When it comes to the debate on the war on drugs, I remain as dispassionate as possible. This is because,regardless of our opinion or point of view regarding this issue, no one knows for sure what the result of legalization will be on our society. Opposition to legalization is not without merit. Logic dictates that when you increase access and decrease legal consequences, use will skyrocket because these incentivize the targeted behavior. I don't think most parents want their children to be able to pick up a package of marijuana, cocaine, or heroine at a local dispensary. Worse yet would be a black market for underage youth that would illegally sell to this audience.
Yet, if we take a close look at what is going on in our country with regard to our policies regarding drugs, it becomes painfully apparent we need to reform the way we do business in the United States.
Part of the problem is that in our "war on drugs," the enemy is faceless, diffuse, and abstract. As pointed out in by Claire Suddath in a 2009 Time magazine article, "It's a war without a clear enemy. Anything waged against a shapeless, intangible noun can never truly be won — President Clinton's drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey said as much in 1996.nd yet, within the past 40 years, the U.S. government has spent over $2.5 trillion dollars fighting the War on Drugs."1 We seem to be spending a lot of money, and getting more negative than positive results. This is corroborated by a comprehensive analysis by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, which reached the following conclusions:2
--legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition
--drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, which could be used for treatment of addicts
And yet, the consequences of this war ago far beyond economics. As Suddath explains:
"Despite the ad campaigns, increased incarceration rates and a crackdown on smuggling, the number of illicit drug users in America has risen over the years and now sits at 19.9 million Americans."2
The picture among our youth is equally grim. Although illicit drug use was on a steady decline starting in 2001, according to a recent youth survey conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Illicit drug use in the United States has risen to its highest level in 8 years."3 As Pamela S. Hyde, administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) states: "These results are a wake-up call to the Nation...(O)ur strategies of the past appear to have stalled with 'Generation Next.' Parents and caregivers, teachers, coaches, and faith and community leaders must find credible new ways to communicate with our youth about the dangers of substance abuse."4
Yet, the picture gets more complicated, however, when you try to tease out the cause versus the effect. According to Gil Kerlikowske, director of National Drug Control Policy under President Obama, the survey spotlights two possible contributing factors: the shift in state policies regarding drug use, and the widening availability of medical marijuana. But as Dr. Wilson Compton, director of NIDA's Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research asked: "Do the changes in perceived risk lead to changes in laws and regulations, or do these policy changes lead to a shift in attitudes?"5
However, drug use alone is only part of the picture. While some state have moved to relax their laws regarding marijuana use, the use of a police apparatus remains problematic. The analysis of a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who oversaw the Planning and Research Department sheds light on this issue. The lieutenant used data to map the occurrences of robberies and murders that occurred in the city over a period of six months. He then mapped all Baltimore city addresses for people, vehicles, and other entities identified in drug related incidents which occurred in adjacent jurisdictions over the same time frame. According to FBI statistics, "The results show a pattern where the areas in the city with an increase in murders and robberies are consistent with the areas where addresses are identified from drug related incidents occurring in the adjacent jurisdictions."6 Based on this information, the lieutenant concluded the city's crackdown on drug trafficking led users as well as dealers who resided in Baltimore to go to adjacent jurisdictions to buy and sell drugs.7
Moreover, the lieutenant surmised that the increase in drug demand in adjacent jurisdictions caused the price of drugs to increase, and as a result, users are engaged in more robberies to acquire the additional money needed to purchase drugs. Concomitant with this dynamic, Baltimore city dealers attempted to sell more of their drugs in adjacent jurisdictions where other drug dealers already operated, resulting in more drug-related murders.8
The issue gets even thornier when you inject race into it. The reality is, regardless of the cause, black youth are the the greatest casualties in the war on drugs. We are arresting and incarcerating an alarming percentage of our black youth, leaving a wake of decimated families, overcrowded prisons,and mired in poverty and despair. Although African Americans represent 12.7% of the US population and 15% of US drug users, they represent 36.8% of those arrested for a drug-related crime.9 It is not my contention that we are instituting whole-sale racist policies in order to destroy communities. I will leave that debate for another time. However, what I am getting at is a more commonsensical: if we keep arresting and incarcerating black people for crimes related to drugs, we will perpetuate the destruction of these communities and families, even if unintentionally so. Moreover, we create another problem that tears at our social fabric, the perception of a racist witch hunt as symbolized by a rapacious, aggressive police force, the foot soldiers in this on-going war.
As John H. McWhorter, contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal pointedly states:
"Making black America better will entail battling the senseless war on drugs. Police forces assigned to trawl black neighborhoods create thousands of young black people wary of whites -- and thus less likely to ever succeed in a world full of them. When drugs are illegal, you can make money from the markup that selling them entails, and thus, so very many young blacks step outside of legal work to do so -- especially when their schools are bad -- and end up in prison or a coffin.
"Their children grow up in communities where two-parent families are rare, are subject to the disruptive home lives that make it hard to be a good student, and often end up recapitulating the lives of their parents. Selling drugs means turf wars wielded with guns, which kill people, including little girls and grandmothers caught in crossfire.
Take away the war on drugs and all of this dissolves. With one generation of black inner-city boys who have never known cops as the enemy; who think of "slingin' on them corners" as something old-school that no one could do now; and who stay in their neighborhoods to help raise their kids, black America would turn a corner." 10
There is empirical evidence to back up MCWhorter's claims. In 2001, the country of Portugal, in an effort to deal with their own problems with drug abuse, decriminalized once-illegal drugs. Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, conducted research to measure the effects of this policy shift. "Judging by every metric," stated, Greenwald "decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," adding that "[I]t has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."11
In fact, a comprehensive report on the study conducted by the Cato institute yielded the following sets of data:12
--following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.:
--rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%
--drug use in older teens declined, with lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds falling from 2.5% to 1.8% (
--deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half
--money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
Yet, even with these startling statistics, we should not overgeneralize. As Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming book "When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment" and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA cautions, "Portugal [is not]a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries."13
This does not mean, however, that we should avoid a national conversation that embodies a different direction and tone regarding the connection between policy, drug abuse, and crime.
As Brian Vastag, writer for Scientific American opines: "Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal," of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, "and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination." 14
Still, there are many factors to consider, and a radical policy shift could unleash a torrent of drug abuse that we would regret for decades. The bottom line is that if we truly want our kids to have lives unadulterated by drugs, we seem to be loosing ground. This is precisely why I am dispassionate, because anyone who claims that they have a panacea constructed strictly around a legal framework is at best naive, and worst, myopic. As cliche as it sounds, kids need guidance and involved parents, parents who hopefully remain married and committed to the welfare of their spouses and their children. Without this moral component undergirding any policy shift, we will be treating the symptom, not the disease. Parents have to be willing to monitor their kids, and they should send a strong message that drug abuse is wrong, that there are healthy alternatives to personal and psychological fulfillment. Then they should provide these opportunities and support their kids' endeavors, always keeping the lines of communication open. In my next blog, I will suggest some national strategies to revise how we deal with this problem realistically, and hopefully, effectively.
