Over the last 20 years residents in many parts of Dallas have come to rely upon federal money to help maintain their communities. Federal money has been distributed to organizations such as the Ferguson Road Initiative in Dallas to help support groups like Crime Watch as well as to finance graffiti clean ups, and drug education programs. Money was also used to fight crime through paying for increased police staffing and patrols and to maintain city services that would otherwise suffer for lack of funds. The "Weed and Seed" grants, as they are known, are intended to help weed out drugs and crime and seed the communities with services and projects to foster the bloom of revitalization. The results have been mixed. Many communities have seen a drop in crime and a rise in property values (not always a blessing). Others have not.
The Weed and Seed program was enacted under President George H.W. Bush to revitalize communities through five year grants distributed to foster development and improve services. Some communities are already under their fourth five year grant. For 20 years communities like Far East Dallas have been weeding and seeding. They have pulled roots and tilled the soil. But they still rely on the government to provide the fertilizer and the seeds.
The Weed and Seed program is facing dissolution. Money is tight in Washington and a few corners are being cut. The Weed and Seed program is in one of those corners. In Dallas, of Ferguson Road Initiative's current annual budget of $400,000, $156,000 is from Washington. By many accounts, the Ferguson Road Initiative has done well, just not well enough to make itself irrelevant. Without continued federal funding it will have to cut programs and, even worse, lay people off.
Alice Zaccarello, the executive Director of the Ferguson Road Initiative claims the cuts will impact all of Dallas, not just her neighborhood. "I don't think the general population realizes that when Weed and Seed can reduce crime in high-crime areas, then every other area in the city of Dallas benefits." That might be true under the casuistry that what benefits one benefits all. But in reality of the hundreds of square miles that make up the City of Dallas a drop in crime or up tic in property values in Fergsun Road will be unnoticed.
When groups like the Ferguson Road Initiative in Far East Dallas need federal funds to stay afloat it is a sign that the nation has become overly dependent upon the federal government. This is in part a result of short sighted thinking on the part of the federal and local government. They tend to think in terms of simple dollars and conflate money with results. It is also a result of calculation on the part of many in Washington to bring more and more economic and political activity under the purview of Washington. Federal money is often a snare designed to entrap state and local governments and bring them further into reliance upon Washington.
The Ferguson Road Initiative needs federal money. A lot of people need federal money. The Founding Fathers would be astounded to find that in only a little under 250 years, states and cities have become so enfeebled that they cannot operate without federal support.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Crime and Punishment
Jose Arturo Guerra is a senior at South Texas University. It was discovered that he is in the United States illegally. It is quite possible he will be deported. His fate will be decided Wednesday at his immigration hearing.
This is not Guerra's first brush with immigration law. In 2005 Guerra's visa expired while he was home visiting in Mexico. Not willing to apply for a new one, Guerra decided to sneak back into the U.S. He was apprehended and sent home. Undeterred, he made a second attempt and succeeded. It was not until last December that Guerra's status was discovered and his problems began. What has complicated Guerra's immigration problems is that when he was apprehended the first time he falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen. That claim could disqualify him from ever becoming a one.
Guerra and his supporters are making the case that not only would his deportation be unfair, it would be financially foolish. They are questioning whether it would make sense to deport someone after spending thousands of dollars to educate him. Once again, they are missing the point. The thousands of dollars that were spent on Guerra's education would not have been spent had his immigration status been known. The money spent to educate him was spent under false pretenses. It is not as if that money would have been wasted had it not been spent on Guerra. It would simply have gone to someone else, ideally someone here legally.
Guerra is not a victim here. His predicament is entirely his own fault. He was apprehended entering the country illegally. Even though he knew that what he was doing is illegal, he made a second attempt. Guerra compounded his actions by wrongfully claiming he was a U.S. citizen, a much more serious offense.
Pity for Guerra should be reserved. He is not being banished to a life of misery and desolation in the wilderness. He has family in Mexico. If it is true, as was reported, that Guerra hardly knows them, that is not a problem the U.S. should be concerned with. Indeed, whatever hardships and deprivations Guerra might face in Mexico are not due to U.S. immigration policy. They are matters to be taken up with the Mexican government.
Jose Guerra is a poster child for immigration reform. He is intelligent, hard working and ambitious. It would be easy to see him as a victim of fate or circumstance. But he is not. Guerra's problems are due to his violation of U.S. law. There are punishments for breaking the law. The punishment for entering the U.S. illegally is deportation. The U.S. has laws on immigration. An important job of government is to make sure that laws are obeyed. Guerra knowingly violated U.S. law. He was caught and now he is being punished. There is nothing unjust about it. That is precisely how the system is supposed to work. If you do not like U.S. immigration laws, change them. In the mean time, like all laws, they should be enforced.
Guerra was hoping that he would not be caught and that, if he was, his transgression would be overlooked. He was mistaken on both counts. Everyone who enters the country illegally hopes that they will not be caught. The porous nature of our border encourages that hope. Everyone who is caught hopes they will not be punished. The haphazard enforcement of immigration laws encourages that hope.
Whatever the lamentations of immigration activists, Guerra is not being persecuted. He is being punished for violating the law. He is not being sent to jail. He is being sent home.
This is not Guerra's first brush with immigration law. In 2005 Guerra's visa expired while he was home visiting in Mexico. Not willing to apply for a new one, Guerra decided to sneak back into the U.S. He was apprehended and sent home. Undeterred, he made a second attempt and succeeded. It was not until last December that Guerra's status was discovered and his problems began. What has complicated Guerra's immigration problems is that when he was apprehended the first time he falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen. That claim could disqualify him from ever becoming a one.
Guerra and his supporters are making the case that not only would his deportation be unfair, it would be financially foolish. They are questioning whether it would make sense to deport someone after spending thousands of dollars to educate him. Once again, they are missing the point. The thousands of dollars that were spent on Guerra's education would not have been spent had his immigration status been known. The money spent to educate him was spent under false pretenses. It is not as if that money would have been wasted had it not been spent on Guerra. It would simply have gone to someone else, ideally someone here legally.
Guerra is not a victim here. His predicament is entirely his own fault. He was apprehended entering the country illegally. Even though he knew that what he was doing is illegal, he made a second attempt. Guerra compounded his actions by wrongfully claiming he was a U.S. citizen, a much more serious offense.
Pity for Guerra should be reserved. He is not being banished to a life of misery and desolation in the wilderness. He has family in Mexico. If it is true, as was reported, that Guerra hardly knows them, that is not a problem the U.S. should be concerned with. Indeed, whatever hardships and deprivations Guerra might face in Mexico are not due to U.S. immigration policy. They are matters to be taken up with the Mexican government.
Jose Guerra is a poster child for immigration reform. He is intelligent, hard working and ambitious. It would be easy to see him as a victim of fate or circumstance. But he is not. Guerra's problems are due to his violation of U.S. law. There are punishments for breaking the law. The punishment for entering the U.S. illegally is deportation. The U.S. has laws on immigration. An important job of government is to make sure that laws are obeyed. Guerra knowingly violated U.S. law. He was caught and now he is being punished. There is nothing unjust about it. That is precisely how the system is supposed to work. If you do not like U.S. immigration laws, change them. In the mean time, like all laws, they should be enforced.
Guerra was hoping that he would not be caught and that, if he was, his transgression would be overlooked. He was mistaken on both counts. Everyone who enters the country illegally hopes that they will not be caught. The porous nature of our border encourages that hope. Everyone who is caught hopes they will not be punished. The haphazard enforcement of immigration laws encourages that hope.
Whatever the lamentations of immigration activists, Guerra is not being persecuted. He is being punished for violating the law. He is not being sent to jail. He is being sent home.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
How Much Time is Left?
The clock has started ticking in the Levant. It is set to go off in September when the Palestinians will seek recognition as a state by the U.N. General Assembly along the lines of the 1967 border. Given the make up of the U.N., it is likely that recognition will be had. If it is granted Israel will find itself in a difficult position. Should a Palestinian state be recognized, Israel would overnight find itself an occupying power. Not that it would matter much. Israel has shown little but disdain for the U.N. and its resolutions over the years. Nevertheless, a formal recognition of the 1967 borders would officially make Israel a transgressor in violation of international law. That would be a serious blow to Israel's international standing (such as it is) and severely complicate its desire for continued expansion. It might even occasion sanctions.
Naturally, Israel and the U.S. were critical of the move. Israel condemned the action as a threat to the peace process. It insists that any resolution of the issue must go through Jerusalem, a sensible enough demand since any agreement would ultimately have to be one Israel could live with. The U.S. disapproved of the action since not only would the move undermine its efforts to find a solution to the problem: a project it has been working on intermittently for over 40 years, it would potentially place it in conflict with its most important ally in the region. U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state would be much more than another rebuke of Israel. The international recognition of a Palestinian State along the lines of the 1967 border would change the whole dynamic of Palestinian Israeli negotiations. Israel could find itself in the position of negotiating to keep land rather than to give it away.
