of Kucinich's plan, viewable at kucinich.us, includes: numerous public works programs to provide jobs to citizens of the United States, a plan for a single-payer healthcare system, a plan for a prescription drug benefit to pay for the prescriptions of all seniors, and an affirmation of the need to re-evaluate our monetary policy and our debt-based economic system. I think that it is a brilliant alternative plan, and I give it my full and whole-hearted support. All of the components of Representative Dennis Kucinich’s plan are aimed at helping those working on Main Street rather than those speculating on Wall Street. The plan introduced by the Bush Administration to bail-out Wall Street is aimed at doing exactly the opposite, and does not re-evaluate our debt-based economic system (which is likely the root of this financial decline) or provide a long-term solution to our country’s problems.
The problem is, you don't know exactly how much all of these purchases will cost until you make them. Unfortunately, there's not a price tag like you would see on a television at a store. The government has set the number of about $700 billion for these bail-outs, though there is no real certainty that that is indeed what these assets are worth. According to some business sources, such as New York Times Business Columnist Joe Nocera, the actual price-tag for these bail-outs could be over a trillion dollars. If this proposal of the Bush Administration and others is approved by Congress, then they will have once again handed the U.S. Government a blank check to spend as much as they please to bail out these corporate entities. We can't even afford this kind of opulence, but this wouldn't be all right even if we could. The government will have to print more money in order to buy these mortage-backed securities and bail out these companies. Printing more money will decrease the value of the money already in circulation, and, as a result, the dollar will further weaken. This bail-out will just continue the destructive nature of our debt-based economy, and it won't increase regulation of speculation or solve any long-term problems regarding our financial system.
The fact of the matter is that bail-outs are not the magical solution, the panacea, like President Bush and other proponents make this out to be. In their view, if bail-outs are not approved, then the economy will collapse, and, if they are approved, the economy will be saved. President Bush got onto the television (somehow) the other night and put the fear into everyone that the economy will collapse if these bail-outs are not approved. Fear is a very powerful thing which has been used for centuries to rob people of their powers of logic and reason, throwing them into a wild panic which is blind to everything but their consuming fear. This tactic has worked before, and it will likely work again.
In opposing such a Wall Street bail-out plan, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich has been working on an alternative, comprehensive plan for a “Main Street economic recovery”, in which, it is stated, both the economy will be stimulated and a fair deal will be provided to the American people. Kucinich’s plan decidedly is made up of a different kind of more long-term thinking than what is currently convention and policy at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Aspects of Kucinich's plan, viewable at kucinich.us, includes: numerous public works programs to provide jobs to citizens of the United States, a plan for a single-payer healthcare system, a plan for a prescription drug benefit to pay for the prescriptions of all seniors, and an affirmation of the need to re-evaluate our monetary policy and our debt-based economic system. I think that it is a brilliant alternative plan, and I give it my full and whole-hearted support. All of the components of Representative Dennis Kucinich’s plan are aimed at helping those working on Main Street rather than those speculating on Wall Street. The plan introduced by the Bush Administration to bail-out Wall Street is aimed at doing exactly the opposite, and does not re-evaluate our debt-based economic system (which is likely the root of this financial decline) or provide a long-term solution to our country’s problems.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Future
There are a number of things politically that I would like to see done in my lifetime. As you read this list, however, you will likely see how unlikely it is that any of these things will occur in the next 50 years. Here is my idealist view of the future of the United States:
1. The U.S. defense budget greatly slashed and U.S. troops brought home from most or all of their stations in countries around the world. The United States usually spends about 50% of its total budget each year on defense. As a result, this country spends more on defense than the rest of the countries of the world combined. No other countries can rival us, so what are we afraid of? Terrorists? The War on Terror should be an intelligence and police action rather than an actual war---especially considering that such a war would be perpetual, since terrorism is a part of human nature and can not be eradicated. Our budget priorities should be re-organized to favor things like education and infrastructure.
2. A federal program that pays for college education in the United States, up to Ph. D. level. As for highschool and younger education, I support the repeal of the "No Child Left Behind Act", which places too much emphasis on testing and removes funding from schools who do the least well on the tests (removing funding from schools that need the money most).
3. The enactment of the National Initiative for Democracy proposal (ni4d.org), which will empower the American people to make laws in partnership with their elected officials. This is a historic proposal to change the paradigm of human governance.
4. A significant plan and action against poverty in the United States. Components of this could be: a living wage, public works programs, fair trade policies, and urban and rural revitalization plans with tax incentives for companies to remain in the United States and re-locate to depressed areas.
5. A significant plan and action towards solving our global warming problems. This could include a carbon tax and increased use of such clean energies as wind and solar.
6. A single-payer, not-for-profit, government-run healthcare system which provides most everything from eye-glasses to dental.
7. Public works programs to rebuild America's infrastructure (and other projects such as the building of a national rail transportation system), which can help create new jobs and improve the country.
8. Breaking up of corporate media monopolies and the corporate control over our information supply. Also implement major election reform and public campaign financing in order to limit corporate influence in our government (the NI4D may also help with this).
9. A living wage (not a minimum wage that people can't live off of), the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and increased Union activity (unions can fight for workers' rights), and the implementation of Fair Trade policies (with tariffs in place to protect manufacturing jobs in the United States). All of these things will help protect the worker and increase the rights of workers.
10. Civil rights in general should be increased. The Patriot Act should be repealed, abortion and gay marriage should be made legal nationally, the failed War on Drugs should be ended. Marijuana should be legalized, as it is less strong than some forms of alcohol, and other drugs should be distributed only by a doctor's prescription: drugs should be a public health issue, not a criminal issue. We should have heightened civil liberties in this society, with equal rights for all and greater rights than what we have presently.
11. Simplification and replacement of the U.S. tax system, which is currently a complex and corrupt income tax system with many loopholes. The complexity of the tax system can allow the richer citizens among us to exploit the loopholes and evade paying their fair share of taxes. Only the rich can afford to hire people to find these loopholes. Replacements for this current tax system could be the Fair Tax, a flat tax, or some other option I have not yet heard of. In addition to this, the Bush Tax cuts, which benefit the wealthiest alone in society, should be repealed. Inequality between the rich and poor should decrease, and one way to do this is to create a fairer tax system that is helpful to the middle class and the poor, and not just the rich.
12. Peace, diplomacy, cooperation, and friendship with all other nations in the world. Use an uderstanding and respectful foreign policy rather than an aggressive, militaristic, and threatening foreign policy. Perhaps this cooperative friendship could be used to combat global warming, among other things. If the people of the world are united in their goals, then what shall be able to stop them? People like to divide things between East and West, but, if I know anything, I know that East always meets West somewhere. And, in this case, that meeting is in the fact that we are all human beings with an interest in maintaining human life on earth.
13. Voting age lowered to 16. In my view, if you are allowed to work a job, if you are allowed to take your life and the lives of others into your own hands when you are driving a car, then you should be allowed and you should be considered responsible enough to be able to vote. Suffrage should be expanded, and the disenfranchisement of this group of American citizens ceased.
14. Increased funding for space program, put a man on Mars. Also increase funding for research for diseases such as AIDS and cancer: hopefully, if any cures exist for these previously incurable diseases, government policy shall make these cures easier to be found. In the area of science, the United States should attempt to contribute to human progress.
These ideas, though not exclusively, greatly comprise my ideal view of how this country should be in the future. How the world should see us. With equal rights for all, citizen empowerment, a citizen-oriented society. Striving towards new precedents and contributing to the progress of humankind on the planet earth. With a cooperative, understanding, and peaceful foreign policy. Taking steps towards a human society where the emphasis is most greatly laid on the rights and goals of humanity---a humanist society. Will this ever come to pass? The question is not whether the current established society will pass away---it will, for it is the law of Time and of the Earth that it must do so---the question is what will replace them. The question is whether these societies which never existed will ever come to pass.
1. The U.S. defense budget greatly slashed and U.S. troops brought home from most or all of their stations in countries around the world. The United States usually spends about 50% of its total budget each year on defense. As a result, this country spends more on defense than the rest of the countries of the world combined. No other countries can rival us, so what are we afraid of? Terrorists? The War on Terror should be an intelligence and police action rather than an actual war---especially considering that such a war would be perpetual, since terrorism is a part of human nature and can not be eradicated. Our budget priorities should be re-organized to favor things like education and infrastructure.
2. A federal program that pays for college education in the United States, up to Ph. D. level. As for highschool and younger education, I support the repeal of the "No Child Left Behind Act", which places too much emphasis on testing and removes funding from schools who do the least well on the tests (removing funding from schools that need the money most).
3. The enactment of the National Initiative for Democracy proposal (ni4d.org), which will empower the American people to make laws in partnership with their elected officials. This is a historic proposal to change the paradigm of human governance.
4. A significant plan and action against poverty in the United States. Components of this could be: a living wage, public works programs, fair trade policies, and urban and rural revitalization plans with tax incentives for companies to remain in the United States and re-locate to depressed areas.
5. A significant plan and action towards solving our global warming problems. This could include a carbon tax and increased use of such clean energies as wind and solar.
6. A single-payer, not-for-profit, government-run healthcare system which provides most everything from eye-glasses to dental.
7. Public works programs to rebuild America's infrastructure (and other projects such as the building of a national rail transportation system), which can help create new jobs and improve the country.
8. Breaking up of corporate media monopolies and the corporate control over our information supply. Also implement major election reform and public campaign financing in order to limit corporate influence in our government (the NI4D may also help with this).
9. A living wage (not a minimum wage that people can't live off of), the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and increased Union activity (unions can fight for workers' rights), and the implementation of Fair Trade policies (with tariffs in place to protect manufacturing jobs in the United States). All of these things will help protect the worker and increase the rights of workers.
10. Civil rights in general should be increased. The Patriot Act should be repealed, abortion and gay marriage should be made legal nationally, the failed War on Drugs should be ended. Marijuana should be legalized, as it is less strong than some forms of alcohol, and other drugs should be distributed only by a doctor's prescription: drugs should be a public health issue, not a criminal issue. We should have heightened civil liberties in this society, with equal rights for all and greater rights than what we have presently.
11. Simplification and replacement of the U.S. tax system, which is currently a complex and corrupt income tax system with many loopholes. The complexity of the tax system can allow the richer citizens among us to exploit the loopholes and evade paying their fair share of taxes. Only the rich can afford to hire people to find these loopholes. Replacements for this current tax system could be the Fair Tax, a flat tax, or some other option I have not yet heard of. In addition to this, the Bush Tax cuts, which benefit the wealthiest alone in society, should be repealed. Inequality between the rich and poor should decrease, and one way to do this is to create a fairer tax system that is helpful to the middle class and the poor, and not just the rich.
12. Peace, diplomacy, cooperation, and friendship with all other nations in the world. Use an uderstanding and respectful foreign policy rather than an aggressive, militaristic, and threatening foreign policy. Perhaps this cooperative friendship could be used to combat global warming, among other things. If the people of the world are united in their goals, then what shall be able to stop them? People like to divide things between East and West, but, if I know anything, I know that East always meets West somewhere. And, in this case, that meeting is in the fact that we are all human beings with an interest in maintaining human life on earth.
13. Voting age lowered to 16. In my view, if you are allowed to work a job, if you are allowed to take your life and the lives of others into your own hands when you are driving a car, then you should be allowed and you should be considered responsible enough to be able to vote. Suffrage should be expanded, and the disenfranchisement of this group of American citizens ceased.
14. Increased funding for space program, put a man on Mars. Also increase funding for research for diseases such as AIDS and cancer: hopefully, if any cures exist for these previously incurable diseases, government policy shall make these cures easier to be found. In the area of science, the United States should attempt to contribute to human progress.