Gary
1.http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1887488,00.html
2. http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf
3.http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol23N3/tearoff.html
4. Ibid
5. Ibid
6. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/n-dex/law-enforcement-scenarios/scenarios19
7. Ibid
8. Ibid
9. http://www.prisonerswithchildren.org/pubs/color.pdf
10. http://www.theroot.com/views/no-more-forums-about-black-agenda?page=0,1
11.http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
12.Ibid
13. Ibid
14. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Energy Transformation and Security
Energy transformation and security—We are not just a nation, but a world that is starved for energy, and there is no going back. Whether we have reached peak oil may be debatable, but what is not debatable is that we need and consume vast quantities of energy, and that energy is the glue that binds us economically, militarily, and socially—it is the material lynchpin of global interdependence. As such, failing to have a comprehensive plan has ramifications that threaten all facets of civil society in a manner never seen before. In order to have energy security, we will have to transform the way we procure, produce, use and regulate a variety of energy resources. Unfortunately, like most national issues, energy security is being held hostage by rigid political ideology and partisanship rather than practicality and science.
Those on the left side of the political spectrum bemoan our “dependence” on fossil fuels, but refuse to see that this technology, with all it’s detractions, is the best system we have, and that renewable sources, while promising and deserving of investment, are neither reliable or well-developed at present to offset a sudden disuse of carbon-based fuels. Moreover, certain alternative fuels, such as ethanol, are not only poor substitutes, but wreak economic havoc on developing nations by raising the price of crops, with the consequences falling disproportionately on the world’s poor. As economists C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, point out:"Resorting to [corn based] biofuels is likely to exacerbate world hunger. “ 1
The bottom line is that we are just not in a place yet in which alternative fuels can meaningfully and realistically substitute for petro fuels en masse. As Robert Bryce, energy journalist and Author of Gusher Of Lies states: “Energy independence is hogwash. From any standpoint, economic, political, military, or environmental—energy independence makes no sense. Worse yet, the inane obsession with the idea of energy independence is preventing the U.S. from having and honest and effective discussion about the energy challenges it now faces.”2 This is because we live in a global system undergirded by international interdependence.
It is often pointed out, and rightly so, that petrodollars fill the vaults of foreign despots, including organizations that fund terrorism. This is unfortunate and undesirable, but also, to a degree, unavoidable, because oil is a fungible commodity. This means that emerging superpowers, such as India and China, will pick up the slack even if we lessen our demand. Of course it could be argued we would be at least taking the moral high ground by not purchasing oil from such sources; but in the end analysis, it would be a zero sum gain, because money would continue to flow to these organizations regardless of its source. As Mother Jones puts it: “Despite its immense appeal, energy independence is a nonstarter—a populist charade masquerading as energy strategy that's no more likely to succeed (and could be even more damaging) than it was when Nixon declared war on foreign oil in the 1970s.” 3
From this perspective, it is somehow mystifying that liberals at once champion our common humanity with catch phrases like “global village” and “a world without borders,” yet are completely myopic to the material aspect that binds us. The blood that courses through the venous collective is oil. There is no getting round this,f or at least for the near future.
But the blame does not fall entirely on progressives. Chants of “drill, baby drill” are appealing, and even commonsensical to a point, but they are short-sighted, and are not beyond rational criticism. The Green movement, despite its political and emotional excesses, makes fundamental points about carbon fuels that simply cannot be ignored. Oil may or may not be at its peak availability, but it will one day run out. Furthermore, fossil fuels as a whole are undeniably toxic to the environment, pose a variety of serious health threats, degrade and destroy natural habitats when extracted, and imperil the safety of those who are involved in the both the extraction and production of this energy source. The Exxon Valdez and the BP oil tragedies remind of these consequences. Further more, the potential for further, unexpected problems, despite technological innovation, is both real and significant. To ignore these realities crosses the line from benign neglect into ethical negligence.
Though we must rise to this mega-challenge, there is no simple answer. Rather, we must use our present system of energy production as a transition to a mixed-energy source economy. Obama and his administration interpret this in a skewed manner, looking to penalize oil companies by imposing penalties and restrictions via a cap-and trade scheme. According to economist David Kreutzer of the Heritage foundation, such an approach would not only fail to reduce carbon emissions, (as happened in Europe under the Kyoto protocol), but raise energy prices to such a level many businesses would fold, leading to a loss of over 300,000 manufacturing jobs.4 As Bjorn Lomberg, a social scientist and objective assessor of global warming states: “Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that we have to solve it, if the cure is going to be more expensive than the original ailment.” 5
Beyond the obvious grief suffered by those left unemployed I such a scenario, this dynamic would also significantly shrink our tax base, leading to less money that could be directed toward research and development. So any “investment” the government wants to make has to take into account the fragility of the present manufacturing base. Instead of hustling up tax payer dollars to be dolled out to cronies of politicians, a more measured and reasonable approach would be to free up regulations and corporate taxation in return for plowing this money into finding ways to efficiently and safely procure fossil fuels while simultaneously investing in alternative sources.
The key point is to use the expertise at our disposal in the existing energy companies to continue to find and develop a variety fuels for hungry consumers. Case in point would be the collaboration between ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics, Inc. to produce synthetic algae, a potential boon to alternative energy. Yet, as promising as this source is for the future of energy, it is not without complications. Beyond the costs to create and maintain a steady supply, synthetic algae requires a constant supply of carbon dioxide, beyond the elevated levels we have now. 6Yes, there is grand irony here. In fact, it begs the question of whether it is government meddling that is causing problems to begin with.
If we really want a mixed-energy future, the best bet is to free up the innovators and entrepreneurs in the free market and provide a simplified regulatory structure to provide them with the capital and freedom needed for R and D. Until then, be thankful we have been blessed, at least temporarily, with oil, regardless of where it comes from.
Those who would like a more detailed and extensive analysis regarding energy productivity are encouraged to see the report “Facing the Hard Truths About Energy,” by the National Petroleum, found at http://www.npchardtruthsreport.org/download.php.
1. http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/04/corn-ethanol-could-hurt-poors-food.html
2. http://www.amazon.com/Gusher-Lies-Dangerous-Delusions-Independence/dp/1586483218
3. http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/seven-myths-energy-independence
4. http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-economic-impact-of-cap-and-trade
5. http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001dec01_lomborg.html
6. http://greeneconomypost.com/algal-biodiesel-pros-and-cons-9573.htm
Those on the left side of the political spectrum bemoan our “dependence” on fossil fuels, but refuse to see that this technology, with all it’s detractions, is the best system we have, and that renewable sources, while promising and deserving of investment, are neither reliable or well-developed at present to offset a sudden disuse of carbon-based fuels. Moreover, certain alternative fuels, such as ethanol, are not only poor substitutes, but wreak economic havoc on developing nations by raising the price of crops, with the consequences falling disproportionately on the world’s poor. As economists C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, point out:"Resorting to [corn based] biofuels is likely to exacerbate world hunger. “ 1
The bottom line is that we are just not in a place yet in which alternative fuels can meaningfully and realistically substitute for petro fuels en masse. As Robert Bryce, energy journalist and Author of Gusher Of Lies states: “Energy independence is hogwash. From any standpoint, economic, political, military, or environmental—energy independence makes no sense. Worse yet, the inane obsession with the idea of energy independence is preventing the U.S. from having and honest and effective discussion about the energy challenges it now faces.”2 This is because we live in a global system undergirded by international interdependence.