As a new era is emerging in the Middle East the U.S. is finding itself in an increasingly awkward position. After advocating democracy, self determination, and pluralism throughout the region it is reinforcing ethnic division in Israel and being pressured to throttle the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. As the U.S. twists and turns it is inviting the charge of hypocrisy and risking the ire of emerging regimes, to say nothing of alienating a whole new generation of Arabs.
By all means the Palestinians and the Israelis should keep talking. But it should be kept in mind that it is the Palestinians who are suffering while the talking is going on. If the Palestinians can be persuaded to wait, perhaps in a decade or two we might have an agreement, assuming there is anything left to negotiate. But time is not on the Palestinians' side. The longer negotiations go on, the less there is to negotiate. If Palestinians cannot get satisfaction at the hands of Israel or the U.S. they should not be blamed for seeking it elsewhere. If Israel wants negotiations to go through Jerusalem it should make it possible for them to go through Jerusalem rather than stop in Jerusalem.
If you look at a map of Israel at its founding in 1948 and compare it with a map of Israel in 1967 it is clear that even if Israel was persuaded to return to the 1967 borders, it is still coming out very much ahead. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the proposal claiming that a return to the 1967 border would render Israel indefensible. Against whom? The Palestinians would have no army and Jordan poses absolutely no threat to Israel. Whatever danger Israel faces, it is not from the east unless you include Iran. When it comes to Iran, the Jordan River is no barrier. The most probable reason for Israel's insistence on a military presence along the Jordan River is to keep the Palestinians in a bottle. As for terrorism, a Palestinian state would have every incentive to prevent infiltration by Hezbollah or other radical organizations. The presence of such groups would give Israel ample pretext to intervene and reoccupy the West Bank and thereby doom any chance of a sovereign Palestine along the Jordon River.
The only threat the Palestinians hold to Israel is their presence. Israel wants to get rid of them. There is very little room in a Jewish state for non Jews. It will drive out the Palestinians it can and build a wall around the ones it can't. The Palestinians are not just fighting to get a state of their own, they are fighting for a place to live. Short of being allowed citizenship in Israel, the only place Palestinians will be secure in their lives, property, and possessions is in a state of their own. Israel ought to appreciate that.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
What if the Rebels Don't Win?
Rebels in Libya have begun to turn things around in their fight against Gaddafi's troops. After weeks of stalled fighting it was reported that they had gained ground and made progress in their struggle to break the siege of Misrata by capturing an airport and pushing government troops, aka Gaddafi's troops, from the western suburbs. Rebel victories have been few and far between since the rebellion began, much to NATO's dismay.
Western support of the rebels has been increasing since fighting first broke out. After the rebellion began, the West quickly imposed more sanctions on the Libyan government. When the increased sanctions didn't work, a "no fly" zone was implemented and the Libyan air force was quickly grounded. When the "no fly" zone didn't succeed in tipping the balance, combat air support was provided. Libyan tanks, artillery, and mechanized forces were soon hobbled. Since March 31st, NATO has carried out more than 2,400 air strikes, including some aimed directly at Gaddafi's himself. Still, the rebellion is foundering.
The fighting has been going on for nearly three months since riots first broke out in Benghazi. The U.S. and its allies are determined to help the rebellion succeed. Indeed the only reason the fighting has lasted this long is because of NATO air support and military assistance. Given the level of support being provided, if the rebellion doesn't succeed, the West will suffer a major black eye. Dictators in the region and around the world would take heart.
The U.S. and NATO have invested themselves heavily in the struggle. They have expanded their mission from protecting rebel forces to providing combat air support and interdiction. NATO has struck at government troops, supply routes, and logistics and command centers. It has been hitting targets of its own choosing for some time in cities like Tripoli. It has even targeted Qaddafi himself. By investing themselves heavily in the success of the rebels, Western military prestige is on the line. A rebel defeat would be a NATO defeat. After a string of impressive air campaigns by the West, its perfect record is in jeopardy. If one country can withstand a NATO onslaught, others can. The West is determined that an example not be set.
If the rebels do manage to win, it will not be due to the legitimacy of their cause or their military prowess. It will be due to Western military efforts. If they succeed, they will have the U.S. and NATO to thank. In the eyes of the West, that would be a very good thing.
Western support of the rebels has been increasing since fighting first broke out. After the rebellion began, the West quickly imposed more sanctions on the Libyan government. When the increased sanctions didn't work, a "no fly" zone was implemented and the Libyan air force was quickly grounded. When the "no fly" zone didn't succeed in tipping the balance, combat air support was provided. Libyan tanks, artillery, and mechanized forces were soon hobbled. Since March 31st, NATO has carried out more than 2,400 air strikes, including some aimed directly at Gaddafi's himself. Still, the rebellion is foundering.
The fighting has been going on for nearly three months since riots first broke out in Benghazi. The U.S. and its allies are determined to help the rebellion succeed. Indeed the only reason the fighting has lasted this long is because of NATO air support and military assistance. Given the level of support being provided, if the rebellion doesn't succeed, the West will suffer a major black eye. Dictators in the region and around the world would take heart.
The U.S. and NATO have invested themselves heavily in the struggle. They have expanded their mission from protecting rebel forces to providing combat air support and interdiction. NATO has struck at government troops, supply routes, and logistics and command centers. It has been hitting targets of its own choosing for some time in cities like Tripoli. It has even targeted Qaddafi himself. By investing themselves heavily in the success of the rebels, Western military prestige is on the line. A rebel defeat would be a NATO defeat. After a string of impressive air campaigns by the West, its perfect record is in jeopardy. If one country can withstand a NATO onslaught, others can. The West is determined that an example not be set.
If the rebels do manage to win, it will not be due to the legitimacy of their cause or their military prowess. It will be due to Western military efforts. If they succeed, they will have the U.S. and NATO to thank. In the eyes of the West, that would be a very good thing.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
What Limit?
According to a report in this morning's New York Times the federal government has reached its $14.3 trillion debt limit. That would not be a problem, well, not as big a problem anyway, if the government did not need more money to get it through the year, but it does. Discussion is under way on what to do about it. Republicans want spending cuts. Democrats want to increase revenue. It is anticipated that a compromise will be reached. A compromise will have to be reached. It is inconceivable that taxes could be raised or spending cut enough to put the nation back in the black any time soon.
There is talk in Washington that something will have to be done. Unfortunately, such talk is rarely little more than symbolic. When Washington speaks about addressing spending it is trying to send a message that it is serious about addressing the issue even, or especially, if it is not serious about it. Nevertheless, it is a necessary message to send, not just to the public, but to our lenders as well. You know you are in trouble when lenders begin to get squeamish about lending you more money.
The government is in serious financial straights. There will be stern countenances and grave pronouncements but the debt limit will be raised. A balanced budget is flat out of the question. In 2009 the government had a $1.84 trillion deficit. Last year it ran a deficit of $1.26 trillion. It is anticipated that the deficit for this year will be a more modest $929 billion. Even if the trend continues, it will be many years before black ink is seen. The debt is going to go up as sure as the sun is going to rise. The only question is by how much.
A debt limit that can be raised when it becomes inconvenient is not a limit. It is at best a hurdle. Until we can pass a balanced budget why even talk about addressing the debt?
There is talk in Washington that something will have to be done. Unfortunately, such talk is rarely little more than symbolic. When Washington speaks about addressing spending it is trying to send a message that it is serious about addressing the issue even, or especially, if it is not serious about it. Nevertheless, it is a necessary message to send, not just to the public, but to our lenders as well. You know you are in trouble when lenders begin to get squeamish about lending you more money.
The government is in serious financial straights. There will be stern countenances and grave pronouncements but the debt limit will be raised. A balanced budget is flat out of the question. In 2009 the government had a $1.84 trillion deficit. Last year it ran a deficit of $1.26 trillion. It is anticipated that the deficit for this year will be a more modest $929 billion. Even if the trend continues, it will be many years before black ink is seen. The debt is going to go up as sure as the sun is going to rise. The only question is by how much.
A debt limit that can be raised when it becomes inconvenient is not a limit. It is at best a hurdle. Until we can pass a balanced budget why even talk about addressing the debt?
Thursday, May 12, 2011
What if the Rebels Don't Win?
Rebels in Libya have begun to turn things around in their fight against government troops. After weeks of stalled fighting it was reported that they had gained ground and made progress in their struggle to break the siege of Misrata by capturing an airport and pushing government troops, aka Gaddafi's troops, from the western suburbs. Rebel victories have been few and far between since the rebellion began, much to NATO's dismay.