These ideas, though not exclusively, greatly comprise my ideal view of how this country should be in the future. How the world should see us. With equal rights for all, citizen empowerment, a citizen-oriented society. Striving towards new precedents and contributing to the progress of humankind on the planet earth. With a cooperative, understanding, and peaceful foreign policy. Taking steps towards a human society where the emphasis is most greatly laid on the rights and goals of humanity---a humanist society. Will this ever come to pass? The question is not whether the current established society will pass away---it will, for it is the law of Time and of the Earth that it must do so---the question is what will replace them. The question is whether these societies which never existed will ever come to pass.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Endorsement for President
Before I tell you about any of the specific issues and changes that I think that the country needs, I would like to offer to you my endorsement for President of the United States. I am doing this in part because I don't want to be associated with Barack Obama every time I use the word "change". I'll be straight with you here: I support Ralph Nader for President. I know that my endorsement means little or not at all to anyone besides myself, but the fact of the matter is I like to hear myself talk (and, yes, I am talking this out as I am writing it), and because I would like to provide myself with the happy delusion that I am of at least some little importance. Now, let me just tell you why exactly I support Ralph Nader for President when there are two such great candidates running for the Democrats and the Republicans. The two general reasons are that (1) I don't consider the Democrats and Republicans to be that great (I am an Independent personally, happily unaffiliated with either major party); and (2) Ralph Nader has impressed me with his record of public service as a consumer advocate, and he says essentially nothing that I really disagree with. To provide examples:
Nader advocates citizen engagement and activism, and he supports the "National Initiative for Democracy", a proposal of Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel's, which would allow the American people to make laws via a national ballot initiative in partnership with their elected officials. This is a pet issue of mine (since I was a supporter of Mike Gravel for President from April 28th, 2007 to May 25th, 2008), and I appreciate Nader for taking it up as an issue. To learn more about the National Initiative for Democracy, visit ni4d.us. This proposal is not even on the table for either Barack Obama or John McCain.
Nader advocates cutting the terribly, unnecessarily bloated military budget. Out of the United States budget, approximately 50% of funds are spent on defense. This is hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars we're talking about here. This spending might be necessary if we were in the middle of a World War with several powerful enemies, but the fact of the matter is that the United States's defense spending makes up 50% or so of the world's total for defense spending. Not a single other country in the world---not Russia, nor China, nor even Iran---makes up more than 10% of the world's defense budget. There are no real threats to the United States around the world, no major enemies, and so why is our defense budget so dreadfully high and wasteful? Which power are we defending ourselves from? I expect that it must be Lesotho. Of course!
Nader advocates an Israeli-Palestinian policy much different from that of Obama and McCain. One day, I asked my mother why the United States is so strongly pro-Israel, overlooking any of the sufferings and problems of the Palestinians forced off their lands, overlooking the amazing ratio of Israeli to Palestinian deaths in Gaza---1 Israeli civilian dies for every 400 Palestinians that die. And the conflict and deaths continue despite a great desire for peace, and a two-state solution, among the peoples of both Israel and Palestine. Ralph Nader, who asserts that we should be concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the harm caused to Palestinians as well as Israelis, sides with these peace movements of both sides who desire an end to the conflict and killing; Barack Obama and John McCain side with AIPAC and the extremist right-wing Israeli militarists who continue the conflict. Neither Obama nor McCain will substantially change our Israeli-Palestinian policy, and, as I believe this to be an important issue, I support Ralph Nader and his ideas for President.
I have provided three detailed examples. Here are a few others of how it seems to me that Nader is the best progressive candidate for President, more desirable than Obama and McCain.
(1) Nader advocates a universal, single-payer, government-provided health insurance plan that removes profit from the equation of the nation's health.
(2) Nader supports Fair Trade rather than Free Trade. Fair Trade provides for tariffs and regulations to protect the American worker, while Free Trade does not. As for worker's rights, Nader is strongly pro-worker and pro-union---he advocates the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Union Act of 1947, so that "tens of millions of workers, whom surveys show want to form trade unions, [can] engage in collective bargaining with their employers."
(3) Nader supports the Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Obama and McCain do not consider defending the Constitution in such a manner.
All in all, I consider Nader to be the most principled, best qualified candidate with the best ideas about the issues. His official campaign website is votenader.org.
Nader advocates citizen engagement and activism, and he supports the "National Initiative for Democracy", a proposal of Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel's, which would allow the American people to make laws via a national ballot initiative in partnership with their elected officials. This is a pet issue of mine (since I was a supporter of Mike Gravel for President from April 28th, 2007 to May 25th, 2008), and I appreciate Nader for taking it up as an issue. To learn more about the National Initiative for Democracy, visit ni4d.us. This proposal is not even on the table for either Barack Obama or John McCain.
Nader advocates cutting the terribly, unnecessarily bloated military budget. Out of the United States budget, approximately 50% of funds are spent on defense. This is hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars we're talking about here. This spending might be necessary if we were in the middle of a World War with several powerful enemies, but the fact of the matter is that the United States's defense spending makes up 50% or so of the world's total for defense spending. Not a single other country in the world---not Russia, nor China, nor even Iran---makes up more than 10% of the world's defense budget. There are no real threats to the United States around the world, no major enemies, and so why is our defense budget so dreadfully high and wasteful? Which power are we defending ourselves from? I expect that it must be Lesotho. Of course!
Nader advocates an Israeli-Palestinian policy much different from that of Obama and McCain. One day, I asked my mother why the United States is so strongly pro-Israel, overlooking any of the sufferings and problems of the Palestinians forced off their lands, overlooking the amazing ratio of Israeli to Palestinian deaths in Gaza---1 Israeli civilian dies for every 400 Palestinians that die. And the conflict and deaths continue despite a great desire for peace, and a two-state solution, among the peoples of both Israel and Palestine. Ralph Nader, who asserts that we should be concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the harm caused to Palestinians as well as Israelis, sides with these peace movements of both sides who desire an end to the conflict and killing; Barack Obama and John McCain side with AIPAC and the extremist right-wing Israeli militarists who continue the conflict. Neither Obama nor McCain will substantially change our Israeli-Palestinian policy, and, as I believe this to be an important issue, I support Ralph Nader and his ideas for President.
I have provided three detailed examples. Here are a few others of how it seems to me that Nader is the best progressive candidate for President, more desirable than Obama and McCain.
(1) Nader advocates a universal, single-payer, government-provided health insurance plan that removes profit from the equation of the nation's health.
(2) Nader supports Fair Trade rather than Free Trade. Fair Trade provides for tariffs and regulations to protect the American worker, while Free Trade does not. As for worker's rights, Nader is strongly pro-worker and pro-union---he advocates the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Union Act of 1947, so that "tens of millions of workers, whom surveys show want to form trade unions, [can] engage in collective bargaining with their employers."
(3) Nader supports the Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Obama and McCain do not consider defending the Constitution in such a manner.
All in all, I consider Nader to be the most principled, best qualified candidate with the best ideas about the issues. His official campaign website is votenader.org.
Good Afternoon
Good afternoon, and welcome to my blog, "Revolutionize around Common Sense". This blog's link is nineteenthofapril.blogspot.com, and I would like to explain to you why I picked this particular date. On this day, April 19th, in 1775, the first shots of the American Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord. These shots began the war that would eventually, through a great many "times that try men's souls", result in American Independence from Great Britain. It began, in others words, a great overhaul of existing conditions, in a relatively rapid period of time.
There are many conditions in the United States in 2008 that I, and fellow concerned citizens, would desire to be greatly improved upon---though, as I am not a Communist, a violent revolution and complete tearing-down of existing conditions is not my advocation. Rather, there are numerous issues in which I believe that the prevailing policies of today should be flipped in the other direction completely. I believe that America's priorities should be reorganized, moving from defense spending and war to the worthier priorities of Education and Infrastructure. I believe that our approach towards foreign policy should be revised, with less aggressiveness and more respect towards our fellow countries and our fellow citizens of the world. I believe that more power should be given and taken by the citizens of the United States; the power of government should rest more in the hands of the People of the United States, and our society should become more civically involved and democratic.
These are my thoughts; these are my general goals of areas in which to redirect the stream of political discussion. On this blog, I plan to reverse the course of a waterfall, send all its water falling up instead of down. As you can see how difficult this will be, I ask for you help, if you support similar ideas to mine (and, don't worry, I will get around to the specifics), to blog about them yourself. If enough human ingenuity and intelligence is employed, I don't see why not the course of a waterfall couldn't someday be reversed.
Thank you.
There are many conditions in the United States in 2008 that I, and fellow concerned citizens, would desire to be greatly improved upon---though, as I am not a Communist, a violent revolution and complete tearing-down of existing conditions is not my advocation. Rather, there are numerous issues in which I believe that the prevailing policies of today should be flipped in the other direction completely. I believe that America's priorities should be reorganized, moving from defense spending and war to the worthier priorities of Education and Infrastructure. I believe that our approach towards foreign policy should be revised, with less aggressiveness and more respect towards our fellow countries and our fellow citizens of the world. I believe that more power should be given and taken by the citizens of the United States; the power of government should rest more in the hands of the People of the United States, and our society should become more civically involved and democratic.
These are my thoughts; these are my general goals of areas in which to redirect the stream of political discussion. On this blog, I plan to reverse the course of a waterfall, send all its water falling up instead of down. As you can see how difficult this will be, I ask for you help, if you support similar ideas to mine (and, don't worry, I will get around to the specifics), to blog about them yourself. If enough human ingenuity and intelligence is employed, I don't see why not the course of a waterfall couldn't someday be reversed.
Thank you.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Election 2008: Ralph Nader in Athens, Georgia
On July 25th, 2008, my father, my thirteen-year-old brother, and I went to go see Ralph Nader, consumer advocate and 2008 Independent Presidential candidate, speak at “Master’s Hall” on the University of Georgia campus in Athens. I had been incredibly excited to see that Nader was coming to Georgia on his “Southern Tour”, and no more than forty miles away from my town, no less! My father, being the good open-minded fellow that he is, agreeably drove myself and my uninterested brother there and paid the $10 each to get in. We each received a free Nader/Gonzalez ‘08 pin for this payment. There was a long table set up just outside the hall for this practice of collecting money, and for collecting signatures on a petition to get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Georgia. The number of signatures necessary to get Nader, or any Independent candidate, on the ballot in Georgia is inane: 42,489 signatures by July 8th. Such ballot access laws are implemented so that independent candidates cannot make a significant challenge to the two major parties in power (who are the ones that make the laws, of course).
The event was at 5:30 in the afternoon; we three were situated in our seats by 5:00, and we watched as the hall filled up with likely about two hundred people. Since Ralph Nader had held an event in Columbia, South Carolina, at 12 o’clock that afternoon, and since he had run into some bad traffic on the way to Athens (no surprise there), he did not arrive at the hall until about 6 o’clock that evening.
After giving a brief press conference upstairs, Nader arrived, amidst a burst of applause. He walked down the aisle, right next to where I was sitting (close enough that I could have touched him, if I lacked judgement and prudence), towards the podium. Nader sat down and briefly rested from his busy schedule while a young African American campaign volunteer, a “concerned citizen”, gave an earnest introductory speech. In this speech, the young man affirmed how much he cared about the country and the issues at hand, and how important it is for everyone to care and be civically involved. And then he said, “And now I am proud to present a more-than-worthy 2008 presidential candidate, Mr. Ralph Nader.” The crowd erupted into applause. This was the moment that we had all been waiting for. We three were not disappointed.