It is often pointed out, and rightly so, that petrodollars fill the vaults of foreign despots, including organizations that fund terrorism. This is unfortunate and undesirable, but also, to a degree, unavoidable, because oil is a fungible commodity. This means that emerging superpowers, such as India and China, will pick up the slack even if we lessen our demand. Of course it could be argued we would be at least taking the moral high ground by not purchasing oil from such sources; but in the end analysis, it would be a zero sum gain, because money would continue to flow to these organizations regardless of its source. As Mother Jones puts it: “Despite its immense appeal, energy independence is a nonstarter—a populist charade masquerading as energy strategy that's no more likely to succeed (and could be even more damaging) than it was when Nixon declared war on foreign oil in the 1970s.” 3
From this perspective, it is somehow mystifying that liberals at once champion our common humanity with catch phrases like “global village” and “a world without borders,” yet are completely myopic to the material aspect that binds us. The blood that courses through the venous collective is oil. There is no getting round this,f or at least for the near future.
But the blame does not fall entirely on progressives. Chants of “drill, baby drill” are appealing, and even commonsensical to a point, but they are short-sighted, and are not beyond rational criticism. The Green movement, despite its political and emotional excesses, makes fundamental points about carbon fuels that simply cannot be ignored. Oil may or may not be at its peak availability, but it will one day run out. Furthermore, fossil fuels as a whole are undeniably toxic to the environment, pose a variety of serious health threats, degrade and destroy natural habitats when extracted, and imperil the safety of those who are involved in the both the extraction and production of this energy source. The Exxon Valdez and the BP oil tragedies remind of these consequences. Further more, the potential for further, unexpected problems, despite technological innovation, is both real and significant. To ignore these realities crosses the line from benign neglect into ethical negligence.
Though we must rise to this mega-challenge, there is no simple answer. Rather, we must use our present system of energy production as a transition to a mixed-energy source economy. Obama and his administration interpret this in a skewed manner, looking to penalize oil companies by imposing penalties and restrictions via a cap-and trade scheme. According to economist David Kreutzer of the Heritage foundation, such an approach would not only fail to reduce carbon emissions, (as happened in Europe under the Kyoto protocol), but raise energy prices to such a level many businesses would fold, leading to a loss of over 300,000 manufacturing jobs.4 As Bjorn Lomberg, a social scientist and objective assessor of global warming states: “Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that we have to solve it, if the cure is going to be more expensive than the original ailment.” 5
Beyond the obvious grief suffered by those left unemployed I such a scenario, this dynamic would also significantly shrink our tax base, leading to less money that could be directed toward research and development. So any “investment” the government wants to make has to take into account the fragility of the present manufacturing base. Instead of hustling up tax payer dollars to be dolled out to cronies of politicians, a more measured and reasonable approach would be to free up regulations and corporate taxation in return for plowing this money into finding ways to efficiently and safely procure fossil fuels while simultaneously investing in alternative sources.
The key point is to use the expertise at our disposal in the existing energy companies to continue to find and develop a variety fuels for hungry consumers. Case in point would be the collaboration between ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics, Inc. to produce synthetic algae, a potential boon to alternative energy. Yet, as promising as this source is for the future of energy, it is not without complications. Beyond the costs to create and maintain a steady supply, synthetic algae requires a constant supply of carbon dioxide, beyond the elevated levels we have now. 6Yes, there is grand irony here. In fact, it begs the question of whether it is government meddling that is causing problems to begin with.
If we really want a mixed-energy future, the best bet is to free up the innovators and entrepreneurs in the free market and provide a simplified regulatory structure to provide them with the capital and freedom needed for R and D. Until then, be thankful we have been blessed, at least temporarily, with oil, regardless of where it comes from.
Those who would like a more detailed and extensive analysis regarding energy productivity are encouraged to see the report “Facing the Hard Truths About Energy,” by the National Petroleum, found at http://www.npchardtruthsreport.org/download.php.
1. http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/04/corn-ethanol-could-hurt-poors-food.html
2. http://www.amazon.com/Gusher-Lies-Dangerous-Delusions-Independence/dp/1586483218
3. http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/seven-myths-energy-independence
4. http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-economic-impact-of-cap-and-trade
5. http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001dec01_lomborg.html
6. http://greeneconomypost.com/algal-biodiesel-pros-and-cons-9573.htm
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Collective Angst of America: Present and Future Challenges
As we embark on a new year and decade, new challenges face our country and our world, and echo the Chinese aphorism “may you live in interesting times.” I do not believe that our challenges are any greater than our predecessors, but they are more than likely more complex, and our awareness of these issues and the concomitant saturation with divergent philosophies and their informational caches has left us either numb, overwhelmed, and dare I say, neurotic. This has impelled me to do the impossible, which is to not only define these challenges, but to recommend some potential solutions, or at the very least, some avenues that may lead us to solutions. I have listed the challenges in descending order, from the least challenging to the most challenging; in reality, however, they are all monumental, interconnected, and open to hierarchical rearrangement. I will post these as time allows. The challenges are:
10. Taxation Reformation
9. Energy transformation and independence
8. "War" on drugs
7. Democratization of information
6. Deindustrialization
5. Global fascism
4. Educational decay
3. Ideological entrenchment
2. Obsessive ethnocentrism
1. Reframing of values
Taxation reformation—Although taxation seems to be a mundane issue relative to only the rich, the reality is that it is intimately tied to economics, productivity, and quality of life. Therefore, it affects all strata of society. Nor is this only a matter of the byzantine nature of our tax code; to say that our tax code is complex and cumbersome is beyond an understatement. We have to take a deep breath in order to deal with this issue.
The deeper reality is that the way we do business now is not only sustainable, but morally reprehensible. It has in fact, served to widen the gap between the proverbial “haves and have nots,” creating a highly stratified society in which the rich get richer, the poor become ever more dependent, and the middle class bears the brunt of these two worlds. David Bessie, producer of the documentary “Generation Zero,” states it this way: “We have socialism for the poor, capitalism for the middle class, and socialism for the rich.” This has tilted the playing field towards the ultra rich, lining the pockets of investment bankers and hedge-fund managers and has resulted in a devastating economic crash. The result, beyond the painful and obvious suffering of our citizens, was that the proverbial fat cats not only avoided prison, but were actually rewarded with about a trillion dollars, which they quickly reinvested to further line their swelling pockets. As Robert C. Lieberman writes in his review of the book Why the Rich are Getting Richer: American Politics and the Second Gilded Age, by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, “And yet a curious thing has happened in the midst of all this misery. The wealthiest Americans, among them presumably the very titans of global finance whose misadventures brought about the financial meltdown, got richer.” Of course we call this TARP, but it’s more like TARPed and feathered for the middle class, which ultimately finance this financial chicanery. And this happened under two different presidents from opposing parties, so this is not a democrat or republican issue—this was a bipartisan screwing all the way.