Western support of the rebels has been increasing since fighting first broke out. After the rebellion began, the West quickly imposed sanctions, more sanctions that is, on the Libyan government. When the increased sanctions didn't work, a "no fly" zone was implemented and the Libyan air force was quickly grounded. When the "no fly" zone didn't succeed in tipping the balance, combat air support was provided. Libyan tanks, artillery, and mechanized forces were soon hobbled. Since March 31st, NATO has carried out more than 2,400 air strikes, including some aimed directly at Gaddafi himself. Still, the rebellion is foundering.
The fighting has been going on for nearly three months since riots first broke out in Benghazi. The U.S. and its allies are determined to help the rebellion succeed. Indeed the only reason the fighting has lasted this long is because of NATO air support and military assistance. Given the level of support being provided, if the rebellion doesn't succeed, the West will suffer a major black eye. Dictators in the region and around the world would take heart in knowing that even in the face of Western support, a rebellion can be beaten.
The U.S. and NATO have committed themselves to the struggle. They have expanded their mission from protecting rebel forces to providing combat air support and interdiction. NATO has struck at government troops, supply routes, and logistics and command centers. It has been hitting targets of its own choosing for some time in cities like Tripoli. It has even targeted Gaddafi himself. Because it has invested itself heavily in the success of the rebellion, Western military prestige is on the line.
If the rebels manage to win, it will not be due to the legitimacy of their cause or their military prowess. It will be due to Western military power. Because of that, any new government in Libya will carry a stigma. A rebel defeat on the other hand would be a NATO defeat. After a string of impressive air campaigns by the West, its perfect record is in jeopardy. If one country can withstand a NATO onslaught, others can. The West is determined that an example not be set.
The West's insistence on levelling the playing field in Libya and elsewhere is disingenuous. Wars, civil or otherwise, are not supposed to be fair fights. They never have been.
Western support of the rebels has been increasing since fighting first broke out. After the rebellion began, the West quickly imposed sanctions, more sanctions that is, on the Libyan government. When the increased sanctions didn't work, a "no fly" zone was implemented and the Libyan air force was quickly grounded. When the "no fly" zone didn't succeed in tipping the balance, combat air support was provided. Libyan tanks, artillery, and mechanized forces were soon hobbled. Since March 31st, NATO has carried out more than 2,400 air strikes, including some aimed directly at Gaddafi himself. Still, the rebellion is foundering.
The fighting has been going on for nearly three months since riots first broke out in Benghazi. The U.S. and its allies are determined to help the rebellion succeed. Indeed the only reason the fighting has lasted this long is because of NATO air support and military assistance. Given the level of support being provided, if the rebellion doesn't succeed, the West will suffer a major black eye. Dictators in the region and around the world would take heart in knowing that even in the face of Western support, a rebellion can be beaten.
The U.S. and NATO have committed themselves to the struggle. They have expanded their mission from protecting rebel forces to providing combat air support and interdiction. NATO has struck at government troops, supply routes, and logistics and command centers. It has been hitting targets of its own choosing for some time in cities like Tripoli. It has even targeted Gaddafi himself. Because it has invested itself heavily in the success of the rebellion, Western military prestige is on the line.
If the rebels manage to win, it will not be due to the legitimacy of their cause or their military prowess. It will be due to Western military power. Because of that, any new government in Libya will carry a stigma. A rebel defeat on the other hand would be a NATO defeat. After a string of impressive air campaigns by the West, its perfect record is in jeopardy. If one country can withstand a NATO onslaught, others can. The West is determined that an example not be set.
The West's insistence on levelling the playing field in Libya and elsewhere is disingenuous. Wars, civil or otherwise, are not supposed to be fair fights. They never have been.
Friday, May 6, 2011
There is a Growing Choice
There is a troubling political undercurrent in Afghanistan. Recently President Karzai has been making moves to improve his country's relationship with neighboring Pakistan. In a meeting with Pakistani officials, both countries pledged to work at building closer ties. Included as part of those warming ties, Karzai was encouraged to move Afghanistan closer to Pakistan and China and by extension move away from the U.S. This makes sense if you look at a map. Pakistan and China are in the neighborhood. Afghanistan has to live in that neighborhood.
As the recent execution of Bin Laden demonstrates, Pakistan can be a problematic neighbor. Despite that, Afghanistan and Pakistan have much in common, not the least of which is religion. The greater concern however is China. China is a growing power in the world. As China's scientific expertise and economic prowess increase it is beginning to challenge U.S. hegemony around the world. It is doing so quietly without pageant or posturing.
The U.S. has expertise and markets but it brings with it a lot of baggage. There are many countries in the world where doing business with the U.S. is at best a necessary concession. China does not concern itself over political or social demands, it travels light. China is about business, not human rights or democracy. China is not seeking to change the world or reform nations and people. That is why China has been able to quietly expand its influence where similar U.S. activity would inspire headlines and protest.
There is a growing choice in the world. The U.S. is becoming only one option for nations seeking to grow their economies and improve trade. The spectacular growth of Chinese economic power is a catalyst for its growing involvement in world affairs. As its economic power and technical expertise grow, China is becoming a potent global competitor to the U.S. It also has an abundance of natural resources and a growing market that in time will dwarf the U.S. On top of that, its political savvy and military ability are increasing.
If countries do not need U.S. markets or U.S. protection why do they need the U.S.? Why suffer the pestering and prodding of the U.S. if you can simply do business with someone else? Why get caught up in the geopolitical intrigue of the U.S. if you do not have to? Why put up with a lecture if you can just take a check?
The day might soon come when nations will have a choice between orienting themselves towards the East or the West. When that day comes the U.S. will be at a distinct disadvantage. Politics aside, how can you compete when you are in debt to your competitor to a tune of $1 trillion. Yes, the U.S. has principals and values. But you cannot put those in the bank.
As the recent execution of Bin Laden demonstrates, Pakistan can be a problematic neighbor. Despite that, Afghanistan and Pakistan have much in common, not the least of which is religion. The greater concern however is China. China is a growing power in the world. As China's scientific expertise and economic prowess increase it is beginning to challenge U.S. hegemony around the world. It is doing so quietly without pageant or posturing.
The U.S. has expertise and markets but it brings with it a lot of baggage. There are many countries in the world where doing business with the U.S. is at best a necessary concession. China does not concern itself over political or social demands, it travels light. China is about business, not human rights or democracy. China is not seeking to change the world or reform nations and people. That is why China has been able to quietly expand its influence where similar U.S. activity would inspire headlines and protest.
There is a growing choice in the world. The U.S. is becoming only one option for nations seeking to grow their economies and improve trade. The spectacular growth of Chinese economic power is a catalyst for its growing involvement in world affairs. As its economic power and technical expertise grow, China is becoming a potent global competitor to the U.S. It also has an abundance of natural resources and a growing market that in time will dwarf the U.S. On top of that, its political savvy and military ability are increasing.
If countries do not need U.S. markets or U.S. protection why do they need the U.S.? Why suffer the pestering and prodding of the U.S. if you can simply do business with someone else? Why get caught up in the geopolitical intrigue of the U.S. if you do not have to? Why put up with a lecture if you can just take a check?
The day might soon come when nations will have a choice between orienting themselves towards the East or the West. When that day comes the U.S. will be at a distinct disadvantage. Politics aside, how can you compete when you are in debt to your competitor to a tune of $1 trillion. Yes, the U.S. has principals and values. But you cannot put those in the bank.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
What is Winning a Presidential Election Worth?
The scrambling has already begun for next year's presidential election. Well, republican scrambling has begun. It is not expected that there will be much scrambling in the democratic party. With the primary season still months away potential candidates are not looking for votes. They are looking for money. Votes won't count for another year or so. At this point, a candidate's status is measured by the money he is able to raise. The more viable a candidate is perceived to be, the more money he can expect to raise. The more money he raises, the more viable he becomes.
It has been reported that President Obama might be able to raise as much as $1 billion for his reelection campaign. That's right, $1 billion. No republican is even close. Well, perhaps Donald Trump can find a few hundred million but that would likely have to come out of his pocket, not his supporters'. The RNC brought in $7 million in March. Mitt Romney, one of the early GOP front runners, is hoping to raise $50 million over the next couple of months.
There are many things wrong with America at the moment that could significantly be improved with $1 billion. The irony of liberals spending a billion dollars in order to elect a president who will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to advance their cause is lost on them. But what is a billion dollars in the larger scheme of things? Obama has already spent more than a trillion dollars to help improve his chances for reelection. If it takes another billion to keep him in office, to many that is a bargain.
I suppose it all comes down to what winning a presidential election is worth to a person. For some it is all but priceless.