After thanking the young man for such a sensitive introduction and apologizing for being late, Nader began, “Let me start in a more fundamental way. The problems we have in this country start with how individuals, in the millions, use their time. That’s where it all starts. I grew up in a small town in Connecticut. It had a town meeting form of government. And the town meeting was the legislature, the local legislature, and you could just walk to the town meeting; there were no obstacles to going into the auditorium, or the town hall, to decide important issues in the community. It was, in my judgement, the most pristine form of democracy in the world; you really can’t do much better than that. We had a local daily newspaper; if we didn’t print what you liked, you could canvas the whole town, it was ten thousand people.”
Nader continued, “There was no excuse for not having a very democratic form of government, with all the benefits that come from that. The quality of government in our town was directly related to how many people turned out, how many people voted, how many people showed up. And when people showed up, we’d work out our problems, nobody won everything—people didn’t show up, power moved into a concentrated format: the factory-owners, or the local politicos. In other words, if the dynamic of citizen engagement is weak, power flows to the few against the many. And that means that those few make decisions in their favor, against the majority, the masses of the people. And that’s why we get these political candidates, at the presidential and congressional level, who speak in such generalities that their rhetoric belies their record of almost never, in Congress or in the White House, proposing anything that shifts power from the few to the many. For example, public funding of public campaigns; we don’t do that. For example, national referendums, with binding power; we’d [Nader would] do that.”
There, at the part about national referendums, I believe Nader was referring to the National Initiative for Democracy, proposal of Former Senator Mike Gravel, which has now apparently earned the support of Ralph Nader, though Nader does not make it a centerpiece issue. Nader continued with ideas of how to shift power from the few to the many (a major theme of his campaign), and, though he had many, one of the most important of these was, “Getting rid of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the most notorious anti-union worker law in the Western world, and letting tens of millions of workers, whom surveys show want to form trade unions, to engage in collective bargaining with their employers—That would shift power.”
Nader also said, in the area of workers-rights (he is apparently strongly pro-union and pro-worker), “Opening up the courts so that wrongfully injured people, or defrauded people (there are enough of us in that category), could have their full day in court, before a judge and jury, instead of being restricted by this notorious, misnamed ‘tort reform’ movement, perpetrated by the insurance companies and the wrong-doers corporate lobby—That would shift power. 90% of all people wrongfully injured in this country never even filed a claim. Do you know how bad that is?”
I did not record the speech in its entirety, but Nader made several other interesting points, which remain etched in my memory. Here they are, listed out.
1. Nader has visited some dictatorships in his life. They have almost as much personal freedom as a democracy; you can live where you like, go fishing if you like, eat what you like, marry who you want to, etc. The real exercise of freedom, Nader said, is in the area of participation in politics and civics. Nader cited Cicero’s famous quote, describing it as the best definition of freedom he had yet heard, “Freedom is participation in power”. That is where dictatorships and free democracies differ. In democracies, you can participate in power—you can be an active, civic-minded citizen. Participation in power is the real freedom.
2. It seemed as though Nader was speaking directly to my younger brother when he noted that youths who do not care about civics and who do not practice civic engagement will reap the consequences when they are older. They will reap the consequences of their failure to act and speak out and become involved, such as a bad healthcare system, lack of a living wage (despite some claims, the minimum wage is not a living wage; you most certainly cannot live off of it), a corrupt tax code, etc. Nader talked about how youths these days spend 60 hours each week staring at a screen, either television or computer, neglecting the beauty of the outdoors and nature, which he believed was unfortunate.
3. Nader called hotdogs “pink missiles”—a cute name for this decidedly unhealthy food likely made of cow intestines or something equally pleasant. This is a suitable topic for a consumer advocate who greatly contributed to the establishment of a mandatory installation of seat belts in cars.
4. Nader began talking about how the government was bailing out corporations with government funds. Nader told us about how, one time, while his family had been sitting around the dinner table, his father had asked his children, “Why will capitalism always survive?” Their natural response was, of course, “Just tell us, Dad.” Their father answered, “Because socialism will always be there to save it.”
5. Nader described prisons as “finishing schools” for criminals, which focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. He also affirmed his desire to legalize marijuana and end the “war on drugs”.
6. Nader made a proposal for a “Congressional Watchdog” organization. Congressional districts have an average population of 645,000 people. In each Congressional district, Nader proposed, 500 to 1000 citizens should organize into a group specializing in overseeing the actions of the representative from that district. Each member would pay out a small fee, enough to rent a small office space and hire a couple of full-time employees. This would aid the oversight that each representative receives from the citizens of that district that they are representing.
After Mr. Ralph Nader’s speech (which I, my father, and even my brother, just a little, enjoyed), some fellow from his campaign got up and made a speech, with a great deal of “Uh’s”, “Um’s”, and “Er’s”, and then the purpose of the speech was revealed when the fellow began attempting to auction off a signed copy of “The Good Fight”, by Ralph Nader, for $2300 (it ended up fetching $250). After further painful begging for donations by this fellow (with Ralph Nader all the while sitting quietly, resting, a little bit away from the podium), Nader got up again to take questions from the audience. There were not very many questioners, probably about four or five.
Nader was asked a question about the Middle East and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, about how his policy was different from McCain’s and Obama’s. Mr. Nader said that Obama and McCain are on the side of the minority, the extremist Israeli militarists and wars hawks, while the vast majority of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples in that region just want peace—a two-state solution. Mr. Nader also asserted that we should stand up against the injustices inflicted upon the Palestinians by Israel. There is a ratio of 400 to 1 in the Palestinian to Israeli civilian casualties in Gaza; for every Israeli killed by Palestinians, there are 400 Palestinians killed by Israelis. There is a humanitarian disaster going on in Gaza.
Another fellow asked a question about the Fair Tax proposal, for a national sales tax, and Nader replied that he was not in favor of the Fair Tax proposal but that he was in favor of a fair tax system. Nader said that the tax system should be reorganized, starting with the basic principle that things such as alcohol, cigarettes, pollution, and speculation should be taxed the most, while desirable things such as food and work should be taxed less. His answer was a little longer and more complex than this simple statement I have made here, and he received a great deal of applause for it. Of course, you can see Nader’s full positions on the issues at his website votenader.org.
After all that was finished with, Nader left to go to his next event in Atlanta, Georgia (which was at 8 o’clock and which he was already late for; and, knowing Atlanta, he would probably hit some bad traffic on the way there too). It must be exhausting to carry on with such a busy schedule: three events in one day, each quite a drive away from the others. My father, my brother, and I set off from Master’s Hall back to our car. The sky was darkening, with some clattering of thunder, threatening a great storm. Just as we got into our car, it began to rain, great big noisy drops. The storm had begun.
Is our nation, in this 2008 election, heading for a perfect storm? Some people seem to think so, but it is not just mere, unsubstantiated, wishful thinking that is behind it. Ralph Nader currently has 6% in National polls, while Bob Barr usually receives about 3%, giving third party candidates a combined 9% in most polls. And yet these candidates are rarely mentioned, if ever, in the media. Do you ever wonder about this? Nader was wondering aloud what he would have to do to get any attention in the media—dress up as a panda? Have someone else dress up as a female panda, and then have male-panda Nader flash suggestive looks at them? Nader continued on humorously: the media does, after all, certainly seem to be very interested in the mating practices of pandas, if you’ll recall. There is no time to mention any third-party candidates.
I had a wonderful time at this Ralph Nader event; I very much liked Nader’s key message of civic engagement. He is a remarkable fellow, which is a condition that he attributes to his remarkable parents. My father, after the event, told me in complete seriousness that, if Nader got to 20% in the polls, he would vote for Nader. Dad might vote for him anyway, unless it looks as though Obama might win Georgia, of course, of course. My thirteen-year-old brother asserted a few days later that he would vote for Nader if his middle school held a mock election for President. I hope that you, too, have been pleasantly informed by my, and Ralph Nader’s, words and actions—and I hope that, upon finishing this article, you are now more open-minded than you were before you first laid eyes on it.
The event was at 5:30 in the afternoon; we three were situated in our seats by 5:00, and we watched as the hall filled up with likely about two hundred people. Since Ralph Nader had held an event in Columbia, South Carolina, at 12 o’clock that afternoon, and since he had run into some bad traffic on the way to Athens (no surprise there), he did not arrive at the hall until about 6 o’clock that evening.
After giving a brief press conference upstairs, Nader arrived, amidst a burst of applause. He walked down the aisle, right next to where I was sitting (close enough that I could have touched him, if I lacked judgement and prudence), towards the podium. Nader sat down and briefly rested from his busy schedule while a young African American campaign volunteer, a “concerned citizen”, gave an earnest introductory speech. In this speech, the young man affirmed how much he cared about the country and the issues at hand, and how important it is for everyone to care and be civically involved. And then he said, “And now I am proud to present a more-than-worthy 2008 presidential candidate, Mr. Ralph Nader.” The crowd erupted into applause. This was the moment that we had all been waiting for. We three were not disappointed.
After thanking the young man for such a sensitive introduction and apologizing for being late, Nader began, “Let me start in a more fundamental way. The problems we have in this country start with how individuals, in the millions, use their time. That’s where it all starts. I grew up in a small town in Connecticut. It had a town meeting form of government. And the town meeting was the legislature, the local legislature, and you could just walk to the town meeting; there were no obstacles to going into the auditorium, or the town hall, to decide important issues in the community. It was, in my judgement, the most pristine form of democracy in the world; you really can’t do much better than that. We had a local daily newspaper; if we didn’t print what you liked, you could canvas the whole town, it was ten thousand people.”
Nader continued, “There was no excuse for not having a very democratic form of government, with all the benefits that come from that. The quality of government in our town was directly related to how many people turned out, how many people voted, how many people showed up. And when people showed up, we’d work out our problems, nobody won everything—people didn’t show up, power moved into a concentrated format: the factory-owners, or the local politicos. In other words, if the dynamic of citizen engagement is weak, power flows to the few against the many. And that means that those few make decisions in their favor, against the majority, the masses of the people. And that’s why we get these political candidates, at the presidential and congressional level, who speak in such generalities that their rhetoric belies their record of almost never, in Congress or in the White House, proposing anything that shifts power from the few to the many. For example, public funding of public campaigns; we don’t do that. For example, national referendums, with binding power; we’d [Nader would] do that.”
There, at the part about national referendums, I believe Nader was referring to the National Initiative for Democracy, proposal of Former Senator Mike Gravel, which has now apparently earned the support of Ralph Nader, though Nader does not make it a centerpiece issue. Nader continued with ideas of how to shift power from the few to the many (a major theme of his campaign), and, though he had many, one of the most important of these was, “Getting rid of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the most notorious anti-union worker law in the Western world, and letting tens of millions of workers, whom surveys show want to form trade unions, to engage in collective bargaining with their employers—That would shift power.”
Nader also said, in the area of workers-rights (he is apparently strongly pro-union and pro-worker), “Opening up the courts so that wrongfully injured people, or defrauded people (there are enough of us in that category), could have their full day in court, before a judge and jury, instead of being restricted by this notorious, misnamed ‘tort reform’ movement, perpetrated by the insurance companies and the wrong-doers corporate lobby—That would shift power. 90% of all people wrongfully injured in this country never even filed a claim. Do you know how bad that is?”
I did not record the speech in its entirety, but Nader made several other interesting points, which remain etched in my memory. Here they are, listed out.