Hacker and Pierson then unload their derision on the taxation and economic policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, along the overall climate created by D.C. which in recent years rewarded the ultra rich with lavish stock options, staggering bonuses, and golden parachutes. To a degree, Hacker and Pierson are right on. The reality is that IRS revenue increased under Reagan and Bush, as it did under Kennedy. So where did all this money, money that could have been reinvested to help those at the margins, go? Was it the “war on terror,” social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? While this topic would require a separate treatment beyond the scope of this writing, suffice to say, the money was not just spent, but overspent, as our crushing deficit sorely reminds us.
However, the authors are only revealing half of the picture. On the other end of the spectrum are people mired in generational poverty, who have become hooked on a variety of entitlements. According to usgovernmentspending.com, we spent almost $490 billion on welfare alone, not to mention hundreds of billions more on education and pensions. To be sure, all of these areas need funding, but If you look at the condition of our schools and the mess pensions have caused a multitude of states, you see the bigger picture: we have created a two trillion dollar entitlement state that threatens to consume the entirety of our GDP, and more importantly, will ultimately undermine our ability to create and perpetuate prosperity. The ultimate irony is of course that it is this very prosperity that allows us to care for those who need our help! Yet, still we march on, lining the pockets of Goldman Sachs while simultaneously creating dependence and generational poverty amongst the populace we purportedly want to ease the suffering of. Neither of these two extremes should be tolerated, because only the ultra rich benefit, something that neither true conservatives nor liberals want.
The idea that the middle class is being squeezed is reflected with empirical evidence that wages for this SES group have moved up only incrementally in the past twenty plus years. Despite an overall rise in our standard of living as a nation, the middle class is stuck in financial stagnation, with the cost of living outstripping wage increases. Rahter, these funds are being diverted to either overseas, or to the cost of healthcare, And although President Obama should be applauded for trying to insure the less privileged, by no stretch of the imagination will the Affordable Health Care act be affordable to anyone, especially those footing the bill. This is the angst that gave rise to the Tea Party movement. Whether you agree or not with their perspective and policy points, it is clear that the working man and woman are frustrated, and they want something done to address their anxieties. The tax code is a good place to begin.
For a tax system to be effective, it has to be fair, simple, and broad. A dual flat tax rate, such as 12% and 6% on gross income with no (or few) exemptions, is one option. The other is taxation on consumption, or a national sales tax, with compensatory vouchers sent to the most vulnerable and truly needy in order to offset a portion of their burden. Either way, everyone must be stakeholder, and neither the rich, nor the poor, should be shielded. Several positive things will happen as a result of this radical change.
First, we will capture a greater share of revenue because high-priced lawyers and accountants will not be able to shield their clients from paying their fare share. Second, U.S. corporations will begin to relocate on American soil, employing more American citizens who will then pay taxes. Third, the sway of corporations will diminish because they will not be able to lobby congress for taxation entitlements. And finally, because the federal government will increase it’s revenue intake, this money can be reinvested into free-market solutions, such as Health Savings Accounts, school vouchers, loans for entrepreneurs, and economic help for college based not on race or gender, but rather on achievement, and when necessary, on finances. If President Obama and Congress can for once see beyond the partisan rhetoric and do what is right, everyone will benefit. We are waiting to exhale.
10. Taxation Reformation
9. Energy transformation and independence
8. "War" on drugs
7. Democratization of information
6. Deindustrialization
5. Global fascism
4. Educational decay
3. Ideological entrenchment
2. Obsessive ethnocentrism
1. Reframing of values
Taxation reformation—Although taxation seems to be a mundane issue relative to only the rich, the reality is that it is intimately tied to economics, productivity, and quality of life. Therefore, it affects all strata of society. Nor is this only a matter of the byzantine nature of our tax code; to say that our tax code is complex and cumbersome is beyond an understatement. We have to take a deep breath in order to deal with this issue.
The deeper reality is that the way we do business now is not only sustainable, but morally reprehensible. It has in fact, served to widen the gap between the proverbial “haves and have nots,” creating a highly stratified society in which the rich get richer, the poor become ever more dependent, and the middle class bears the brunt of these two worlds. David Bessie, producer of the documentary “Generation Zero,” states it this way: “We have socialism for the poor, capitalism for the middle class, and socialism for the rich.” This has tilted the playing field towards the ultra rich, lining the pockets of investment bankers and hedge-fund managers and has resulted in a devastating economic crash. The result, beyond the painful and obvious suffering of our citizens, was that the proverbial fat cats not only avoided prison, but were actually rewarded with about a trillion dollars, which they quickly reinvested to further line their swelling pockets. As Robert C. Lieberman writes in his review of the book Why the Rich are Getting Richer: American Politics and the Second Gilded Age, by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, “And yet a curious thing has happened in the midst of all this misery. The wealthiest Americans, among them presumably the very titans of global finance whose misadventures brought about the financial meltdown, got richer.” Of course we call this TARP, but it’s more like TARPed and feathered for the middle class, which ultimately finance this financial chicanery. And this happened under two different presidents from opposing parties, so this is not a democrat or republican issue—this was a bipartisan screwing all the way.
Hacker and Pierson then unload their derision on the taxation and economic policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, along the overall climate created by D.C. which in recent years rewarded the ultra rich with lavish stock options, staggering bonuses, and golden parachutes. To a degree, Hacker and Pierson are right on. The reality is that IRS revenue increased under Reagan and Bush, as it did under Kennedy. So where did all this money, money that could have been reinvested to help those at the margins, go? Was it the “war on terror,” social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? While this topic would require a separate treatment beyond the scope of this writing, suffice to say, the money was not just spent, but overspent, as our crushing deficit sorely reminds us.
However, the authors are only revealing half of the picture. On the other end of the spectrum are people mired in generational poverty, who have become hooked on a variety of entitlements. According to usgovernmentspending.com, we spent almost $490 billion on welfare alone, not to mention hundreds of billions more on education and pensions. To be sure, all of these areas need funding, but If you look at the condition of our schools and the mess pensions have caused a multitude of states, you see the bigger picture: we have created a two trillion dollar entitlement state that threatens to consume the entirety of our GDP, and more importantly, will ultimately undermine our ability to create and perpetuate prosperity. The ultimate irony is of course that it is this very prosperity that allows us to care for those who need our help! Yet, still we march on, lining the pockets of Goldman Sachs while simultaneously creating dependence and generational poverty amongst the populace we purportedly want to ease the suffering of. Neither of these two extremes should be tolerated, because only the ultra rich benefit, something that neither true conservatives nor liberals want.
The idea that the middle class is being squeezed is reflected with empirical evidence that wages for this SES group have moved up only incrementally in the past twenty plus years. Despite an overall rise in our standard of living as a nation, the middle class is stuck in financial stagnation, with the cost of living outstripping wage increases. Rahter, these funds are being diverted to either overseas, or to the cost of healthcare, And although President Obama should be applauded for trying to insure the less privileged, by no stretch of the imagination will the Affordable Health Care act be affordable to anyone, especially those footing the bill. This is the angst that gave rise to the Tea Party movement. Whether you agree or not with their perspective and policy points, it is clear that the working man and woman are frustrated, and they want something done to address their anxieties. The tax code is a good place to begin.