It has been reported that President Obama might be able to raise as much as $1 billion for his reelection campaign. That's right, $1 billion. No republican is even close. Well, perhaps Donald Trump can find a few hundred million but that would likely have to come out of his pocket, not his supporters'. The RNC brought in $7 million in March. Mitt Romney, one of the early GOP front runners, is hoping to raise $50 million over the next couple of months.
There are many things wrong with America at the moment that could significantly be improved with $1 billion. The irony of liberals spending a billion dollars in order to elect a president who will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to advance their cause is lost on them. But what is a billion dollars in the larger scheme of things? Obama has already spent more than a trillion dollars to help improve his chances for reelection. If it takes another billion to keep him in office, to many that is a bargain.
I suppose it all comes down to what winning a presidential election is worth to a person. For some it is all but priceless.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Every Silver Lining Has a Dark Cloud
There is troubling news from Egypt. According to a recent Pew Center poll, the majority of Egyptians favor ending the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that was signed 32 years ago. When the treaty was signed between the two nations it was heralded as a mile stone. It showed that there could be peace between Arabs and Israelis. Now, after the fall of the Egyptian government, that treaty could be in peril.
Democracy in the Middle East has long been a goal of U.S. policy. For years the U.S. has prodded nations in the region to move towards more open and representative government. In the last several months the U.S. has become almost giddy at the prospect of finally achieving its political goals in the region. But, as the recent Pew Center poll has revealed, the move towards democracy in the Middle East is not without its perils.
Over the last several decades, negotiations with the Arab world were simple. We only needed to reach agreement with the leader of a nation. Once an agreement was reached, the leader of that nation could be relied upon to observe that agreement whether the people of that nation approved or not. Those days are quickly coming to and end. Those days will be missed.
The Pew Center poll revealed many troubling issues on the horizon. While the poll revealed that the vast majority of Egyptians, 77% according to the poll, are happy Mubarak is gone, the joy on the part of Egyptians is not simply due to personal dislike. A key element of that dislike was Mubarak's foreign policy.
During his tenure, Mubarak became an important and reliable partner for the U.S. in the region. However, only 32% of Egyptians approve of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Only 20% of Egyptians view the U.S. favorably. 43% of Egyptians asked want cooler ties with the U.S. against only 15% who want closer relations. The majority of Egyptians are angered over Israel's treatment of Palestinians. It gets worse. Another poll revealed that 37% of Egyptians had a "very favorable" view of the Muslim Brotherhood, a hard line Islamic party and that 62% of the people felt that the law should more strictly follow the Koran. As if that weren't enough, over half of those polled feel that the 1979 peace agreement signed between Israel and Egypt should be annulled.
What should also be disturbing from the U.S. point of view is that a large majority of Egyptians are satisfied with their religious leaders. Even though religious fundamentalists in the nation are still on the margins, that can change very quickly. Unlike the U.S., Muslims tend to adhere to their religion and listen to their religious leaders. It cannot be assumed that Egyptians will abandon their mosques if their mullahs start to tilt toward the right. Muslims are not Episcopalians.
Before the uprising it didn't matter much how ordinary Egyptians felt about Israel and U.S. policy in the region. Soon it will. Both Israel and the U.S. are going to have to keep that in mind. According to the poll, most people in Egypt are looking forward to a new government. The question is whether we should.
Democracy in the Middle East has long been a goal of U.S. policy. For years the U.S. has prodded nations in the region to move towards more open and representative government. In the last several months the U.S. has become almost giddy at the prospect of finally achieving its political goals in the region. But, as the recent Pew Center poll has revealed, the move towards democracy in the Middle East is not without its perils.
Over the last several decades, negotiations with the Arab world were simple. We only needed to reach agreement with the leader of a nation. Once an agreement was reached, the leader of that nation could be relied upon to observe that agreement whether the people of that nation approved or not. Those days are quickly coming to and end. Those days will be missed.
The Pew Center poll revealed many troubling issues on the horizon. While the poll revealed that the vast majority of Egyptians, 77% according to the poll, are happy Mubarak is gone, the joy on the part of Egyptians is not simply due to personal dislike. A key element of that dislike was Mubarak's foreign policy.
During his tenure, Mubarak became an important and reliable partner for the U.S. in the region. However, only 32% of Egyptians approve of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Only 20% of Egyptians view the U.S. favorably. 43% of Egyptians asked want cooler ties with the U.S. against only 15% who want closer relations. The majority of Egyptians are angered over Israel's treatment of Palestinians. It gets worse. Another poll revealed that 37% of Egyptians had a "very favorable" view of the Muslim Brotherhood, a hard line Islamic party and that 62% of the people felt that the law should more strictly follow the Koran. As if that weren't enough, over half of those polled feel that the 1979 peace agreement signed between Israel and Egypt should be annulled.
What should also be disturbing from the U.S. point of view is that a large majority of Egyptians are satisfied with their religious leaders. Even though religious fundamentalists in the nation are still on the margins, that can change very quickly. Unlike the U.S., Muslims tend to adhere to their religion and listen to their religious leaders. It cannot be assumed that Egyptians will abandon their mosques if their mullahs start to tilt toward the right. Muslims are not Episcopalians.
Before the uprising it didn't matter much how ordinary Egyptians felt about Israel and U.S. policy in the region. Soon it will. Both Israel and the U.S. are going to have to keep that in mind. According to the poll, most people in Egypt are looking forward to a new government. The question is whether we should.
Monday, April 18, 2011
What is the Problem With Bigamy?
The Dallas Morning News regularly runs a column called Crime Stoppers. In the column, a list of people currently wanted by the Dallas police department is published a long with a photo of the person and the charge they are wanted on. The crimes typically cover a wide range of offenses, from public intoxication and burglary to armed robbery and murder. (I have not yet discerned how or why particular people are chosen for an appearance in the column.) In this morning's paper, there was a listing I have not seen before. Sean Block, age 30, is wanted for bigamy.
It is surprising that in this enlightened age of homosexual marriage that there are still laws against bigamy. Certainly the idea of traditional marriage as one between one man and one woman is not a barrier. If two men decide they want to get married, many demand that the state accede to their request. Many courts have upheld the legitimacy of gay marriage and conferred upon it the same rights and privileges accorded to traditional marriage. Any infringement of that right usually must be able to withstand a high level of scrutiny.
Laws against miscegenation, adultery and fornication have long gone by the board. So why are laws against bigamy, to say nothing of polygamy, allowed to stand? Is it because bigamy undermines the idea of marriage as a union between one man and one woman? That cannot be it. That barrier has been breached. Could it be because polygamy is contrary to what is written in the Bible? That is a laughable proposition. Since when have the courts cared what is in the Bible? Could it be because polygamy is seen to undermine the morals or threaten the health of the community? Certainly that is not the case. Morality we are told is simply a subjective set of beliefs that do not bind anyone but the person who feels them and there is no evidence that bigamy is any more of a threat to public health than monogamy. Moreover, as is often chanted by the left, you cannot legislate morality. Essentially, the reason bigamy is illegal is because most people, liberal and conservative alike, (albeit for very different reasons), object to it. So strong are the feelings against bigamy that any religion that embraces it or group that advocates for it is scorned. Tolerance, religious or otherwise, does not extend to bigamy.
It can, (and likely one day will), be argued that bigamy hurts no one. Where bigamy is the result of coercion or involves minors it becomes a matter where the law is obliged to step in. If a bigamous marriage is the result deceit there is already a legal remedy. It is called divorce. Where bigamy involves consenting adults, there is no basis for legal interference, especially if it is rooted in religious tradition. Simply put, bigamy is illegal because most people object to it. It is an institution that runs contrary to Christian tradition and the moral sensibilities of an overwhelming majority of Americans. But why should it matter what most people or particular religions think? As we have been told time and time again, just because something offends people or violates a religious tenet is no basis to make it illegal.
Often in the U.S., when it comes to moral issues it doesn't matter what the public thinks. As far as the law is concerned, public opinion is not important. Why should it matter how Americans feel about polygamy? By the standards of modern relativism, traditional marriage is simply one of the last remnants of an antiquated notion of religion and moral propriety. If we are to keep making progress towards the ideal society, cobwebs such as bourgeoisie notion that marriage should be confined to a union between two consenting adults must be swept away. If Jane can marry Betty, why can't Robert marry Sarah and Ruth?
Custom, tradition, and community sensibilities have been steadily eroding as foundations of law. Without them, we are left with only reason to guide us. Reason alone is not a sufficient basis for drafting law. It never has been. This is because simply following a line of reasoning can lead not only to places one doesn't want to go, but also to places one never imagined to go.