1. Nader has visited some dictatorships in his life. They have almost as much personal freedom as a democracy; you can live where you like, go fishing if you like, eat what you like, marry who you want to, etc. The real exercise of freedom, Nader said, is in the area of participation in politics and civics. Nader cited Cicero’s famous quote, describing it as the best definition of freedom he had yet heard, “Freedom is participation in power”. That is where dictatorships and free democracies differ. In democracies, you can participate in power—you can be an active, civic-minded citizen. Participation in power is the real freedom.
2. It seemed as though Nader was speaking directly to my younger brother when he noted that youths who do not care about civics and who do not practice civic engagement will reap the consequences when they are older. They will reap the consequences of their failure to act and speak out and become involved, such as a bad healthcare system, lack of a living wage (despite some claims, the minimum wage is not a living wage; you most certainly cannot live off of it), a corrupt tax code, etc. Nader talked about how youths these days spend 60 hours each week staring at a screen, either television or computer, neglecting the beauty of the outdoors and nature, which he believed was unfortunate.
3. Nader called hotdogs “pink missiles”—a cute name for this decidedly unhealthy food likely made of cow intestines or something equally pleasant. This is a suitable topic for a consumer advocate who greatly contributed to the establishment of a mandatory installation of seat belts in cars.
4. Nader began talking about how the government was bailing out corporations with government funds. Nader told us about how, one time, while his family had been sitting around the dinner table, his father had asked his children, “Why will capitalism always survive?” Their natural response was, of course, “Just tell us, Dad.” Their father answered, “Because socialism will always be there to save it.”
5. Nader described prisons as “finishing schools” for criminals, which focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. He also affirmed his desire to legalize marijuana and end the “war on drugs”.
6. Nader made a proposal for a “Congressional Watchdog” organization. Congressional districts have an average population of 645,000 people. In each Congressional district, Nader proposed, 500 to 1000 citizens should organize into a group specializing in overseeing the actions of the representative from that district. Each member would pay out a small fee, enough to rent a small office space and hire a couple of full-time employees. This would aid the oversight that each representative receives from the citizens of that district that they are representing.
After Mr. Ralph Nader’s speech (which I, my father, and even my brother, just a little, enjoyed), some fellow from his campaign got up and made a speech, with a great deal of “Uh’s”, “Um’s”, and “Er’s”, and then the purpose of the speech was revealed when the fellow began attempting to auction off a signed copy of “The Good Fight”, by Ralph Nader, for $2300 (it ended up fetching $250). After further painful begging for donations by this fellow (with Ralph Nader all the while sitting quietly, resting, a little bit away from the podium), Nader got up again to take questions from the audience. There were not very many questioners, probably about four or five.
Nader was asked a question about the Middle East and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, about how his policy was different from McCain’s and Obama’s. Mr. Nader said that Obama and McCain are on the side of the minority, the extremist Israeli militarists and wars hawks, while the vast majority of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples in that region just want peace—a two-state solution. Mr. Nader also asserted that we should stand up against the injustices inflicted upon the Palestinians by Israel. There is a ratio of 400 to 1 in the Palestinian to Israeli civilian casualties in Gaza; for every Israeli killed by Palestinians, there are 400 Palestinians killed by Israelis. There is a humanitarian disaster going on in Gaza.
Another fellow asked a question about the Fair Tax proposal, for a national sales tax, and Nader replied that he was not in favor of the Fair Tax proposal but that he was in favor of a fair tax system. Nader said that the tax system should be reorganized, starting with the basic principle that things such as alcohol, cigarettes, pollution, and speculation should be taxed the most, while desirable things such as food and work should be taxed less. His answer was a little longer and more complex than this simple statement I have made here, and he received a great deal of applause for it. Of course, you can see Nader’s full positions on the issues at his website votenader.org.
After all that was finished with, Nader left to go to his next event in Atlanta, Georgia (which was at 8 o’clock and which he was already late for; and, knowing Atlanta, he would probably hit some bad traffic on the way there too). It must be exhausting to carry on with such a busy schedule: three events in one day, each quite a drive away from the others. My father, my brother, and I set off from Master’s Hall back to our car. The sky was darkening, with some clattering of thunder, threatening a great storm. Just as we got into our car, it began to rain, great big noisy drops. The storm had begun.
Is our nation, in this 2008 election, heading for a perfect storm? Some people seem to think so, but it is not just mere, unsubstantiated, wishful thinking that is behind it. Ralph Nader currently has 6% in National polls, while Bob Barr usually receives about 3%, giving third party candidates a combined 9% in most polls. And yet these candidates are rarely mentioned, if ever, in the media. Do you ever wonder about this? Nader was wondering aloud what he would have to do to get any attention in the media—dress up as a panda? Have someone else dress up as a female panda, and then have male-panda Nader flash suggestive looks at them? Nader continued on humorously: the media does, after all, certainly seem to be very interested in the mating practices of pandas, if you’ll recall. There is no time to mention any third-party candidates.
I had a wonderful time at this Ralph Nader event; I very much liked Nader’s key message of civic engagement. He is a remarkable fellow, which is a condition that he attributes to his remarkable parents. My father, after the event, told me in complete seriousness that, if Nader got to 20% in the polls, he would vote for Nader. Dad might vote for him anyway, unless it looks as though Obama might win Georgia, of course, of course. My thirteen-year-old brother asserted a few days later that he would vote for Nader if his middle school held a mock election for President. I hope that you, too, have been pleasantly informed by my, and Ralph Nader’s, words and actions—and I hope that, upon finishing this article, you are now more open-minded than you were before you first laid eyes on it.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran
Veteran Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh has published an article in the New Yorker Magazine that asserts that congressional leaders agreed to a request from President Bush last year to greatly increase funding, to 400 million dollars, for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran. This escalation of these covert and secret activities is meant to destabilize the religious leadership of Iran. Hersh wrote his article based upon information from “current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources.” The article notes that covert activities by the United States are not new in Iran–we have been conducting cross-border operations from Southern Iraq since last year.
The request for the $400 million was described in something called a “Presidential Finding”, signed by President Bush, and, under Federal Law, these Presidential Findings “must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees”. The article by Hersh noted later that, “In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.” This is a glaring contradiction and hypocrisy that is certainly not unfamiliar to the politics of the United States.
I hope that we all can now clearly see that the Republican Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists. And I hope that we can now also clearly see that the Democratic Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists, through their aiding and abetting of policies that are as such. I hope that we can now clearly see that both political parties are about policing the world, and spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to do so. We are spending 400 million dollars alone on trying to destabilize one single country. That money could have gone to education. That money could have gone to healthcare. That money could have gone to infrastructure. But, out of all of the needy areas of our country, our political leaders, of both parties, decided to direct the money instead towards destabilizing another country. 400 million dollars! That could not be described as “spare change”. Obviously, though, there is no “change” that our leaders can spare. And the small, superficial change that they do provide is worthless.
But Iran is not the only country targeted by the United States. According to Dennis Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, “On September 30, 2001, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of overturning the regime in Iran, as well as those in Iraq, Syria, and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted in then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith’s book, ‘War and Decision’.” The four other countries in the Middle East were, according to Wesley Clark, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Lebanon.
It is my opinion that the United States has been the interventionist policeman of the world for too long. And especially covert interventions, because that promotes “blowback”, defined as a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Hatred in the Middle East towards the United States as a result of our covert operations targeting Middle-Easterners, and then Middle-Easterners demonstrating their hatred in a terrorist attack, is an example of blowback.
Is it honestly in our best interest to undertake operations such as this, especially when domestic issues are in such dire need of attention? And, ask yourself, do we even have the right to interfere in and destabilize another country, someone else’s country, as such? My personal opinion is that we have neither the right nor the obligation to try to destablize the governments of other countries and throw them into political chaos. Aside from the concerns of blowback and the misplacement of tax money, it is very important to do unto others as you would want done unto yourself.
The request for the $400 million was described in something called a “Presidential Finding”, signed by President Bush, and, under Federal Law, these Presidential Findings “must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees”. The article by Hersh noted later that, “In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.” This is a glaring contradiction and hypocrisy that is certainly not unfamiliar to the politics of the United States.
I hope that we all can now clearly see that the Republican Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists. And I hope that we can now also clearly see that the Democratic Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists, through their aiding and abetting of policies that are as such. I hope that we can now clearly see that both political parties are about policing the world, and spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to do so. We are spending 400 million dollars alone on trying to destabilize one single country. That money could have gone to education. That money could have gone to healthcare. That money could have gone to infrastructure. But, out of all of the needy areas of our country, our political leaders, of both parties, decided to direct the money instead towards destabilizing another country. 400 million dollars! That could not be described as “spare change”. Obviously, though, there is no “change” that our leaders can spare. And the small, superficial change that they do provide is worthless.
But Iran is not the only country targeted by the United States. According to Dennis Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, “On September 30, 2001, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of overturning the regime in Iran, as well as those in Iraq, Syria, and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted in then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith’s book, ‘War and Decision’.” The four other countries in the Middle East were, according to Wesley Clark, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Lebanon.
It is my opinion that the United States has been the interventionist policeman of the world for too long. And especially covert interventions, because that promotes “blowback”, defined as a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Hatred in the Middle East towards the United States as a result of our covert operations targeting Middle-Easterners, and then Middle-Easterners demonstrating their hatred in a terrorist attack, is an example of blowback.
Is it honestly in our best interest to undertake operations such as this, especially when domestic issues are in such dire need of attention? And, ask yourself, do we even have the right to interfere in and destabilize another country, someone else’s country, as such? My personal opinion is that we have neither the right nor the obligation to try to destablize the governments of other countries and throw them into political chaos. Aside from the concerns of blowback and the misplacement of tax money, it is very important to do unto others as you would want done unto yourself.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The End: A Tribute to Mike Gravel
Former Senator Mike Gravel, on May 25th, 2008, acknowledged the truth for the last time in his political career. “This is the end. I started in politics at 15 years old, and this is the end of my political career. Right today. Right this afternoon.”
Asked if there was anything that he would have liked to have done differently in this campaign, Gravel said, “No, no, no, we played it straight. My style of politics is just to tell people what you are, what you believe in, and what you want to lead to.”
Mike Gravel’s political career may have ended on a warm day in May 2008, but it began when, in 1945, as a young man at age 15, he began passing out flyers and volunteering with local political campaigns in his hometown of Springfield, Massachusetts. It continued when he headed to Alaska in 1956, leaving the Kennedy-controlled politics of Massachusetts, in the hopes of launching his own political career. Alaska was the perfect place to do it; when Gravel first arrived there, it was in the pre-statehood phase and didn’t even have any Senators yet.
Mike Gravel was elected to the Alaska House of Representative in 1962, and he tried to make the most of the power of his office in order to help people. Gravel said at the HRC/LOGO debate in August 2007, “My first piece of legislation in the State Legislature was the creation of the Human Rights Commission of Alaska. I fought hard, I used political capital. And what I learned is that when you use political capital, more capital comes to you. The Human Rights Commission dealt with gays and dealt with the black community. That was my first accomplishment, and I felt it deeply.”Mike Gravel rose to become Speaker of the House in 1965, and, as Speaker, he furthered his attempts to improve the lives of his fellow citizens. During his campaign for the Alaskan House, he said, he probably visited more Native American villages than any other white man ever had. He learned from the Native Americans that their children, when they reached puberty, were being flown off to other, far away states to get an education. So, as Speaker of the House, Gravel authored and fought to pass (successfully) legislation that established the structure and budget for a regional high school system for rural Alaska, permitting native students to receive their education near their homes rather than travel to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ schools outside Alaska.