For a tax system to be effective, it has to be fair, simple, and broad. A dual flat tax rate, such as 12% and 6% on gross income with no (or few) exemptions, is one option. The other is taxation on consumption, or a national sales tax, with compensatory vouchers sent to the most vulnerable and truly needy in order to offset a portion of their burden. Either way, everyone must be stakeholder, and neither the rich, nor the poor, should be shielded. Several positive things will happen as a result of this radical change.
First, we will capture a greater share of revenue because high-priced lawyers and accountants will not be able to shield their clients from paying their fare share. Second, U.S. corporations will begin to relocate on American soil, employing more American citizens who will then pay taxes. Third, the sway of corporations will diminish because they will not be able to lobby congress for taxation entitlements. And finally, because the federal government will increase it’s revenue intake, this money can be reinvested into free-market solutions, such as Health Savings Accounts, school vouchers, loans for entrepreneurs, and economic help for college based not on race or gender, but rather on achievement, and when necessary, on finances. If President Obama and Congress can for once see beyond the partisan rhetoric and do what is right, everyone will benefit. We are waiting to exhale.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
New Lies for Old : Obama’s Cloaking of the Progressive Agenda
It took almost two years, but the American public is starting to glimpse beneath the cracked veneer of President Obama. Once we get past his pretense of moderation, his abundance of contrived charm, and his pre-formulated intellectual largesse, we see him and his administration as they really are: a legion of crony capitalists who create, shape, and exploit financial crises, a sordid collection of has-been Marxists turned policy wonks, and an ill-prepared captain who finds his copy of Rules for Radicals 1 sorely lacking guidance as the U.S.S. Economy sinks further into debt, despair, and degradation.
But since our fearless leader seems so inured of the philosophical underpinnings of the Marx-Trotsky-Lenin triad, perhaps we could learn something from how Russia once (and possibly still does) handled their propaganda, which was their most potent weapon of mass destruction. According to Anatoly Golitsyn, a former high-level KGB officer who defected to the United Sates in 1961 and author of the book “New Lies for Old,” 2 communism and its adherents used two major patterns of disinformation to dupe the West and control the masses in communist societies. Obama uses these strategies with unmatched precision and cunning.
The first pattern, known as “Weakness and Evolution” uses “calculated ideological moderation” to calm adversaries by understating its ideological tendencies while simultaneously confounding opposition by masking the true intentions of its policies. The unwitting public, caught up in the maelstrom of a carefully crafted media images and sound bites, loses its critical capacity and buys the slogan, seemingly oblivious of the nefarious product lurking beneath.
Thus, we have an administration that claims to be moderate at heart, a proponent of the free market, a trumpeter of transparency, and an advocate of the little people, whilst it concurrently employs and consults with radicals, empowers wall-street “fat-cats,” coerces opposition and cuts backroom deals, and stifles dissent through ad-hominem attacks and charges of racism.
The supposed “weakness,” that Obama’s radical upbringing had been tempered by his love for democracy and newfound regard for capitalism, was to be the foundation for his “evolution,” his emigration toward traditional American values. Both proved to be a clever front, but not clever enough. “Hope and change” morphed into “dope and rearrange.” Yet the American electorate is waking up from its stupor and does not like what it sees, because unlike the Soviets, we don’t need government to validate our views our champion our change; most of us just want them to leave us the hell alone.
To say that Obama specifically, and the Democrats in general, are in crisis, is an understatement. As Obama’s inner circle is sacked, resigns, or finds other career paths, Americans of all stripes are losing faith. But, much like Russian communist regimes, an inner crisis necessitates a strategic change in order to better manage impressions and woo the waning support of voters and potential voters.
So, undeterred, Obama relentlessly presses on, this time using the second pattern of disinformation: “Façade and Strength.” According to Golitsyn, when a “regime is in a state of crisis, if the regime is weak, if its leadership is split or compromised, the logical pattern of disinformation is to conceal the crisis and its dimensions, to attract attention to other areas and problems.”
This portends to the forward trajectory of the Obama administration. Faced with a feckless economic policy, unprecedented debt, and the specter of a savage rollback of his Democrat base in November, Obama has resorted suppressing information that is damaging and exaggerating data that is favorable. This is why information about the scope of damage caused by the BP oil
spill 3 was actively suppressed by the Obama administration. In a similar vein, Obama has targeted Fox News, creating an enemies list that is beginning to rival that of Richard Nixon.
President Obama’s latest tirade against the Chamber of Commerce is a perfect example of the Façade and Strength strategy; what it lacked in fact and substance it made up in hyperbole and hypocrisy. While Obama points the finger of duplicity at the Chamber, his administration neglects to mention how little scrutiny was involved in the contributions his campaign
received. 4 Nor did he ever explain why he broke his promise to remain under public financing. In typical Obama subterfuge, he rails against Republicans for being in the pocket of special interest as he whitewashes the fact that the auto bailouts were little more than payola for the United Auto Workers Union.
In a parallel and grandiose fashion, Obama continues to declare our economy, teetering on the edge of a full-blown depression, to be success story, claiming his stimulus package to have ‘brought us back from the brink of disaster.” Even as we watch the unemployment rate hover near 10%, as houses are foreclosed on at an appalling rate, and more Americans are in poverty than the past 60 years, he only superficially acknowledges this grimness.
Instead, he warns the American public things would have been “far worse” were it not for the swift and decisive action to print and distribute $787 billion in order to appease unions, buy off future votes, and saddle future generations with an onerous debt and ultimately, inflation. Obama’s message for the new millennium: “When the going get’s tough, blame the Republicans, the Tea Party, Wall Street, fill in the blank...” Unfortunately for the President, Americans want jobs and opportunity, not finger pointing and scapegoating.
And even as companies such as McDonalds, Boeing, and Lockheed react negatively against the hastily and poorly crafted health-care legislation, as premiums skyrocket and doctors drop out of Medicare, as a large swath of the American heartland expresses dissatisfaction with Obamacare, our President heralds the Affordable Care Act a triumph for the American public. It is not the case that Obama is “disconnected” from the populace; the ugly reality is that he is engaged in a systemic campaign of disinformation. As Golitsyn points out, “Propaganda plays a leading role to the extent that it becomes in itself the main form of disinformation.” Much like the famous Marshall McLuhan 5 quote, “the medium is the message,” Obama has fashioned a new aphorism appropriately fitting for his regime: “the lie is the truth,” if only we repeat it often enough.
1. http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/summary-of-saul-alinskys-rules-for.html
2. http://www.amazon.com/New-Lies-Old-Anatoliy-Golitsyn/dp/0945001134
3. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/10/07/2526821/report-white-house-suppressed.html
4. http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/obama-s-weekend-tirade-accusations-create-political-firestorm
5. http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/main.html
But since our fearless leader seems so inured of the philosophical underpinnings of the Marx-Trotsky-Lenin triad, perhaps we could learn something from how Russia once (and possibly still does) handled their propaganda, which was their most potent weapon of mass destruction. According to Anatoly Golitsyn, a former high-level KGB officer who defected to the United Sates in 1961 and author of the book “New Lies for Old,” 2 communism and its adherents used two major patterns of disinformation to dupe the West and control the masses in communist societies. Obama uses these strategies with unmatched precision and cunning.