It is surprising that in this enlightened age of homosexual marriage that there are still laws against bigamy. Certainly the idea of traditional marriage as one between one man and one woman is not a barrier. If two men decide they want to get married, many demand that the state accede to their request. Many courts have upheld the legitimacy of gay marriage and conferred upon it the same rights and privileges accorded to traditional marriage. Any infringement of that right usually must be able to withstand a high level of scrutiny.
Laws against miscegenation, adultery and fornication have long gone by the board. So why are laws against bigamy, to say nothing of polygamy, allowed to stand? Is it because bigamy undermines the idea of marriage as a union between one man and one woman? That cannot be it. That barrier has been breached. Could it be because polygamy is contrary to what is written in the Bible? That is a laughable proposition. Since when have the courts cared what is in the Bible? Could it be because polygamy is seen to undermine the morals or threaten the health of the community? Certainly that is not the case. Morality we are told is simply a subjective set of beliefs that do not bind anyone but the person who feels them and there is no evidence that bigamy is any more of a threat to public health than monogamy. Moreover, as is often chanted by the left, you cannot legislate morality. Essentially, the reason bigamy is illegal is because most people, liberal and conservative alike, (albeit for very different reasons), object to it. So strong are the feelings against bigamy that any religion that embraces it or group that advocates for it is scorned. Tolerance, religious or otherwise, does not extend to bigamy.
It can, (and likely one day will), be argued that bigamy hurts no one. Where bigamy is the result of coercion or involves minors it becomes a matter where the law is obliged to step in. If a bigamous marriage is the result deceit there is already a legal remedy. It is called divorce. Where bigamy involves consenting adults, there is no basis for legal interference, especially if it is rooted in religious tradition. Simply put, bigamy is illegal because most people object to it. It is an institution that runs contrary to Christian tradition and the moral sensibilities of an overwhelming majority of Americans. But why should it matter what most people or particular religions think? As we have been told time and time again, just because something offends people or violates a religious tenet is no basis to make it illegal.
Often in the U.S., when it comes to moral issues it doesn't matter what the public thinks. As far as the law is concerned, public opinion is not important. Why should it matter how Americans feel about polygamy? By the standards of modern relativism, traditional marriage is simply one of the last remnants of an antiquated notion of religion and moral propriety. If we are to keep making progress towards the ideal society, cobwebs such as bourgeoisie notion that marriage should be confined to a union between two consenting adults must be swept away. If Jane can marry Betty, why can't Robert marry Sarah and Ruth?
Custom, tradition, and community sensibilities have been steadily eroding as foundations of law. Without them, we are left with only reason to guide us. Reason alone is not a sufficient basis for drafting law. It never has been. This is because simply following a line of reasoning can lead not only to places one doesn't want to go, but also to places one never imagined to go.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Doing What They Can.
Struck by the catastrophe in Japan following the recent tsunami, countries around the globe have been coming to Japan's aide. Supplies, money, and assistance are arriving daily. The scope and depth of the destruction that followed the earthquake has moved the world. Now, the fashion industry is seeking to be of assistance.
The fashion industry has decided to take a little time out of its busy schedule to hold the Fashion and Friends for Japan Auction. Many of those attending the auction won't even open their own car doors. The industry will put up for bids delights such as a week long stay at Dianne Furstenburg's Harbor Island beach house along with a complimentary shopping spree. (It is unlikely Dianne will be there to host her guests.) The opening bid for that treat is $16,000. Also up for bids is the opportunity to meet Anna Windsor and attend a Vogue Magazine photo shoot, opening bid $6,750. Other prizes on the block include a style consultation with Rachel Zoe, opening bid $3,250. Money raised from the auction will go to help Japan.
Like their colleagues in Hollywood, the fashion industry desires a sheen of compassion. Also like their colleagues in Hollywood, they want it without having to actually do anything but make an appearance or a gesture and look fabulous while doing so. This arrangement is perfectly natural to those who expect something from their giving. If you are going to shell out a few thousand dollars to help a worthy cause you should at least get a style consultation or a shopping spree out of it. I would love to know what becomes of the losing bids. Do the checkbooks stay open or are they closed and put away?
Dianne Furstenburg has decided to let people stay at her house for a week. Rachel Zoe has agreed to give some fashion advice. What are you doing to help people in Japan? If anyone is still on the fence and needs a little extra incentive to give, my schedule is wide open. I'd be happy to give you some fashion advice. For a good enough donation you can stay at my apartment.
The fashion industry has decided to take a little time out of its busy schedule to hold the Fashion and Friends for Japan Auction. Many of those attending the auction won't even open their own car doors. The industry will put up for bids delights such as a week long stay at Dianne Furstenburg's Harbor Island beach house along with a complimentary shopping spree. (It is unlikely Dianne will be there to host her guests.) The opening bid for that treat is $16,000. Also up for bids is the opportunity to meet Anna Windsor and attend a Vogue Magazine photo shoot, opening bid $6,750. Other prizes on the block include a style consultation with Rachel Zoe, opening bid $3,250. Money raised from the auction will go to help Japan.
Like their colleagues in Hollywood, the fashion industry desires a sheen of compassion. Also like their colleagues in Hollywood, they want it without having to actually do anything but make an appearance or a gesture and look fabulous while doing so. This arrangement is perfectly natural to those who expect something from their giving. If you are going to shell out a few thousand dollars to help a worthy cause you should at least get a style consultation or a shopping spree out of it. I would love to know what becomes of the losing bids. Do the checkbooks stay open or are they closed and put away?
Dianne Furstenburg has decided to let people stay at her house for a week. Rachel Zoe has agreed to give some fashion advice. What are you doing to help people in Japan? If anyone is still on the fence and needs a little extra incentive to give, my schedule is wide open. I'd be happy to give you some fashion advice. For a good enough donation you can stay at my apartment.
Friday, April 8, 2011
They Will Pay With Their Lives. We Will Not.
Yesterday, a Palestinian missile struck an Israeli school bus injuring the driver and seriously wounding a child. The Palestinian group Hamas claimed credit for the attack. In response, Israel launched attacks of its own on Palestinians in Gaza. Hamas has launched numerous rockets at Israel recently. While the attacks have done little damage and caused few casualties, they have infuriated Israel. It has run out of patience.
Fourteen Palestinians have been killed so far as a result of Israeli retaliation. Seven of those killed were Palestinian militants. One was a policeman. Six were civilians. Three of the civilians killed were killed by tank fire. Two of the Palestinian civilians, one an 11 year old boy, were killed at a cemetery while attending a funeral. More Israeli attacks can be expected. No one in Gaza is safe. That some of those killed were Hamas fighters should not really make much of a difference. Israel makes no distinction between its soldiers and civilians. A soldier killed by Palestinians is no more tolerable to Israel than a civilian being killed. It would not be a surprise if Hamas does not make that distinction either.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu growled that "whoever tries to harm and murder children will pay with their life", and he meant it. Well, he meant it in a sense. No Israeli is going to pay with their life for the 11 year old boy killed at the funeral. No Israeli will even pay a shekel for that. That is because the deaths of Palestinians have to be placed in perspective. Circumstances need to be taken into account. If a Palestinian child is injured or killed in an Israeli raid it is unfortunate, but it has to be placed in the context of the larger struggle. Israel may not deliberately kill children, but it still kills them. Every Israeli death on the other hand, whether deliberate or incidental, whether man, woman, child, civilian, or soldier, is a crime and must be avenged.There are no mitigating circumstances. There never are and there never will be.
Palestinians who kill Israeli children will have to pay with their lives. Israelis who kill Palestinian children will be excused. You can say that there is a difference between the deliberate killing of a child and an incidental killing of a child. You would be right. But that difference is only observed where Israeli forces are concerned. Palestinians receive no credit if a rocket they fired at a military target veered off course or if a group of Israeli soldiers they fired upon turned out to be civilians. An Israeli tank firing an errant round (I would assume it was an errant round but one can never be sure), and kills Palestinian children is at best an unfortunate incident. At worst, it is "justice". Just as you cannot fire rockets and missiles at cities and not expect to kill civilians, you cannot fire tank cannons or drop bombs on cities and not expect to kill civilians.
Netanyahu was correct when he asserted that anyone who kills or harms a child should be punished. He is in error if he believes that only the deaths of Jewish children merit retribution. It should not matter whether the child is Jewish or Arab. Palestinians deserve justice as much as Israelis do.
The problem is that Palestinians cannot bring Israelis to justice. All they have is vengeance. Until an Israeli appears in a Palestinian court, the only recourse for Palestinians is violence. Six Palestinian civilians including an 11 year old boy have so far died in Israel's retaliation to Hamas' missile attack. It is certain more will die. The Palestinians will want justice as well. It is unlikely they will get it. Because they will not get it, neither for the lives they have lost nor the property they have had seized or destroyed, future violence is assured. Some say the Palestinians deserve what they get because they started it, but that is a matter of perspective. It greatly depends on where you draw the start line.