In 1968, Mike Gravel was elected as a United States Senator. He went to Washington an idealistic young man who desired to get things done and make a difference. From 1969 to 1973, when Gravel was a freshman Senator, was when he accomplished some of his greatest Senatorial triumphs. These triumphs include the Alaska Oil Pipeline, which has been responsible for 20% of the United States’s oil supply and whose economic benefits substantially raised the quality of life for the people of Alaska. Gravel also released the Pentagon Papers upon the public record, with the hope that it would bring the War in Vietnam to a speedier conclusion and with the fear that he would be prosecuted for his actions. The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret, 7000 page study that detailed the history of the decision-making and lies of our government during the Vietnam War.
Gravel also tried filibustering military draft renewal legislation to bring the Vietnam War more quickly to an end. In addition, during his career in the Senate, Senator Gravel successfully fought to stop nuclear testing in the North Pacific, organized citizen opposition to nuclear power, and was involved with many major pieces of environmental legislation passed during that time, due to his service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. In every act of his public life, Senator Mike Gravel had the greater public good in mind.
In 1981, Mike Gravel lost his Senate seat. Heart-broken, and disillusioned with representative government, he fell into a depression. He said, of his experiences at that time, “Nobody wanted to hire me for anything important. I felt like I was worthless. I didn’t know what I could do.” All through his life, it seems that it was of the utmost importance for Mike Gravel to be important. That was one of the reasons that Gravel so enjoyed passing out flyers as a youth in Springfield; it made him feel important. As Gravel said in a Washington Post news article, “I loved the recognition. I liked the way people listened when I talked about a candidate . . . It gave me confidence.”
Gravel was drawn back towards politics. In 1989, he reentered politics when he founded The Democracy Foundation, which advocates direct democracy, and began promoting “The National Initiative for Democracy”, which would allow Americans to become lawmakers in partnership with their elected officials and make laws on the federal level. The National Initiative for Democracy, and the empowerment of the people, would become the cause of his life from that day forwards.
In April 2006 (with the purpose originally being to promote the NI4D), Mike Gravel launched his Presidential campaign for the Democratic nomination, with the NI4D as the centerpiece but also calling for an immediate end to the occupation in Iraq, a “Fair Tax”, a single-payer and universal healthcare system, full LGBT rights (insisting, “What we need in this world is more love!”), an end to the War on Drugs, a restoration of human rights and civil rights, and a fight against the military-industrial complex. The campaign soon became more than just an attempt to promote the National Initiative. In the Washington Post article that I cited earlier, Gravel also said, after meeting with young people enthusiastic about his message, “It suddenly occurred to me that if they got so excited listening to me about the war and the National Initiative, that I could convince other people, too — I could actually win. And that’s when I started believing, too.”
Mike Gravel participated in several televised debates, making passionate declarations such as, “The only thing worse than a soldier dying in vain is more soldiers dying in vain!”, concerning the Iraq War, and “Representative Government is broken!”, concerning the NI4D. Although he was lauded by some for speaking “truth to power”, Gravel’s efforts were all for naught, and he didn’t move above 1% in any polls. To add to that, media outlets began cutting him out of debates. Whether a sinister motive was behind it is open to debate, but I do know that many of these media outlets are owned by corporations that benefit from the military-industrial complex, something which Gravel had sworn to fight. Despite these trials, during his campaign Gravel managed to enlighten thousands of people, including myself, and spread his deeply-heartfelt message.
In March 2008, Mike Gravel abandoned the Democratic Party for the Libertarian Party. He wrote, in an official campaign email, “The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views.” He also believed that the Libertarian Party would embrace his proposal “The National Initiative for Democracy.” After all, what would be more liberating than to have the people empowered, to be empowered yourself? Gravel began competing for the Libertarian Presidential nomination; his main competitors were Bob Barr, Mary Ruwart, and Wayne Allyn Root.
Mike Gravel made his last debate appearance on May 24th, 2008, the day before the Libertarian Convention. The debate was covered by C-Span, as would be the convention the next morning.
May 25th rolled around. The convention began taking ballots. On the first ballot, Gravel came in fourth. On the second, third, and fourth ballots, Gravel came in fourth. His votes held steady at the 71 or 73 mark. After the fourth ballot, his name was struck from the ballot. His attempt to win the Libertarian nomination had failed. And he gracefully conceded: “This is the end. I started in politics at 15 years old, and this is the end of my political career. Right today. Right this afternoon.” He joked that, even though his political career was over, he wasn’t dead yet. Gravel said that he would continue to promote the causes that he passionately believes in, and enlighten the American people about his grand proposal, the NI4D, so that the American people may one day empower themselves…
…And so ended Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel’s career in politics.
You can see it all through his political career: Mike Gravel was not just a politician. He was, and is, above all else, a human being. Above being a Senator from Alaska, above being a citizen of the United States, above being French Canadian, above being all of his other roles in life, he is a human being. He emphasizes with his fellow human beings, no matter their country or race or gender or sexual orientation or whatever else divides us. All through his political career, Mike Gravel embodied the common human decency which should govern all of our actions.
Senator Gravel was also a progressive idealist. What is a progressive idealist? An idealist is someone who sees things as they should be, or, in H.L. Mencken’s words, “An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.” If you are an idealist, and then you add to that quality a progressive viewpoint, then you are a “progressive idealist.” You see things as they should be, and then wish to improve upon that. You see into the future and far beyond. Progressive idealists are the farthest reaching of visionaries, because they see the improvements that should be made before even the first improvements are made yet.
This may be the end for Mike, but this is not the end. The future, a future which I hope will see the National Initiative empower the people, awaits us. In the words of Winston Churchill, “Now, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
The National Initiative for Democracy
Asked if there was anything that he would have liked to have done differently in this campaign, Gravel said, “No, no, no, we played it straight. My style of politics is just to tell people what you are, what you believe in, and what you want to lead to.”
Mike Gravel’s political career may have ended on a warm day in May 2008, but it began when, in 1945, as a young man at age 15, he began passing out flyers and volunteering with local political campaigns in his hometown of Springfield, Massachusetts. It continued when he headed to Alaska in 1956, leaving the Kennedy-controlled politics of Massachusetts, in the hopes of launching his own political career. Alaska was the perfect place to do it; when Gravel first arrived there, it was in the pre-statehood phase and didn’t even have any Senators yet.
Mike Gravel was elected to the Alaska House of Representative in 1962, and he tried to make the most of the power of his office in order to help people. Gravel said at the HRC/LOGO debate in August 2007, “My first piece of legislation in the State Legislature was the creation of the Human Rights Commission of Alaska. I fought hard, I used political capital. And what I learned is that when you use political capital, more capital comes to you. The Human Rights Commission dealt with gays and dealt with the black community. That was my first accomplishment, and I felt it deeply.”Mike Gravel rose to become Speaker of the House in 1965, and, as Speaker, he furthered his attempts to improve the lives of his fellow citizens. During his campaign for the Alaskan House, he said, he probably visited more Native American villages than any other white man ever had. He learned from the Native Americans that their children, when they reached puberty, were being flown off to other, far away states to get an education. So, as Speaker of the House, Gravel authored and fought to pass (successfully) legislation that established the structure and budget for a regional high school system for rural Alaska, permitting native students to receive their education near their homes rather than travel to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ schools outside Alaska.
In 1968, Mike Gravel was elected as a United States Senator. He went to Washington an idealistic young man who desired to get things done and make a difference. From 1969 to 1973, when Gravel was a freshman Senator, was when he accomplished some of his greatest Senatorial triumphs. These triumphs include the Alaska Oil Pipeline, which has been responsible for 20% of the United States’s oil supply and whose economic benefits substantially raised the quality of life for the people of Alaska. Gravel also released the Pentagon Papers upon the public record, with the hope that it would bring the War in Vietnam to a speedier conclusion and with the fear that he would be prosecuted for his actions. The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret, 7000 page study that detailed the history of the decision-making and lies of our government during the Vietnam War.
Gravel also tried filibustering military draft renewal legislation to bring the Vietnam War more quickly to an end. In addition, during his career in the Senate, Senator Gravel successfully fought to stop nuclear testing in the North Pacific, organized citizen opposition to nuclear power, and was involved with many major pieces of environmental legislation passed during that time, due to his service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. In every act of his public life, Senator Mike Gravel had the greater public good in mind.
In 1981, Mike Gravel lost his Senate seat. Heart-broken, and disillusioned with representative government, he fell into a depression. He said, of his experiences at that time, “Nobody wanted to hire me for anything important. I felt like I was worthless. I didn’t know what I could do.” All through his life, it seems that it was of the utmost importance for Mike Gravel to be important. That was one of the reasons that Gravel so enjoyed passing out flyers as a youth in Springfield; it made him feel important. As Gravel said in a Washington Post news article, “I loved the recognition. I liked the way people listened when I talked about a candidate . . . It gave me confidence.”
Gravel was drawn back towards politics. In 1989, he reentered politics when he founded The Democracy Foundation, which advocates direct democracy, and began promoting “The National Initiative for Democracy”, which would allow Americans to become lawmakers in partnership with their elected officials and make laws on the federal level. The National Initiative for Democracy, and the empowerment of the people, would become the cause of his life from that day forwards.
In April 2006 (with the purpose originally being to promote the NI4D), Mike Gravel launched his Presidential campaign for the Democratic nomination, with the NI4D as the centerpiece but also calling for an immediate end to the occupation in Iraq, a “Fair Tax”, a single-payer and universal healthcare system, full LGBT rights (insisting, “What we need in this world is more love!”), an end to the War on Drugs, a restoration of human rights and civil rights, and a fight against the military-industrial complex. The campaign soon became more than just an attempt to promote the National Initiative. In the Washington Post article that I cited earlier, Gravel also said, after meeting with young people enthusiastic about his message, “It suddenly occurred to me that if they got so excited listening to me about the war and the National Initiative, that I could convince other people, too — I could actually win. And that’s when I started believing, too.”
Mike Gravel participated in several televised debates, making passionate declarations such as, “The only thing worse than a soldier dying in vain is more soldiers dying in vain!”, concerning the Iraq War, and “Representative Government is broken!”, concerning the NI4D. Although he was lauded by some for speaking “truth to power”, Gravel’s efforts were all for naught, and he didn’t move above 1% in any polls. To add to that, media outlets began cutting him out of debates. Whether a sinister motive was behind it is open to debate, but I do know that many of these media outlets are owned by corporations that benefit from the military-industrial complex, something which Gravel had sworn to fight. Despite these trials, during his campaign Gravel managed to enlighten thousands of people, including myself, and spread his deeply-heartfelt message.
In March 2008, Mike Gravel abandoned the Democratic Party for the Libertarian Party. He wrote, in an official campaign email, “The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views.” He also believed that the Libertarian Party would embrace his proposal “The National Initiative for Democracy.” After all, what would be more liberating than to have the people empowered, to be empowered yourself? Gravel began competing for the Libertarian Presidential nomination; his main competitors were Bob Barr, Mary Ruwart, and Wayne Allyn Root.
Mike Gravel made his last debate appearance on May 24th, 2008, the day before the Libertarian Convention. The debate was covered by C-Span, as would be the convention the next morning.
May 25th rolled around. The convention began taking ballots. On the first ballot, Gravel came in fourth. On the second, third, and fourth ballots, Gravel came in fourth. His votes held steady at the 71 or 73 mark. After the fourth ballot, his name was struck from the ballot. His attempt to win the Libertarian nomination had failed. And he gracefully conceded: “This is the end. I started in politics at 15 years old, and this is the end of my political career. Right today. Right this afternoon.” He joked that, even though his political career was over, he wasn’t dead yet. Gravel said that he would continue to promote the causes that he passionately believes in, and enlighten the American people about his grand proposal, the NI4D, so that the American people may one day empower themselves…
…And so ended Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel’s career in politics.