The first pattern, known as “Weakness and Evolution” uses “calculated ideological moderation” to calm adversaries by understating its ideological tendencies while simultaneously confounding opposition by masking the true intentions of its policies. The unwitting public, caught up in the maelstrom of a carefully crafted media images and sound bites, loses its critical capacity and buys the slogan, seemingly oblivious of the nefarious product lurking beneath.
Thus, we have an administration that claims to be moderate at heart, a proponent of the free market, a trumpeter of transparency, and an advocate of the little people, whilst it concurrently employs and consults with radicals, empowers wall-street “fat-cats,” coerces opposition and cuts backroom deals, and stifles dissent through ad-hominem attacks and charges of racism.
The supposed “weakness,” that Obama’s radical upbringing had been tempered by his love for democracy and newfound regard for capitalism, was to be the foundation for his “evolution,” his emigration toward traditional American values. Both proved to be a clever front, but not clever enough. “Hope and change” morphed into “dope and rearrange.” Yet the American electorate is waking up from its stupor and does not like what it sees, because unlike the Soviets, we don’t need government to validate our views our champion our change; most of us just want them to leave us the hell alone.
To say that Obama specifically, and the Democrats in general, are in crisis, is an understatement. As Obama’s inner circle is sacked, resigns, or finds other career paths, Americans of all stripes are losing faith. But, much like Russian communist regimes, an inner crisis necessitates a strategic change in order to better manage impressions and woo the waning support of voters and potential voters.
So, undeterred, Obama relentlessly presses on, this time using the second pattern of disinformation: “Façade and Strength.” According to Golitsyn, when a “regime is in a state of crisis, if the regime is weak, if its leadership is split or compromised, the logical pattern of disinformation is to conceal the crisis and its dimensions, to attract attention to other areas and problems.”
This portends to the forward trajectory of the Obama administration. Faced with a feckless economic policy, unprecedented debt, and the specter of a savage rollback of his Democrat base in November, Obama has resorted suppressing information that is damaging and exaggerating data that is favorable. This is why information about the scope of damage caused by the BP oil
spill 3 was actively suppressed by the Obama administration. In a similar vein, Obama has targeted Fox News, creating an enemies list that is beginning to rival that of Richard Nixon.
President Obama’s latest tirade against the Chamber of Commerce is a perfect example of the Façade and Strength strategy; what it lacked in fact and substance it made up in hyperbole and hypocrisy. While Obama points the finger of duplicity at the Chamber, his administration neglects to mention how little scrutiny was involved in the contributions his campaign
received. 4 Nor did he ever explain why he broke his promise to remain under public financing. In typical Obama subterfuge, he rails against Republicans for being in the pocket of special interest as he whitewashes the fact that the auto bailouts were little more than payola for the United Auto Workers Union.
In a parallel and grandiose fashion, Obama continues to declare our economy, teetering on the edge of a full-blown depression, to be success story, claiming his stimulus package to have ‘brought us back from the brink of disaster.” Even as we watch the unemployment rate hover near 10%, as houses are foreclosed on at an appalling rate, and more Americans are in poverty than the past 60 years, he only superficially acknowledges this grimness.
Instead, he warns the American public things would have been “far worse” were it not for the swift and decisive action to print and distribute $787 billion in order to appease unions, buy off future votes, and saddle future generations with an onerous debt and ultimately, inflation. Obama’s message for the new millennium: “When the going get’s tough, blame the Republicans, the Tea Party, Wall Street, fill in the blank...” Unfortunately for the President, Americans want jobs and opportunity, not finger pointing and scapegoating.
And even as companies such as McDonalds, Boeing, and Lockheed react negatively against the hastily and poorly crafted health-care legislation, as premiums skyrocket and doctors drop out of Medicare, as a large swath of the American heartland expresses dissatisfaction with Obamacare, our President heralds the Affordable Care Act a triumph for the American public. It is not the case that Obama is “disconnected” from the populace; the ugly reality is that he is engaged in a systemic campaign of disinformation. As Golitsyn points out, “Propaganda plays a leading role to the extent that it becomes in itself the main form of disinformation.” Much like the famous Marshall McLuhan 5 quote, “the medium is the message,” Obama has fashioned a new aphorism appropriately fitting for his regime: “the lie is the truth,” if only we repeat it often enough.
1. http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/summary-of-saul-alinskys-rules-for.html
2. http://www.amazon.com/New-Lies-Old-Anatoliy-Golitsyn/dp/0945001134
3. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/10/07/2526821/report-white-house-suppressed.html
4. http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/obama-s-weekend-tirade-accusations-create-political-firestorm
5. http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/main.html
Monday, September 27, 2010
Freedom’s Just Another Word for Everything to Lose
The United Nations has always been a shining symbol of success for those on the Left and the transnational citizenry that see them as the world’s best hope for civilization. However, once again, the UN finds itself rendered impotent, incompetent, and ultimately corrupt with regard to its core value: human rights. And, much like the leading role it took in the debacle of Climategate, the once bastion of democracy is not only being held hostage by radical elements, but actually enabling these forces to gain power and prominence on the world stage.1
According to its annual report by Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization that “supports democratic change, monitors freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights,” the UN has received “failing grades on its ability to respond to the world’s most pressing human rights issues.”2 Among the key findings of the report:
*The accreditation process for Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) has become appallingly politicized and is dominated by some of the world’s most aggressive opponents of universal standards on human rights, while democracies again fall short.
*The quality and reporting of the UN’s special reporters continue to bring the Council its highest marks, while pressure to eliminate country-specific experts and weaken other thematic mandates continues.
*The Council failed to issue a condemnatory resolution on Iran and on a number of countries with ongoing systematic abuses such as Belarus, China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria. It continued its disproportionate focus on Israel.
*Resolutions that urge countries to prohibit anti-Islamic or blasphemous speech continue to pass.
What emerges from the findings is clear and startling: the UN has become an international bureaucratic cover for political despotism, sacrificing the very individuals it supposedly cares so much about to the fires of political correctness. In its zeal to prove its “tolerance,” the UN has bent over backwards, indeed prostrated and humbled itself at all cost to supplicate the very terror organizations it purports to deplore.
It is not hyperbole to say both the United States and the world is being overrun with radical fundamentals, that we are institutionalizing, validating, and empowering despots and forces whose aim is to supplant rational thought and prosperity and replace it with a modern Caliphate and Sharia law. This radical wave has culminated in our present government and its international analogue embodied by the UN, each playing a new iteration of “useful idiots” in the propagation and dispersion of a twisted version of the Islamic faith. Ironically, it is this internal struggle of Islam the Left has turned blind eye to.3
Let’s put this in context for a moment. Barack Obama began his career as President of the United States by going on a world-wide apology tour, ostensibly to curry good will with the international community, but in reality emasculating our political gravitas and undercutting our leadership role, referring to us as “dismissive, even derisive.” He has bowed, scraped, and deferred both his person and his station to Middle Eastern and Muslim leaders, lest they are encouraged to not restrain terroristic elements in their control, something recently intimated by Imam Rauf of the controversial Park51 Project. 4
This is tantamount to the appeasement we saw during World War II, in which Neville Chamberlain placated Hitler and the Third Reich, thereby ensuring their rise to power. As was with Europe at the time, the whole world is being engulfed in this silent and subtle holocaust of words and ideas. Much like the Shakespearean play “Hamlet,” in which the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern pretend to have Hamlet’s best interests at heart while attempting to carry out Claudius’s scheme to kill him, the UN feigns to protect the weak and innocent while they simultaneously install dictators, mollify terrorists, and stifle dissent.