Israel commonly misconstrues justice with vengeance. It should not be a surprise that Palestinians do so as well.
Fourteen Palestinians have been killed so far as a result of Israeli retaliation. Seven of those killed were Palestinian militants. One was a policeman. Six were civilians. Three of the civilians killed were killed by tank fire. Two of the Palestinian civilians, one an 11 year old boy, were killed at a cemetery while attending a funeral. More Israeli attacks can be expected. No one in Gaza is safe. That some of those killed were Hamas fighters should not really make much of a difference. Israel makes no distinction between its soldiers and civilians. A soldier killed by Palestinians is no more tolerable to Israel than a civilian being killed. It would not be a surprise if Hamas does not make that distinction either.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu growled that "whoever tries to harm and murder children will pay with their life", and he meant it. Well, he meant it in a sense. No Israeli is going to pay with their life for the 11 year old boy killed at the funeral. No Israeli will even pay a shekel for that. That is because the deaths of Palestinians have to be placed in perspective. Circumstances need to be taken into account. If a Palestinian child is injured or killed in an Israeli raid it is unfortunate, but it has to be placed in the context of the larger struggle. Israel may not deliberately kill children, but it still kills them. Every Israeli death on the other hand, whether deliberate or incidental, whether man, woman, child, civilian, or soldier, is a crime and must be avenged.There are no mitigating circumstances. There never are and there never will be.
Palestinians who kill Israeli children will have to pay with their lives. Israelis who kill Palestinian children will be excused. You can say that there is a difference between the deliberate killing of a child and an incidental killing of a child. You would be right. But that difference is only observed where Israeli forces are concerned. Palestinians receive no credit if a rocket they fired at a military target veered off course or if a group of Israeli soldiers they fired upon turned out to be civilians. An Israeli tank firing an errant round (I would assume it was an errant round but one can never be sure), and kills Palestinian children is at best an unfortunate incident. At worst, it is "justice". Just as you cannot fire rockets and missiles at cities and not expect to kill civilians, you cannot fire tank cannons or drop bombs on cities and not expect to kill civilians.
Netanyahu was correct when he asserted that anyone who kills or harms a child should be punished. He is in error if he believes that only the deaths of Jewish children merit retribution. It should not matter whether the child is Jewish or Arab. Palestinians deserve justice as much as Israelis do.
The problem is that Palestinians cannot bring Israelis to justice. All they have is vengeance. Until an Israeli appears in a Palestinian court, the only recourse for Palestinians is violence. Six Palestinian civilians including an 11 year old boy have so far died in Israel's retaliation to Hamas' missile attack. It is certain more will die. The Palestinians will want justice as well. It is unlikely they will get it. Because they will not get it, neither for the lives they have lost nor the property they have had seized or destroyed, future violence is assured. Some say the Palestinians deserve what they get because they started it, but that is a matter of perspective. It greatly depends on where you draw the start line.
Israel commonly misconstrues justice with vengeance. It should not be a surprise that Palestinians do so as well.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Sleight of Hand
News reports are coming out of Libya daily. Each day there are accounts of the fighting between loyalists and rebels. Some days, the reports reads like a box score: this town has changed hands, this many tanks were destroyed, this much land has been gained or lost. More often than not, where the Libyan Army is competently led and not decimated by allied air forces, it triumphs.
What is interesting about the reports is that government forces are rarely referred to as the Libyan Army. They are commonly referred to as Gaddafi's troops. They are not Gaddafi's troops. They are the Libyan Army. In an AP report this morning nine paragraphs were written on the fighting in Libya. Not once was the Libyan Army referred to by name. Perhaps it is because an army is a legitimate institution authorized to act in defense of a nation. "Troops" lack that legitimacy because they are typically construed acting at the behest of whoever is leading them, not the nation. An army is made up of troops. An army serves a nation. An army does what it is told to do. We are not bombing and killing Ghadaffi's troops, we are bombing and killing Libyan troops.
While there are armed militias fighting along side the Libyan Army, the army is the main force in the field. Those with allegiance to the government of Libya are not described as loyal to the government or the country, but loyal to Qaddafi. Qadaffi may be in charge of the army and command its loyalty but it is not his army, it is the Libyan army.
By many accounts, Libya does not even have a government. It has a "regime". "Government" implies established and legitimate authority. "Regime" connotes a capricious and authoritarian rule. A rebellion against a "regime" is a much less problematic cause to support than a rebellion against a legitimate government. But this is a sleight of hand. All governments are regimes. A regime is simply a system of rule or government. (If you don't believe me you can look it up in Webster's Dictionary). All governments seek to preserve themselves and their authority against rebellion. Most governments will use force if necessary to put a rebellion down.
The United States has had its own experience with rebellion. In 1861 the South rebelled against the Union. The North was not interested in negotiating with the rebels. It did not seek compromise. It waged war. We should be grateful that the British were not more aggressive in their support of the rebels. Had the British been more active in their support of the Confederacy chances are the rebels would have won. Americans should also be grateful there was no U.N. when the Civil War was fought. The brutality of that war, particularly by the North, would surely have prompted U.N. intervention.
Qaddafi is the internationally recognized leader of Libya. He is not a usurper or a conqueror. The forces aligned against Qaddafi are rebelling against the government of Libya. You can support Qaddafi, although I suspect you won't, or you can oppose him. You can cheer for him, although I suspect you won't, or you can jeer. Either way you are taking a side with or against the legitimate authority of the Libyan government.
What is interesting about the reports is that government forces are rarely referred to as the Libyan Army. They are commonly referred to as Gaddafi's troops. They are not Gaddafi's troops. They are the Libyan Army. In an AP report this morning nine paragraphs were written on the fighting in Libya. Not once was the Libyan Army referred to by name. Perhaps it is because an army is a legitimate institution authorized to act in defense of a nation. "Troops" lack that legitimacy because they are typically construed acting at the behest of whoever is leading them, not the nation. An army is made up of troops. An army serves a nation. An army does what it is told to do. We are not bombing and killing Ghadaffi's troops, we are bombing and killing Libyan troops.
While there are armed militias fighting along side the Libyan Army, the army is the main force in the field. Those with allegiance to the government of Libya are not described as loyal to the government or the country, but loyal to Qaddafi. Qadaffi may be in charge of the army and command its loyalty but it is not his army, it is the Libyan army.
By many accounts, Libya does not even have a government. It has a "regime". "Government" implies established and legitimate authority. "Regime" connotes a capricious and authoritarian rule. A rebellion against a "regime" is a much less problematic cause to support than a rebellion against a legitimate government. But this is a sleight of hand. All governments are regimes. A regime is simply a system of rule or government. (If you don't believe me you can look it up in Webster's Dictionary). All governments seek to preserve themselves and their authority against rebellion. Most governments will use force if necessary to put a rebellion down.
The United States has had its own experience with rebellion. In 1861 the South rebelled against the Union. The North was not interested in negotiating with the rebels. It did not seek compromise. It waged war. We should be grateful that the British were not more aggressive in their support of the rebels. Had the British been more active in their support of the Confederacy chances are the rebels would have won. Americans should also be grateful there was no U.N. when the Civil War was fought. The brutality of that war, particularly by the North, would surely have prompted U.N. intervention.
Qaddafi is the internationally recognized leader of Libya. He is not a usurper or a conqueror. The forces aligned against Qaddafi are rebelling against the government of Libya. You can support Qaddafi, although I suspect you won't, or you can oppose him. You can cheer for him, although I suspect you won't, or you can jeer. Either way you are taking a side with or against the legitimate authority of the Libyan government.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
I Bet You Didn't Know This
In the latest yearly jobs report by Parade Magazine, different professionals were listed according to their salaries. A gemologist in Kennewick, Washington earned $60,000 last year. An Air Force officer in Peoria, Arizona earned $103,000. A food truck owner in Salt Lake City, Utah earned $43,000. A Fed Ex pilot in Illinois made $148,000. A ballet dancer in New York City made $16,800. What was of particular interest was that an astrologer in Phoenix, Arizona made $177,250 last year: more money than everyone on the list except for the plastic surgeon in Las Vegas. He made $1 million last year.
Ironically, a meteorologist in Warwick, Rhode Island made $90,000 last year, slightly more than half of what the astrologer made. Both astrologers and meteorologists are concerned with predicting the future. If you want to know whether you should go ahead with your plans for that outdoor wedding, if income is a sign of talent, you might want to consider ignoring the meteorologist and consult the astrologer.