You can see it all through his political career: Mike Gravel was not just a politician. He was, and is, above all else, a human being. Above being a Senator from Alaska, above being a citizen of the United States, above being French Canadian, above being all of his other roles in life, he is a human being. He emphasizes with his fellow human beings, no matter their country or race or gender or sexual orientation or whatever else divides us. All through his political career, Mike Gravel embodied the common human decency which should govern all of our actions.
Senator Gravel was also a progressive idealist. What is a progressive idealist? An idealist is someone who sees things as they should be, or, in H.L. Mencken’s words, “An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.” If you are an idealist, and then you add to that quality a progressive viewpoint, then you are a “progressive idealist.” You see things as they should be, and then wish to improve upon that. You see into the future and far beyond. Progressive idealists are the farthest reaching of visionaries, because they see the improvements that should be made before even the first improvements are made yet.
This may be the end for Mike, but this is not the end. The future, a future which I hope will see the National Initiative empower the people, awaits us. In the words of Winston Churchill, “Now, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
The National Initiative for Democracy
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Politics of Insanity
Over the past couple decades, the American people have seen the incompetence, corruption, and inability to get anything done among the collective group of their elected officials. These elected officials find themselves indebted to lobbyists and corporations who donate to their political campaigns, rather than their constituents, and so they often find it necessary to represent and work for their corporations rather than their constituents. Many Americans these days are probably now wondering, “How do I go about picking a candidate who is competent and able and who is not corrupt, so that I can then vote for them and work for them, so that they can get into office and work for me?”
It is difficult attempting to scrutinize each candidate to try to determine what exactly they are thinking, so I have come up with a better solution to ascertain that the candidate that you elect will work for you, and work hard. For those candidates running for elected office, what the constituents need to do is to all get together, have the candidates in front of them, and then everyone stand back and each throw one dart towards the candidates. I almost can guarantee you that the candidate who receives the most darts will work, and work hard, for his or her constituents. They shan’t want any darts thrown at them again.
But, seriously, friends, there is an incompetence, corruption, and ineffectiveness that seems to be held collectively among our elected officials, with a few exceptions. It also seems to be held, generally, among both of the major political parties. What we, the American people, have essentially been doing these past several decades is swinging back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans, reverting from one to the other when one does not satisfactorily execute its promises. When we tire of one party, the other party shouts, “Here! We can do all of the things that you want, and more! We shall be a ‘change’ from this other useless party!” But this new party does not deliver on its promises either.
We switch back and forth, finding each party unsatisfactory over and over again, and we expect different results each time the Democrats or each time the Republicans promise to bring different results. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is, according to Albert Einstein, the very definition of insanity.
Abandon these false promises. Abandon these politicians of ineffectiveness, incompetence, and corruption. Abandon these two parties, which seem to be growing closer and closer to the other day by day. Become an independent and not loyal to either major party, and vote to empower yourself with the National Initiative for Democracy. The National Initiative for Democracy is a federal ballot initiative that would allow the people to make laws in partnership with their elected officials. Law-making is the central power of government, so, if the people are ever truly going to have power over their government and ensure that it is effective and not under the dominion of two completely corrupt political parties, then they must have the power to make laws. Having this power will allow the people to make laws, such as campaign finance reform, that will limit corruption and the involvement of special interests. These are laws that the politicians will not make themselves because they all got elected because there was no campaign finance reform and other reforms in the corruption of our system. Doing these two things, becoming an Independent and empowering yourself, are two of the only things that will help the United States to get out of these politics of insanity. Being an Independent can lessen party loyalty, and the National Initiative for Democracy will allow for laws to be made against our corrupt two-party system.
And to go along with becoming an Independent, why not vote independently? If the major Presidential candidates have each put up arguments that resound less with you than the arguments of other less well-known candidates, then why not vote for the other, less well-known candidate instead? Don’t vote on the basis of party. You have no obligation to either major party to vote for them. You have no obligation to the presidential candidate of one party or the other. It is they who are responsible for winning your vote. You should have that mindset.
If the two major parties appear to be corrupt and never get anything done (and they haven’t gotten anything done on any major issues for the past few decades), then you don’t have to vote for either of them. As I said, you have no obligation. In this presidential election, instead of voting for Politics as Usual, why not vote for Ralph Nader (an Independent candidate), Cynthia McKinney (the Green Party candidate), or Bob Barr (the Libertarian Party candidate)? Or, of course, you could always write in your own name on the ballot (a favorite suggestion of mine). But, whatever you choose to do this election cycle, be sure to think critically and independently about your choice. If you think for yourself, trouble will come. But, if you don't think for yourself, trouble will come. Just so long as trouble will come either way, I'd rather think for myself. I'd rather break party loyalties and break the politics of insanity.
It is difficult attempting to scrutinize each candidate to try to determine what exactly they are thinking, so I have come up with a better solution to ascertain that the candidate that you elect will work for you, and work hard. For those candidates running for elected office, what the constituents need to do is to all get together, have the candidates in front of them, and then everyone stand back and each throw one dart towards the candidates. I almost can guarantee you that the candidate who receives the most darts will work, and work hard, for his or her constituents. They shan’t want any darts thrown at them again.
But, seriously, friends, there is an incompetence, corruption, and ineffectiveness that seems to be held collectively among our elected officials, with a few exceptions. It also seems to be held, generally, among both of the major political parties. What we, the American people, have essentially been doing these past several decades is swinging back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans, reverting from one to the other when one does not satisfactorily execute its promises. When we tire of one party, the other party shouts, “Here! We can do all of the things that you want, and more! We shall be a ‘change’ from this other useless party!” But this new party does not deliver on its promises either.
We switch back and forth, finding each party unsatisfactory over and over again, and we expect different results each time the Democrats or each time the Republicans promise to bring different results. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is, according to Albert Einstein, the very definition of insanity.
Abandon these false promises. Abandon these politicians of ineffectiveness, incompetence, and corruption. Abandon these two parties, which seem to be growing closer and closer to the other day by day. Become an independent and not loyal to either major party, and vote to empower yourself with the National Initiative for Democracy. The National Initiative for Democracy is a federal ballot initiative that would allow the people to make laws in partnership with their elected officials. Law-making is the central power of government, so, if the people are ever truly going to have power over their government and ensure that it is effective and not under the dominion of two completely corrupt political parties, then they must have the power to make laws. Having this power will allow the people to make laws, such as campaign finance reform, that will limit corruption and the involvement of special interests. These are laws that the politicians will not make themselves because they all got elected because there was no campaign finance reform and other reforms in the corruption of our system. Doing these two things, becoming an Independent and empowering yourself, are two of the only things that will help the United States to get out of these politics of insanity. Being an Independent can lessen party loyalty, and the National Initiative for Democracy will allow for laws to be made against our corrupt two-party system.
And to go along with becoming an Independent, why not vote independently? If the major Presidential candidates have each put up arguments that resound less with you than the arguments of other less well-known candidates, then why not vote for the other, less well-known candidate instead? Don’t vote on the basis of party. You have no obligation to either major party to vote for them. You have no obligation to the presidential candidate of one party or the other. It is they who are responsible for winning your vote. You should have that mindset.
If the two major parties appear to be corrupt and never get anything done (and they haven’t gotten anything done on any major issues for the past few decades), then you don’t have to vote for either of them. As I said, you have no obligation. In this presidential election, instead of voting for Politics as Usual, why not vote for Ralph Nader (an Independent candidate), Cynthia McKinney (the Green Party candidate), or Bob Barr (the Libertarian Party candidate)? Or, of course, you could always write in your own name on the ballot (a favorite suggestion of mine). But, whatever you choose to do this election cycle, be sure to think critically and independently about your choice. If you think for yourself, trouble will come. But, if you don't think for yourself, trouble will come. Just so long as trouble will come either way, I'd rather think for myself. I'd rather break party loyalties and break the politics of insanity.
Friday, April 25, 2008
In favor of exercising caution with Sanctions
Did you know that, during the 1990’s, the foreign policies of the United States killed hundreds of thousands of innocents just in the country of Iraq alone? You might be wondering what kind of terrible policy could have caused that measure of destruction. Well, the policy is the use of sanctions, and it can be just as harmful to other countries as all-out war would be.
Sanctions are restrictions upon international trade and finance that one country imposes on another for political reasons. The United States liberally uses this tool. We sanctioned the country of Iraq for years, resulting in the deaths of five hundred thousand children due to inadequate healthcare, lack of medicine, and lack of clean water. That sanctioning was not effective, nor has the sanctioning of Iran been effective for 26 years, nor has the sanctioning of Cuba been effective for decades, nor has the sanctioning of North Korea been effective for more than 50 years. Frankly, I’m surprised that we aren’t still sanctioning Germany. I believe that sanctions are generally ineffective and should be cast aside in favor of alternatives. In this article, I plan to answer two questions that you might be wondering about either now or shortly in the future: “Why do you say that sanctions are ineffective?” and “What are the alternatives to using sanctions?”
Firstly, why do I say that sanctions are ineffective? For starters, there is the sanctioning of several countries for decades with no distinguishable positive results. My logic on this here is that, if we had seen measurable positive results from the sanctions, then we could have gotten back to the point where we would no longer have to sanction the country. We would not simply remain in diplomatic gridlock, as we apparently are in now with the sanctioned countries. I mean, sanctioning is supposed to have a point, a positive result such as resumption of diplomatic talks, is it not?
And while I see few to nonexistent positive results, there certainly are negative results of sanctions. One of the most concerning of these results is that sanctions serve to punish the innocent civilians by crippling their country’s economy, while the leader of their country suffers little personally from the sanctions. I bet that Saddam Hussein never missed a meal while hundreds of thousands of his citizens were dying because of lack of medical products. And, not only do sanctions hurt the innocent rather than the leaders of the countries being sanctioned, the leaders of these countries can actually use the sanctions to their own advantage. Our own weapon is being used against us here; we are inadvertently giving fuel to our enemies. The tyrants of these various countries can deflect attention away from domestic failures and direct attention instead toward a hatred of the sanctioners.
In these ways, both by killing innocent people and by helping tyrants direct attention away from their domestic failures, the United States policy of sanctions has not only failed to yield positive results for the United States, it has also had negative results for the United States. Sanctions lower America’s standing in the world, both by tarnishing our name by destroying innocent lives and by stirring up hatred towards us in the countries we are sanctioning.
Well, you might be wondering now, if sanctions don’t work, then what should we use as an alternative? That is a much more difficult question, and a question whose answer is not readily and easily available. But, I will try to answer it here to the best of my ability. What we need to do is fundamentally alter our foreign policy. Right now, we have entrusted ourselves with the responsibility of being the world’s guardian, of policing the world, of engaging in threats and imperialism, and of interfering in countries where we don’t quite like exactly how things are going. We need to stop taking the responsibility for all of the world’s countries into our own hands and focus on our many problems here at home. We need to treat all of the other countries of the world as equals, be less arrogant, stop bullying them, and treat them with respect. We do not treat other countries very respectfully today, probably because we believe ourselves to be superior and the greatest nation on earth. We need to change our mindset from believing that we are better than other countries; and that it is THEY who should treat us with respect, and not us who should treat them with respect.