More than 200 years ago, James Madison warned the American Public of the dangers of overlooking those who would seek to overthrow us: “Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.” (Federalists 41)
Americans and their international democratic counterparts should recoil in horror at this reality. This threat is not only imminent and widespread, but also skillfully concealed from public inspection. Even as it plants the seeds of propaganda for world consumption, the UN’s duplicitous nature is shrouded by a patina of pretentious piety.
It is time for the world media, the academic intellects, and all those who truly love peace and democratic principles to speak out and call the UN’s elite leaders to account for this malfeasance and perversion of truth and justice. It is time for United States citizens to reject Obama’s transparent attempt to destroy our sovereignty, and usurp our position as a global leader. It is time for appeasement of murderers to stop. If not, the proliferation of radicalism will ultimately consume all nations, and we will find ourselves living in a modern global dark age with no United States to provide the way out.
1.http://www.climategate.com/
2. http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1243
3. http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7263/my-fellow-muslims-we-must-wake-up
4. http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/i/19626716
According to its annual report by Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization that “supports democratic change, monitors freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights,” the UN has received “failing grades on its ability to respond to the world’s most pressing human rights issues.”2 Among the key findings of the report:
*The accreditation process for Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) has become appallingly politicized and is dominated by some of the world’s most aggressive opponents of universal standards on human rights, while democracies again fall short.
*The quality and reporting of the UN’s special reporters continue to bring the Council its highest marks, while pressure to eliminate country-specific experts and weaken other thematic mandates continues.
*The Council failed to issue a condemnatory resolution on Iran and on a number of countries with ongoing systematic abuses such as Belarus, China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria. It continued its disproportionate focus on Israel.
*Resolutions that urge countries to prohibit anti-Islamic or blasphemous speech continue to pass.
What emerges from the findings is clear and startling: the UN has become an international bureaucratic cover for political despotism, sacrificing the very individuals it supposedly cares so much about to the fires of political correctness. In its zeal to prove its “tolerance,” the UN has bent over backwards, indeed prostrated and humbled itself at all cost to supplicate the very terror organizations it purports to deplore.
It is not hyperbole to say both the United States and the world is being overrun with radical fundamentals, that we are institutionalizing, validating, and empowering despots and forces whose aim is to supplant rational thought and prosperity and replace it with a modern Caliphate and Sharia law. This radical wave has culminated in our present government and its international analogue embodied by the UN, each playing a new iteration of “useful idiots” in the propagation and dispersion of a twisted version of the Islamic faith. Ironically, it is this internal struggle of Islam the Left has turned blind eye to.3
Let’s put this in context for a moment. Barack Obama began his career as President of the United States by going on a world-wide apology tour, ostensibly to curry good will with the international community, but in reality emasculating our political gravitas and undercutting our leadership role, referring to us as “dismissive, even derisive.” He has bowed, scraped, and deferred both his person and his station to Middle Eastern and Muslim leaders, lest they are encouraged to not restrain terroristic elements in their control, something recently intimated by Imam Rauf of the controversial Park51 Project. 4
This is tantamount to the appeasement we saw during World War II, in which Neville Chamberlain placated Hitler and the Third Reich, thereby ensuring their rise to power. As was with Europe at the time, the whole world is being engulfed in this silent and subtle holocaust of words and ideas. Much like the Shakespearean play “Hamlet,” in which the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern pretend to have Hamlet’s best interests at heart while attempting to carry out Claudius’s scheme to kill him, the UN feigns to protect the weak and innocent while they simultaneously install dictators, mollify terrorists, and stifle dissent.
More than 200 years ago, James Madison warned the American Public of the dangers of overlooking those who would seek to overthrow us: “Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.” (Federalists 41)
Americans and their international democratic counterparts should recoil in horror at this reality. This threat is not only imminent and widespread, but also skillfully concealed from public inspection. Even as it plants the seeds of propaganda for world consumption, the UN’s duplicitous nature is shrouded by a patina of pretentious piety.
It is time for the world media, the academic intellects, and all those who truly love peace and democratic principles to speak out and call the UN’s elite leaders to account for this malfeasance and perversion of truth and justice. It is time for United States citizens to reject Obama’s transparent attempt to destroy our sovereignty, and usurp our position as a global leader. It is time for appeasement of murderers to stop. If not, the proliferation of radicalism will ultimately consume all nations, and we will find ourselves living in a modern global dark age with no United States to provide the way out.
1.http://www.climategate.com/
2. http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1243
3. http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7263/my-fellow-muslims-we-must-wake-up
4. http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/i/19626716
Saturday, September 11, 2010
America: Don't Lose Your Focus
Focus is the key to just about any successful endeavor. Life, in general takes focus, or we continually lose our way. So it is with great struggles, too. Had Hercules lost focus, his god-like virility would not have been enough to sustain him during his labors. Had Mozart, or da Vinci, or Galileo lacked focus, our world would have had its store of beauty and knowledge incomprehensibly diminished. And had Moses or Christ lost their focus during their trials, what then?
The same is true for politics. There is no doubt that Pastor Jones, the self-proclaimed defender of Christianity and Constitutionalism, is a fool, a whack-job, a nut-case, an extremist (pick your appropriate pejorative). I do not condone his intentions, belief system, or actions. He is a disgrace to mankind in general and Christianity in particular. I stand with true peace-loving Muslims in their outright condemnation of his intent and character.
However, let’s not lose our focus as a country. The assertion that Jones and his ilk are responsible for the animus directed at the U.S. is a pathetic and weak argument. While his action would no doubt stir up animosity and resentment in the Muslim world (and possibly put our troops in peril), the hatred itself was already there, and has been for a very long time. Nor should we take our eyes off Imam Rauf, the controversial Imam of the proposed Park51 project. In comparison to Rauf, an extremist disguised as a “moderate,” Jones is insignificant, a proverbial “blip” on the radar screen of history. Rauf, with his ties to the Moslem Brotherhood and The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is part of a larger stealth network of extremists who underhandedly promote political Islam while simultaneously pretending to be interested in peace and the advancement of democracy. In this context, Jones merely plays a hapless puppet Islamic extremists can use as an excuse to foment terror. However, they would do this regardless of Jones, or Bush, or anyone, in reality, because this is their belief system and their commandment to do so. By preying on our need to undeniably demonstrate tolerance, people such as Rauf and his underground associates create the synergy and façade needed to dupe both their Muslim counterparts as well as liberal Americans bent on proving their need to pay penance for being descendants of “oppressors.”
Unfortunately, you only get the surface level from the media. Radicals, again posing “compassionate moderates” now rule this country, and their figurehead is Obama. If this sound far fetched, consider this: When was the last time we as a country passed nearly 5,000 pages of legislation, but didn’t know its contents, or spent nearly one trillion dollars with absolute no ability to pay for it without enslaving our children and grandchildren with crushing debt? When was the last time we openly prosecuted a state for enforcing border security while turning our back on citizens whose very lives are in danger? Is that radical enough, or do we need more evidence?