So, if your child hasn't yet decided on a career and they are not cut out to be a surgeon or a pilot, you might suggest he become an astrologer. Not only is it a time honored profession, it can be a well paying one. Whatever you do, do not let him go to New York City and become a ballet dancer unless he is exceptionally good. Even a food truck driver can make more money than a ballet dancer.
I am curious what a good phrenologist can make in a year.
Ironically, a meteorologist in Warwick, Rhode Island made $90,000 last year, slightly more than half of what the astrologer made. Both astrologers and meteorologists are concerned with predicting the future. If you want to know whether you should go ahead with your plans for that outdoor wedding, if income is a sign of talent, you might want to consider ignoring the meteorologist and consult the astrologer.
So, if your child hasn't yet decided on a career and they are not cut out to be a surgeon or a pilot, you might suggest he become an astrologer. Not only is it a time honored profession, it can be a well paying one. Whatever you do, do not let him go to New York City and become a ballet dancer unless he is exceptionally good. Even a food truck driver can make more money than a ballet dancer.
I am curious what a good phrenologist can make in a year.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Pastor Rob Bell
Pastor Rob Bell is making waves in evangelical circles. He is even being accused of heresy, specifically evangelical heresy. In his book Love Wins , Bell asserts that God's love will triumph over sin, regardless of how grave the sin might be and even if a person does not repent and ask to be saved. That is an outrage to many evangelicals to whom God's wrath is a central tenet. Bell really hits a nerve when he asserts everyone will be saved. This is where he parts ways with most evangelical protestants. What is the point of having rules if there is no punishment for violating them? What is the point of Hell if no one is sent there?
Bell is no St. Augustine. He is a man with a Masters of Divinity degree who has founded his own church. He may draw thousands on Sunday, but that does not make him a theologian. Along side nearly two thousand years of Church history and exhaustive work on the part of real theologians, Bell posits his own interpretation of Christianity. In the free for all that has come to characterize modern protestantism, that is certainly his prerogative. In the religious circus that frequently makes up world of evangelical Christianity it is not surprising. The only check on evangelical heresy is the congregation. As long as people come in on Sunday and leave some money behind it really doesn't matter what the pastor preaches. Stature in the evangelical world is measured by congregants and donations, not orthodoxy.
Pastor Bell is not asking questions that have not already been asked. The questions of salvation, grace, sin, and repentance have been at the heart of Christianity since its founding. Many of the greatest minds in history have wrestled with the subject. Now Rob Bell, an evangelical pastor in Michigan, has weighed in. Bell argues that God's love can transcend sin. Of course it can. Outside of the fire and brimstone world of evangelical protestantism, that is not an issue. The issue is whether people want mercy, whether they are willing to humble themselves and admit they need it, and whether they are sincerely willing to ask for it.
I only want to know why people should care what Pastor Rob Bell thinks? Anyone can pick up a Bible and interpret it by their own lights. That is a major reason why for centuries the Church prohibited people from reading the Bible. Pastor Bell is no Martin Luther. He is an evangelical pastor from North Carolina. No one should live in fear of Bellism.
Bell is no St. Augustine. He is a man with a Masters of Divinity degree who has founded his own church. He may draw thousands on Sunday, but that does not make him a theologian. Along side nearly two thousand years of Church history and exhaustive work on the part of real theologians, Bell posits his own interpretation of Christianity. In the free for all that has come to characterize modern protestantism, that is certainly his prerogative. In the religious circus that frequently makes up world of evangelical Christianity it is not surprising. The only check on evangelical heresy is the congregation. As long as people come in on Sunday and leave some money behind it really doesn't matter what the pastor preaches. Stature in the evangelical world is measured by congregants and donations, not orthodoxy.
Pastor Bell is not asking questions that have not already been asked. The questions of salvation, grace, sin, and repentance have been at the heart of Christianity since its founding. Many of the greatest minds in history have wrestled with the subject. Now Rob Bell, an evangelical pastor in Michigan, has weighed in. Bell argues that God's love can transcend sin. Of course it can. Outside of the fire and brimstone world of evangelical protestantism, that is not an issue. The issue is whether people want mercy, whether they are willing to humble themselves and admit they need it, and whether they are sincerely willing to ask for it.
I only want to know why people should care what Pastor Rob Bell thinks? Anyone can pick up a Bible and interpret it by their own lights. That is a major reason why for centuries the Church prohibited people from reading the Bible. Pastor Bell is no Martin Luther. He is an evangelical pastor from North Carolina. No one should live in fear of Bellism.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Obama Has Some Explaining to Do.
When President Obama addresses the nation on Monday he will seek to explain the reasoning behind the air campaign launched against Libya. When the campaign commenced it was announced that the purpose of the operation was to protect Libyan civilians from air attacks by forces loyal to Gadhafi. After air defenses were knocked out, the Libyan air force was soon swept from the skies. It was then announced that the next step would also be to protect civilians, this time from the tanks and artillery of Libyan army. Loyalist ground forces in the open were quickly decimated. Still, Gadhafi's forces refused to yield and pressed onward. It was assumed by some that, deprived of air power and hobbled by the loss of mechanized units and supplies, loyalist forces would vacate the field. They didn't. While a rebel collapse was avoided, they are still largely on the defensive. That might change very soon. The rebels might be out manned and outgunned, but they now have a top rate air force.
The United States is frustrated by the lack of rebel success so far in defeating the Libyan military, so it has decided to go over to offense. Instead of simply interdicting the Libyan air force, coalition aircraft have begun supplying air support to rebel troops on the ground. They have already attacked government forces blocking the rebel advance on Tripoli as well as loyalist troops threatening the rebel held city of Benghazi. The U.S. is considering bringing in attack helicopters to assist rebel troops. Rather than simply grounding Gaddafi's air force and protecting civilians, the United States is now assisting rebel forces fighting in the field. What began as a mission to ground the Libyan air force and protect civilians has become one of providing combat air support for rebel troops.
How far are we willing to go the ensure rebel success? Are we prepared for the event if the rebels lose? Can we afford to build another nation if the rebels win? I would say President Obama has some explaining to do.
The United States is frustrated by the lack of rebel success so far in defeating the Libyan military, so it has decided to go over to offense. Instead of simply interdicting the Libyan air force, coalition aircraft have begun supplying air support to rebel troops on the ground. They have already attacked government forces blocking the rebel advance on Tripoli as well as loyalist troops threatening the rebel held city of Benghazi. The U.S. is considering bringing in attack helicopters to assist rebel troops. Rather than simply grounding Gaddafi's air force and protecting civilians, the United States is now assisting rebel forces fighting in the field. What began as a mission to ground the Libyan air force and protect civilians has become one of providing combat air support for rebel troops.
How far are we willing to go the ensure rebel success? Are we prepared for the event if the rebels lose? Can we afford to build another nation if the rebels win? I would say President Obama has some explaining to do.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Just Stopping By
Former Governor Sarah Palin was the most recent of the Republicans exploring a run at the presidency in 2012 to visit Israel. Yesterday, Palin had dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu after a quick visit to Jerusalem. Palin's trip was described as a personal visit. While in Jerusalem she toured the holy sites. It has become routine for presidential hopefuls to pay homage to Israel. Israel has a special place in the heart of many Americans. Even employed politicians, such as Governor Perry of Texas, have found time to stop in and pay respects.
As is common while in Jerusalem, Palin visited some of the holy sites. She visited the Mount of Olives and stood before the Wailing Wall where she was "overwhelmed" to touch the "cornerstone of our faith", as if the Wailing Wall was the cornerstone of the Christian faith. She also spoke glowingly of America's close ties with Israel. It is curious given the tumult in the Middle East that Palin found no time to speak on events in the region: a strange silence for someone seeking to establish her foreign policy credentials.
Neither did she find time to visit any Muslim Holy sites while in Israel. Had she put in the effort she might have learned that Islam and Christianity have more in common than most people realize: certainly more than fundamentalists of either faith might think. Few Americans, and even fewer Evangelicals, are aware that when Islam first appeared in the late 6th century it was viewed not as a new religion, but as a heretical Christian sect. The reason for that misunderstanding is that, unlike Judaism, Islam recognizes Jesus, albeit as a great prophet, not the Son of God. Islam also recognizes the Virgin Mary and the miraculous birth of Jesus. Indeed, Mary is one of only two women mentioned by name in the Koran. Of course, the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Virgin Mary by any religion do not carry much weight with evangelicals.
Israel is a fetish for evangelicals. Evangelicals are a key constituency for any Republican hoping to win the nomination. Therefore, any Republican contemplating a run for the presidency must pay homage to Israel. While many recognize the pragmatic relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the obsequiousness on the part of some U.S. leaders, such as that displayed by Palin, does absolutely nothing to further our interests in the Middle East. America's near blind loyalty to Israel only encourages Israeli intransigence and undermines our ability to be an objective broker in the region.