But, if we do treat other countries as equals, with due respect, I predict that our respect will often be returned, and we will no longer have to engage in threats and policies such as sanctions quite as often. It is as Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “If you treat people right they will treat you right - ninety percent of the time.” That works vice versa, of course, as well: if you treat people badly, they will treat you badly. We should treat other countries right by sitting down in diplomatic talks with them, and being both respectful and persistent in these diplomatic talks, rather than bullying them and sanctioning them. Essentially, what we need to do is alter our whole mindset towards the relationship between America and the other countries of the world.
To summarize, my friends, I believe that sanctions are bad policy and that they hurt America’s standing in the world by both killing innocents and by allowing tyrants to stir up hatred towards America. I have suggested the alternative that we alter our whole mindset towards the application of United States foreign policy and treat other countries with respect that will often be returned, making sanctions necessary much less often. We should sit down in diplomatic talks with other countries rather than bullying and sanctioning them. Some political candidates have suggested sanctions as a tool of diplomacy, but those who say that have apparently not heard of the reality of sanctions on the ground. Just as war can kill hundreds of thousands of people, so can sanctions. Sanctions can be just as serious and destructive as war, and we should employ just as much caution in our use of them.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
A Greater Appreciation for Peace
Eric Hall hailed from the fine city of Jeffersonville, Indiana. Jeffersonville is a city located on the Ohio River, just north of Louisville, Kentucky. “Jeff”, as its inhabitants have affectionately termed it, is part of Clark County, which was named for General George Rogers Clark (brother of William Clark of the Lewis & Clark expedition). The city of Jeffersonville itself was named for Thomas Jefferson, whose grid design was used as the layout for the city. Some of the localities that Eric Hall grew up with, in Jeffersonville, are Schimpff’s Confectionary (where you can get some of the best chocolate in the country, in my opinion), the Howard Steamboat Museum, and Mick’s Lounge (where the Papa John’s pizza restaurant chain was founded). Eric went to school at Jeffersonville High School, and he graduated from it in 2002. A little while after graduating high school, Eric joined the United States Army, as did many others from small towns where there were few opportunities. He found himself in favor of the goals of the Iraq War and desirous of contributing to the cause. My cousin went to the same school (from first grade through high school) and was friends with Eric, and that is how I first became aquainted with the story of Eric Hall’s Post Traumatic Stress disorder and the events resulting from it.
In June 2005, the Iraq Occupation was in full swing. Eric Hall, now far from Jeffersonville, was traveling the streets of Fallujah in Iraq with fellow United States Marines. When a bomb suddenly exploded very near at hand to Eric and his fellow soldiers, Eric was severely injured, both physically and mentally. He had suffered a severe hip injury, a broken leg, and nerve damage to his arm. As his injuries in that blast were being sustained, he watched one of his fellow soldiers, and his friend, die right before his eyes, decapitated when the bomb went off. Eric Hall’s experience in the Iraq War left him not only suffering from physical pain, but from Post Traumatic Stress disorder as well, brought on by seeing the brutal reality of the war on the ground. Eric was in the hospital for thirteen weeks recovering from his injuries, but, even after that, he experienced pain and had to take pain medication for it. The amount of pain that he suffered from, both physically, and mentally (regarding his memories of war), is immeasurable.
When Eric Hall came home from Iraq and from the hospital, he had trouble getting proper care and benefits from the Veteran’s Administration, just as so many of his fellow veterans did. This is evidenced by the story on wounded veterans in November 2006, done by The Evening News and The Tribune (which proclaims itself as Southern Indiana’s award-winning source for community news), in which Hall was profiled, and he reported having trouble receiving full Veteran’s Administration benefits. All the while that he was struggling with the Veteran’s Administration, he was struggling with his own personal problems concerning pain and his post traumatic stress disorder. The fight with the Veteran’s Administration probably did not help his well-being, and it certainly did not help lessen the level of stress that he felt from the remembrance of his experiences in the Iraq War.
On February 3rd, 2008, Hall was back in the states and out of Iraq, although the memories of the Iraq War were doubtless still with him. His phyiscal pain, however, must have been getting slightly better, because he had recently taken himself off of his pain medication. Almost three years after his war experience, Hall was visiting a relative in Punta Gorda, Florida. Escaping his past and starting a new life was evidently the reason for going to Florida, judging by this statement from Eric’s father, Kevin Hall, “He was going down there to start a new life and get things together — which he was.” But Hall’s efforts to accomplish this were reduced to dust due to the events on the day of February 3rd. After playing a video game titled “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare”, which, I believe, is based on the Iraq War, Eric announced that the house was surrounded and that he had to leave. He was not joking, he was in earnest. Apparently hallucinating and having flashbacks from the Iraq War, he took off on his motorcycle, as though trying to escape invisible enemies. That would be the last time that anyone saw Eric Hall alive.
His motorcycle was found, on its side and still running, along a road. A search was launched around the general area of where the motorcycle was found (Charlotte County in Florida), but searchers were unable to find Eric Hall. Weeks of searching yielded no results. However, they did find a sophisticated “spider hole” dug into the ground, which contained some bottled water and which Hall had likely used as a shelter. Hall’s father, Kevin Hall, commented, “If he went back to full military mentality — he knows how to hide.”
And hide Eric Hall did. A fellow veteran and a fellow sufferer from post traumatic stress disorder, Jim Cannon, said about Hall, “I imagine he thinks he’s in a different place, somewhere in a different time and he probably thinks we’re the enemy looking for him.” Hall hid so well from the searchers that the way that searchers finally discovered him was by the strong odor coming from his decomposed body. It’s an unpleasant statement, but sometimes we have to be confronted with the unpleasant realities of the world. Eric Hall’s body was removed from the culvert, or the conduit used to enclose a flowing body of water, and he was identified using his military medical records.
And so ended the life of Eric Hall. His death was a casualty of the Iraq War, although it is a casualty that will never be recorded in the official record.
With every death that I hear of or observe, I attempt to draw some meaning, some lesson, from the life and death of the person who has died, because I so hate to see a life ending with no lasting meaning. What can we learn from the death of Eric Hall?
Eric Hall’s death can be blamed on a number of things: his lack of pain medication, the “Call of Duty” video game, his post traumatic stress disorder, or the inability to get sufficient help from the Veteran’s Administration. But, I think, looking at the larger picture, the blame should rest ultimately on the Iraq War and the fact that we are sending soldiers off to die or become injured in a war such as this in the first place. Prevention is the key to the solution, just as it is the key to so many other problems that we face. Why add to the suffering of the world, which is already so great, by having people suffer as Eric Hall and other veterans have suffered, in the name of an unjust war which could have easily been avoided? There is too much suffering in this world already without preventable things like this happening. We should be doing all we can to, first of all, stay out of war, and, secondly, if avoiding war is absolutely impossible (and avoidance of war is only very rarely impossible), then we should do everything in our power to help the returning veterans. Humankind and our nation, which is supposedly the first among the nations of humankind but which shows little indication of that, are better than this. We are better than fighting senseless, useless, preventable wars, and then further displaying our immaturities by discarding the veterans of our wars.
To derive one final lesson from the death of Eric Hall, let us return to the area where his life began. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Frasier Museum in Louisville, Kentucky. You should go, if you’re ever visiting near Louisville. The museum is about the History of Violence in the world. It has a room full of old guns and weapons, one of which being an old one-shot Derringer from the 1860’s that looks very similar to the one that killed Abraham Lincoln. They also present one-person historical reenactments of historical events, such as the Battle of Hastings (which took place in England in 1066 between King Harold and William, Duke of Normandy, fighting for control of the country). I’ve been to the Frasier Museum twice, while visiting family, and I have found it very enjoyable, although it is not because I revel in violence. There is a quote that I have seen on the lower floor of the museum that tells you the museum’s purpose and why the museum was originally founded: by presenting to you the history of violence, it is hoped that you will gain a greater appreciation for peace. May the events surrounding the Iraq War, such as the death of Eric Hall, give you a greater appreciation for peace.
In June 2005, the Iraq Occupation was in full swing. Eric Hall, now far from Jeffersonville, was traveling the streets of Fallujah in Iraq with fellow United States Marines. When a bomb suddenly exploded very near at hand to Eric and his fellow soldiers, Eric was severely injured, both physically and mentally. He had suffered a severe hip injury, a broken leg, and nerve damage to his arm. As his injuries in that blast were being sustained, he watched one of his fellow soldiers, and his friend, die right before his eyes, decapitated when the bomb went off. Eric Hall’s experience in the Iraq War left him not only suffering from physical pain, but from Post Traumatic Stress disorder as well, brought on by seeing the brutal reality of the war on the ground. Eric was in the hospital for thirteen weeks recovering from his injuries, but, even after that, he experienced pain and had to take pain medication for it. The amount of pain that he suffered from, both physically, and mentally (regarding his memories of war), is immeasurable.
When Eric Hall came home from Iraq and from the hospital, he had trouble getting proper care and benefits from the Veteran’s Administration, just as so many of his fellow veterans did. This is evidenced by the story on wounded veterans in November 2006, done by The Evening News and The Tribune (which proclaims itself as Southern Indiana’s award-winning source for community news), in which Hall was profiled, and he reported having trouble receiving full Veteran’s Administration benefits. All the while that he was struggling with the Veteran’s Administration, he was struggling with his own personal problems concerning pain and his post traumatic stress disorder. The fight with the Veteran’s Administration probably did not help his well-being, and it certainly did not help lessen the level of stress that he felt from the remembrance of his experiences in the Iraq War.
On February 3rd, 2008, Hall was back in the states and out of Iraq, although the memories of the Iraq War were doubtless still with him. His phyiscal pain, however, must have been getting slightly better, because he had recently taken himself off of his pain medication. Almost three years after his war experience, Hall was visiting a relative in Punta Gorda, Florida. Escaping his past and starting a new life was evidently the reason for going to Florida, judging by this statement from Eric’s father, Kevin Hall, “He was going down there to start a new life and get things together — which he was.” But Hall’s efforts to accomplish this were reduced to dust due to the events on the day of February 3rd. After playing a video game titled “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare”, which, I believe, is based on the Iraq War, Eric announced that the house was surrounded and that he had to leave. He was not joking, he was in earnest. Apparently hallucinating and having flashbacks from the Iraq War, he took off on his motorcycle, as though trying to escape invisible enemies. That would be the last time that anyone saw Eric Hall alive.
His motorcycle was found, on its side and still running, along a road. A search was launched around the general area of where the motorcycle was found (Charlotte County in Florida), but searchers were unable to find Eric Hall. Weeks of searching yielded no results. However, they did find a sophisticated “spider hole” dug into the ground, which contained some bottled water and which Hall had likely used as a shelter. Hall’s father, Kevin Hall, commented, “If he went back to full military mentality — he knows how to hide.”
And hide Eric Hall did. A fellow veteran and a fellow sufferer from post traumatic stress disorder, Jim Cannon, said about Hall, “I imagine he thinks he’s in a different place, somewhere in a different time and he probably thinks we’re the enemy looking for him.” Hall hid so well from the searchers that the way that searchers finally discovered him was by the strong odor coming from his decomposed body. It’s an unpleasant statement, but sometimes we have to be confronted with the unpleasant realities of the world. Eric Hall’s body was removed from the culvert, or the conduit used to enclose a flowing body of water, and he was identified using his military medical records.
And so ended the life of Eric Hall. His death was a casualty of the Iraq War, although it is a casualty that will never be recorded in the official record.
With every death that I hear of or observe, I attempt to draw some meaning, some lesson, from the life and death of the person who has died, because I so hate to see a life ending with no lasting meaning. What can we learn from the death of Eric Hall?