A visit by an American politician to a Muslim holy site would be a significant gesture to demonstrate America's lack of antipathy for Islam. After invading two Muslim nations and bombing another, it seems the least an American leader can do is to visit a mosque and show respect. It wouldn't have been difficult. The Dome of the Rock was just up the hill. In fairness, Palin's trip to Israel was described as a private visit. Whatever her motives, she clearly did not go there to explore her faith.
For the record, I am an Orthodox Christian. If any church has good reason to bear a grudge against Islam, it is the Orthodox Church. It was our churches that were overrun by Muslims, not the Baptists' or the Pentecostals'.
As is common while in Jerusalem, Palin visited some of the holy sites. She visited the Mount of Olives and stood before the Wailing Wall where she was "overwhelmed" to touch the "cornerstone of our faith", as if the Wailing Wall was the cornerstone of the Christian faith. She also spoke glowingly of America's close ties with Israel. It is curious given the tumult in the Middle East that Palin found no time to speak on events in the region: a strange silence for someone seeking to establish her foreign policy credentials.
Neither did she find time to visit any Muslim Holy sites while in Israel. Had she put in the effort she might have learned that Islam and Christianity have more in common than most people realize: certainly more than fundamentalists of either faith might think. Few Americans, and even fewer Evangelicals, are aware that when Islam first appeared in the late 6th century it was viewed not as a new religion, but as a heretical Christian sect. The reason for that misunderstanding is that, unlike Judaism, Islam recognizes Jesus, albeit as a great prophet, not the Son of God. Islam also recognizes the Virgin Mary and the miraculous birth of Jesus. Indeed, Mary is one of only two women mentioned by name in the Koran. Of course, the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Virgin Mary by any religion do not carry much weight with evangelicals.
Israel is a fetish for evangelicals. Evangelicals are a key constituency for any Republican hoping to win the nomination. Therefore, any Republican contemplating a run for the presidency must pay homage to Israel. While many recognize the pragmatic relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the obsequiousness on the part of some U.S. leaders, such as that displayed by Palin, does absolutely nothing to further our interests in the Middle East. America's near blind loyalty to Israel only encourages Israeli intransigence and undermines our ability to be an objective broker in the region.
A visit by an American politician to a Muslim holy site would be a significant gesture to demonstrate America's lack of antipathy for Islam. After invading two Muslim nations and bombing another, it seems the least an American leader can do is to visit a mosque and show respect. It wouldn't have been difficult. The Dome of the Rock was just up the hill. In fairness, Palin's trip to Israel was described as a private visit. Whatever her motives, she clearly did not go there to explore her faith.
For the record, I am an Orthodox Christian. If any church has good reason to bear a grudge against Islam, it is the Orthodox Church. It was our churches that were overrun by Muslims, not the Baptists' or the Pentecostals'.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Shariah Law is Law
Many in Pakistan, including its president, are angry over the release of an American contractor accused of killing two Pakistani motorcyclists. The contractor, Raymond Davis, was freed and allowed to leave the country after paying the victim's families an unspecified amount of money. The arrangement was made with local tribal leaders with the help of the Pakistani government. The families of the two slain men agreed to accept "blood money" instead of pursuing the matter in court. After the agreement with the victim's' families was reached, Davis quickly left the country. Although the agreement was made in accordance with Shariah law it was not made in a Shariah court under Islamic judges as Shariah law requires. Once word got out, Islamic groups, as well as rank and file Pakistanis, became furious and took to the streets.
The U.S. has often looked askew at Islamic law, particularly Shariah law. Shariah law is frequently perceived in the West as antiquated and, in some cases, even barbaric. Normally, the U.S. would protest if one of its citizens were to be subjected to Shariah law. Yet, in this case, to circumvent Pakistani law, the U.S., with help from the Pakistani government, made an appeal to local leaders to negotiate terms for Davis's release under Shariah law. Those terms were agreed upon and Davis was released.
Many of the rules, procedures, and punishments permitted under Shariah law are repugnant to American sensibilities. For example, under Shariah law it is permissible for a husband to beat his wife so long as no marks are left. It is almost impossible to imagine a circumstance under which the U.S. would support an appeal to Shariah law on behalf of one of its citizens. I say almost impossible because it does happen, much to Davis' relief. Before Davis' case I would have said impossible, as I am sure many would have.
The U.S. is a staunch advocate of the rule of law, and it remains so. It can be flexible regarding which law when the situation demands. In Davis' case, it was decided that a more advantageous outcome could be attained under Shariah law than secular law so secular court was avoided. So, Davis is free, the U.S. is relieved, the victim's family is satisfied, and Pakistanis are furious. It is a win, win, win, lose situation.
Like "reform", when the U.S. speaks of the rule of law it usually has something very particular in mind. In any event, we should not expect the U.S. to support another appeal to Shariah law any time soon.
The U.S. has often looked askew at Islamic law, particularly Shariah law. Shariah law is frequently perceived in the West as antiquated and, in some cases, even barbaric. Normally, the U.S. would protest if one of its citizens were to be subjected to Shariah law. Yet, in this case, to circumvent Pakistani law, the U.S., with help from the Pakistani government, made an appeal to local leaders to negotiate terms for Davis's release under Shariah law. Those terms were agreed upon and Davis was released.
Many of the rules, procedures, and punishments permitted under Shariah law are repugnant to American sensibilities. For example, under Shariah law it is permissible for a husband to beat his wife so long as no marks are left. It is almost impossible to imagine a circumstance under which the U.S. would support an appeal to Shariah law on behalf of one of its citizens. I say almost impossible because it does happen, much to Davis' relief. Before Davis' case I would have said impossible, as I am sure many would have.
The U.S. is a staunch advocate of the rule of law, and it remains so. It can be flexible regarding which law when the situation demands. In Davis' case, it was decided that a more advantageous outcome could be attained under Shariah law than secular law so secular court was avoided. So, Davis is free, the U.S. is relieved, the victim's family is satisfied, and Pakistanis are furious. It is a win, win, win, lose situation.
Like "reform", when the U.S. speaks of the rule of law it usually has something very particular in mind. In any event, we should not expect the U.S. to support another appeal to Shariah law any time soon.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Stop Me Before I Spend Again.
Many Republicans ran in the last election promising to abolish the practice of earmarks. Earmarks are provisions inserted into bills that set aside funding for particular projects with little or no congressional oversight.Those that won promised they would adhere to their pledge, and they did. When the new congress convened it banned earmarks. Now, many in Congress are attempting to maneuver around their promise by pressuring agency heads to steer money their way. You can't really call it a kick back, but it is close. The political reality in Washington is that unless you can deliver jobs and money to your constituents you are perceived as having little use.
There is a tendency to rely upon rules to to modify behavior. Congress cannot muster the will to stop spending, so they pass rules to try and force themselves to stop. But they will not stop because the American public demands spending. Despite the growing antipathy to federal spending among the electorate, people still expect the government to do things for them and as they see it, the job of their congressman is to make sure those things are done. As long as there is an appetite for bacon there will be a market for it.
Congress can pass all the rules it wants to try and control itself but unless the people step up and demand that government cut back, the spending will not cease. Spending is not an institutional problem, it is a political problem. Congress cannot be reformed by changing the rules, it can only be reformed by changing the culture. As has been shown time and time again, if there is a will to spend, a way will be found to spend.
It is not Washington that has the spending problem, it is the American people. Until the American people elect a congress that will not pilfer the treasury and spend beyond its means, we will have a congress that pilfers the treasury and spends beyond its means. There are only two ways to stop the bloated spending by the government. You can either adopt a stern constitutional amendment to prohibit it, or find an electorate that will not tolerate it.
There is a tendency to rely upon rules to to modify behavior. Congress cannot muster the will to stop spending, so they pass rules to try and force themselves to stop. But they will not stop because the American public demands spending. Despite the growing antipathy to federal spending among the electorate, people still expect the government to do things for them and as they see it, the job of their congressman is to make sure those things are done. As long as there is an appetite for bacon there will be a market for it.
Congress can pass all the rules it wants to try and control itself but unless the people step up and demand that government cut back, the spending will not cease. Spending is not an institutional problem, it is a political problem. Congress cannot be reformed by changing the rules, it can only be reformed by changing the culture. As has been shown time and time again, if there is a will to spend, a way will be found to spend.
It is not Washington that has the spending problem, it is the American people. Until the American people elect a congress that will not pilfer the treasury and spend beyond its means, we will have a congress that pilfers the treasury and spends beyond its means. There are only two ways to stop the bloated spending by the government. You can either adopt a stern constitutional amendment to prohibit it, or find an electorate that will not tolerate it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)