Eric Hall’s death can be blamed on a number of things: his lack of pain medication, the “Call of Duty” video game, his post traumatic stress disorder, or the inability to get sufficient help from the Veteran’s Administration. But, I think, looking at the larger picture, the blame should rest ultimately on the Iraq War and the fact that we are sending soldiers off to die or become injured in a war such as this in the first place. Prevention is the key to the solution, just as it is the key to so many other problems that we face. Why add to the suffering of the world, which is already so great, by having people suffer as Eric Hall and other veterans have suffered, in the name of an unjust war which could have easily been avoided? There is too much suffering in this world already without preventable things like this happening. We should be doing all we can to, first of all, stay out of war, and, secondly, if avoiding war is absolutely impossible (and avoidance of war is only very rarely impossible), then we should do everything in our power to help the returning veterans. Humankind and our nation, which is supposedly the first among the nations of humankind but which shows little indication of that, are better than this. We are better than fighting senseless, useless, preventable wars, and then further displaying our immaturities by discarding the veterans of our wars.
To derive one final lesson from the death of Eric Hall, let us return to the area where his life began. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Frasier Museum in Louisville, Kentucky. You should go, if you’re ever visiting near Louisville. The museum is about the History of Violence in the world. It has a room full of old guns and weapons, one of which being an old one-shot Derringer from the 1860’s that looks very similar to the one that killed Abraham Lincoln. They also present one-person historical reenactments of historical events, such as the Battle of Hastings (which took place in England in 1066 between King Harold and William, Duke of Normandy, fighting for control of the country). I’ve been to the Frasier Museum twice, while visiting family, and I have found it very enjoyable, although it is not because I revel in violence. There is a quote that I have seen on the lower floor of the museum that tells you the museum’s purpose and why the museum was originally founded: by presenting to you the history of violence, it is hoped that you will gain a greater appreciation for peace. May the events surrounding the Iraq War, such as the death of Eric Hall, give you a greater appreciation for peace.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Executive Efficacy Expanded
Many, many people in these united states long for the day upon which George W. Bush will vacate the Presidency. During Bush’s terms in office, he has gotten us into a Quagmire in Iraq (and has engaged in a generally arrogant and foolish foreign policy), deftly removed many of our civil liberties from us, racked up record deficits, exploited the people’s fear of terrorism (which helped him to win elections, achieve his agenda, and rob us of our apparently undeserved liberties), and, most importantly, greatly increased the power and influence of the Executive Branch. The People long for Bush’s exit because they are tired of these repeated abuses and usurpations, and with the hope that, once Dubya leaves, we’ll be able to get a Democrat or at least a moderate in office and get America back onto the right track. This perspective is not in agreement with my own; in point of fact, I disagree with it very strongly. It seems to me that this belief is the product of the very ignorance which allowed Bush to expand his office and worsen the state of the country in the first place. Let me take just a few moments in order to explain my thoughts more clearly on this matter.
During these past several years, Presidential puppet George W. Bush and the various puppeteers in his administration have worked to greatly expand the power of the Executive Branch in the United States government. They have been very successful in their pursuance of this goal, and it now appears as though we have a new kind of “imperial presidency” in place. Their ability to expand the power of the Presidency was due to the negligence and cowardice of the Congress and the ignorance and inattentiveness of the American people. It is as Thomas Jefferson wrote, “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.” The people were inattentive to the Executive office, so the officials associated with the Executive all became wolves, thirsting after, not blood, but power in the excess. But what are the implications of this greatly expanded efficacy of the Executive? What are the implications of all of the new precedents set by the Executive office?
During Bush’s two terms, We the People of the United States have effectively given many new and frightening powers to the Executive Branch, simply because of how much we tolerate. We tolerate phone wiretapping, we tolerate torture, we tolerate the violating of the Constitution, and so that becomes part of the policy, part of the powers of the executive branch, because we allow it. These terrible things will all be set as precedents for the next Executive to follow, and they, whomever they may be, will fall in step with these precedents. I say this because there have not been many in history who have denied themselves nearly unlimited power purposefully (George Washington, the great leader, being a notable exception). The next President shall not deny themselves the excess power because they know that they can get away with exercising such power with no consequences to them. They will not be punished, they will not be impeached, they will reap the rewards of nearly absolute power, and with not a squeak from the American people on the matter because the masses are too busy watching American Idol to watch American Government. However, the next Executive may not be as blatant about exercising these excesses in power as George W. Bush has been. An image to present to the public must be maintained, because image is everything to a People who only look broadly over the surface of the ocean of politics without bothering to look deeper. Bush really has been quite inept at projecting a good public image. However, both political parties are in general very good at fabricating false images with which to hoodwink the People: among other things, the Republicans have been skilled at fabricating an image of being better terrorist-hunters, and the Democrats have been adept at fabricating the illusion that they are a populist Party of the People.
I believe it very likely, and, in fact, inevitable, that these repeated usurpations and injuries will not end with George W. Bush. The precedents have been set for nearly absolute power for the Executive Branch, and power corrupts and is irresistable to falliable human beings. It is fairly apparent to me that the actions of George W. Bush will be perpetuated by every future President of the United States. That is, unless the People and the Congress step up and put the option of impeachment on the table, and preferably impeachment for George W. Bush, because it is best to stop the problem at its source. However, it is very unlikely that we will impeach Bush or Cheney, because the members of Congress are politically calculating cowards who don’t want to do anything controversial with an election coming up. But if we don’t impeach Bush now, we’ll either have to impeach another President farther down the road or perpetually suffer from usurpations from the Executive Branch.
To you people who still believe that electing a Democrat will get rid of the deplorable policies and precedents of George W. Bush, I salute you for navigating, in direct conflict with evident truths, along the channels of blind party loyalty. It is naive to believe that all of the damaging actions that George W. Bush has inflicted upon us will just disappear upon the entry of some other falliable human being, whatever their political affiliation, into the office of the presidency. It is naive to believe that all of this overstepping of constitutional authority will end as soon as George W. Bush is gone. It is naive to believe that a new president, even a Democratic President, will be a magical remedy to the things like loss of civil liberties. Only We the People can ensure that our civil liberties are perpetually protected, and we can protect them by informing ourselves and being attentive to the actions of our government and demanding impeachment for elected officials who overstep their authority. It is lazy to assume that the politicians who we elect to our political offices are the only ones responsible for keeping our civil liberties safe, and that We the People are not responsible in the slightest for preserving our own rights. This responsibilty absolutely does not belong to our assorted elected officials. When I say that the People must protect their own rights, who do you think I mean that the rights have to be protected from? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not the terrorists. These United States politicians who we trust, trust on the basis of faith in their abilities, to protect our liberties, become nothing more than wolves when the people are not attentive, as Thomas Jefferson stated centuries ago. The entire system fails to work if the people are not enlightened and watchful.
The preservation of liberty requires eternal vigilance from the informed Peoples of the United States, creators and overseers of their own elected leaders, safeguards of their own democracy, and keepers of their own country’s well-being. That’s what self-government is all about. And, if we fail to understand that, then perhaps we just don’t deserve our liberties. If we fail to understand that and act upon it, then it is likely that our problems with unprecedented Executive power, created by the lack of political attention and activity among the People, will never be remedied. Perhaps our democracy is destined to fall to the power of an unchecked Executive, and then swirl down the toilet into the Sewers of History.
During these past several years, Presidential puppet George W. Bush and the various puppeteers in his administration have worked to greatly expand the power of the Executive Branch in the United States government. They have been very successful in their pursuance of this goal, and it now appears as though we have a new kind of “imperial presidency” in place. Their ability to expand the power of the Presidency was due to the negligence and cowardice of the Congress and the ignorance and inattentiveness of the American people. It is as Thomas Jefferson wrote, “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.” The people were inattentive to the Executive office, so the officials associated with the Executive all became wolves, thirsting after, not blood, but power in the excess. But what are the implications of this greatly expanded efficacy of the Executive? What are the implications of all of the new precedents set by the Executive office?
During Bush’s two terms, We the People of the United States have effectively given many new and frightening powers to the Executive Branch, simply because of how much we tolerate. We tolerate phone wiretapping, we tolerate torture, we tolerate the violating of the Constitution, and so that becomes part of the policy, part of the powers of the executive branch, because we allow it. These terrible things will all be set as precedents for the next Executive to follow, and they, whomever they may be, will fall in step with these precedents. I say this because there have not been many in history who have denied themselves nearly unlimited power purposefully (George Washington, the great leader, being a notable exception). The next President shall not deny themselves the excess power because they know that they can get away with exercising such power with no consequences to them. They will not be punished, they will not be impeached, they will reap the rewards of nearly absolute power, and with not a squeak from the American people on the matter because the masses are too busy watching American Idol to watch American Government. However, the next Executive may not be as blatant about exercising these excesses in power as George W. Bush has been. An image to present to the public must be maintained, because image is everything to a People who only look broadly over the surface of the ocean of politics without bothering to look deeper. Bush really has been quite inept at projecting a good public image. However, both political parties are in general very good at fabricating false images with which to hoodwink the People: among other things, the Republicans have been skilled at fabricating an image of being better terrorist-hunters, and the Democrats have been adept at fabricating the illusion that they are a populist Party of the People.
I believe it very likely, and, in fact, inevitable, that these repeated usurpations and injuries will not end with George W. Bush. The precedents have been set for nearly absolute power for the Executive Branch, and power corrupts and is irresistable to falliable human beings. It is fairly apparent to me that the actions of George W. Bush will be perpetuated by every future President of the United States. That is, unless the People and the Congress step up and put the option of impeachment on the table, and preferably impeachment for George W. Bush, because it is best to stop the problem at its source. However, it is very unlikely that we will impeach Bush or Cheney, because the members of Congress are politically calculating cowards who don’t want to do anything controversial with an election coming up. But if we don’t impeach Bush now, we’ll either have to impeach another President farther down the road or perpetually suffer from usurpations from the Executive Branch.
To you people who still believe that electing a Democrat will get rid of the deplorable policies and precedents of George W. Bush, I salute you for navigating, in direct conflict with evident truths, along the channels of blind party loyalty. It is naive to believe that all of the damaging actions that George W. Bush has inflicted upon us will just disappear upon the entry of some other falliable human being, whatever their political affiliation, into the office of the presidency. It is naive to believe that all of this overstepping of constitutional authority will end as soon as George W. Bush is gone. It is naive to believe that a new president, even a Democratic President, will be a magical remedy to the things like loss of civil liberties. Only We the People can ensure that our civil liberties are perpetually protected, and we can protect them by informing ourselves and being attentive to the actions of our government and demanding impeachment for elected officials who overstep their authority. It is lazy to assume that the politicians who we elect to our political offices are the only ones responsible for keeping our civil liberties safe, and that We the People are not responsible in the slightest for preserving our own rights. This responsibilty absolutely does not belong to our assorted elected officials. When I say that the People must protect their own rights, who do you think I mean that the rights have to be protected from? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not the terrorists. These United States politicians who we trust, trust on the basis of faith in their abilities, to protect our liberties, become nothing more than wolves when the people are not attentive, as Thomas Jefferson stated centuries ago. The entire system fails to work if the people are not enlightened and watchful.
The preservation of liberty requires eternal vigilance from the informed Peoples of the United States, creators and overseers of their own elected leaders, safeguards of their own democracy, and keepers of their own country’s well-being. That’s what self-government is all about. And, if we fail to understand that, then perhaps we just don’t deserve our liberties. If we fail to understand that and act upon it, then it is likely that our problems with unprecedented Executive power, created by the lack of political attention and activity among the People, will never be remedied. Perhaps our democracy is destined to fall to the power of an unchecked Executive, and then swirl down the toilet into the Sewers of History.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)