Here is the reality:
We are at war with two ideas: one, based on the principles of individual freedom as enshrined in the Constitution, and the other on collective salvation, as enshrined in Das Kapital. There is little compromise here; they are incompatible for the most part.
One path leads to liberty and prosperity, the other to tyranny and oppression. Democracy and capitalism are by no means a perfect system, but therein lies the folly of those who espouse a utopian view of mankind, for neither mankind, nor the political structures he creates, are perfectible, and attempts to fashion such perfection lead to corruption, depravity, and untold suffering. The road of history is littered with the detritus of failed utopian attempts and paved with the bones of its subjects. From Marx and Lenin, to Mao and Castro, to Chavez, how many innocent people must give their lives and liberties to assuage the appetite of dictators promoting "social justice" and "equality" while perpetrating death and mayhem before we understand this system, no matter how noble its aim, is inherently evil in its consequences?
Rauf will gladly trod this path to supremacy, and use our institutions of democracy to achieve his ultimate objective. Jones’s skull and the skeletons of the academic elite will serve as stepping stones to this altar, though they are too blind to see how they are being used. Ironically, Muslim extremists, who have hijacked a religion and are using it to propel their own nightmarish vision, are incompatible with the liberal networks they are manipulating. Religion by its essence is about God and his relationship to his people, and God is antithetical to those who believe government should fill this void. So in the end, those who are bending over backwards to accommodate will put the nails in their own coffins. This is what happens when you focus on the wrong things.
The same is true for politics. There is no doubt that Pastor Jones, the self-proclaimed defender of Christianity and Constitutionalism, is a fool, a whack-job, a nut-case, an extremist (pick your appropriate pejorative). I do not condone his intentions, belief system, or actions. He is a disgrace to mankind in general and Christianity in particular. I stand with true peace-loving Muslims in their outright condemnation of his intent and character.
However, let’s not lose our focus as a country. The assertion that Jones and his ilk are responsible for the animus directed at the U.S. is a pathetic and weak argument. While his action would no doubt stir up animosity and resentment in the Muslim world (and possibly put our troops in peril), the hatred itself was already there, and has been for a very long time. Nor should we take our eyes off Imam Rauf, the controversial Imam of the proposed Park51 project. In comparison to Rauf, an extremist disguised as a “moderate,” Jones is insignificant, a proverbial “blip” on the radar screen of history. Rauf, with his ties to the Moslem Brotherhood and The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is part of a larger stealth network of extremists who underhandedly promote political Islam while simultaneously pretending to be interested in peace and the advancement of democracy. In this context, Jones merely plays a hapless puppet Islamic extremists can use as an excuse to foment terror. However, they would do this regardless of Jones, or Bush, or anyone, in reality, because this is their belief system and their commandment to do so. By preying on our need to undeniably demonstrate tolerance, people such as Rauf and his underground associates create the synergy and façade needed to dupe both their Muslim counterparts as well as liberal Americans bent on proving their need to pay penance for being descendants of “oppressors.”
Unfortunately, you only get the surface level from the media. Radicals, again posing “compassionate moderates” now rule this country, and their figurehead is Obama. If this sound far fetched, consider this: When was the last time we as a country passed nearly 5,000 pages of legislation, but didn’t know its contents, or spent nearly one trillion dollars with absolute no ability to pay for it without enslaving our children and grandchildren with crushing debt? When was the last time we openly prosecuted a state for enforcing border security while turning our back on citizens whose very lives are in danger? Is that radical enough, or do we need more evidence?
Here is the reality:
We are at war with two ideas: one, based on the principles of individual freedom as enshrined in the Constitution, and the other on collective salvation, as enshrined in Das Kapital. There is little compromise here; they are incompatible for the most part.
One path leads to liberty and prosperity, the other to tyranny and oppression. Democracy and capitalism are by no means a perfect system, but therein lies the folly of those who espouse a utopian view of mankind, for neither mankind, nor the political structures he creates, are perfectible, and attempts to fashion such perfection lead to corruption, depravity, and untold suffering. The road of history is littered with the detritus of failed utopian attempts and paved with the bones of its subjects. From Marx and Lenin, to Mao and Castro, to Chavez, how many innocent people must give their lives and liberties to assuage the appetite of dictators promoting "social justice" and "equality" while perpetrating death and mayhem before we understand this system, no matter how noble its aim, is inherently evil in its consequences?
Rauf will gladly trod this path to supremacy, and use our institutions of democracy to achieve his ultimate objective. Jones’s skull and the skeletons of the academic elite will serve as stepping stones to this altar, though they are too blind to see how they are being used. Ironically, Muslim extremists, who have hijacked a religion and are using it to propel their own nightmarish vision, are incompatible with the liberal networks they are manipulating. Religion by its essence is about God and his relationship to his people, and God is antithetical to those who believe government should fill this void. So in the end, those who are bending over backwards to accommodate will put the nails in their own coffins. This is what happens when you focus on the wrong things.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Park 51: A Battle for the Future of Islam
Let me get this out there right from the start: I have serious misgivings about the nature and intentions of the people behind the proposed mosque and cultural center, known as Park 51, to be built near ground zero. Still, as a conservative, I find myself asking for this establishment to be given the green light.
Constitutionally speaking, there is no doubt that a denial of permission to build would be a direct violation of our founding principles of freedom of expression and religious tolerance. Anyone taking this tact is historically, legally, and foundationally under water—it’s simply indefensible. Sensitivity has also been cited as a moral or ethical underpinning. There is some merit here. Families and friends of those who lost their lives in 9-11 should have their voices heard. And if we’re honest, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has shown little evidence of sensitivity thus far on this issue. One cannot both argue vociferously for sensitivity and understanding while demonstrating neither.
However, the argument with the most merit raises questions about ties Rauf has to shadowy individuals and terrorist organizations. This is no small matter. Despite protestations that overall, Islam is a peaceful religion, we are left with the reality that the overwhelming majority of terroristic events have been perpetrated by people acting directly in the name of Islam and in accordance with jihadist creeds. This does not make all Muslims guilty by association; but it is an undeniable correlation we must come to grips with as a society.
However, to fully grasp this situation, we have to understand there is an internal war within the Moslem religion itself. Two faces of Islam are vying for the future of Islamic society, and the outcome of this conflict will decide not only the fate of the Muslim people, but the overall prospects for relative global peace and prosperity. According to Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), “until anti-Islamist Muslims wage the intellectual battle against Islamism within the Muslim consciousness, we will make no headway against ‘the narrative.’” The narrative Dr. Jasser is referring to is the assumption that the U.S. and its allies are waging war against the Muslim world in general, rather than fighting the same radical elements that have made life unbearable not just in the free world, but for Muslim people in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan, where the Taliban, has a track record of intimidation and violence amongst it own populace.
The other face of the Muslim people, the traditions and tenets that Jasser grew up with, is the genuine deal, a truly tolerant religion that promotes love and the brotherhood of man, much like its modern counterparts: Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism. Our failure to grasp this struggle is tantamount to ultimately sticking the proverbial knife in the back of the Muslims who struggle against this tyranny. Rauf may proclaim he is “moderate” or “tolerant,” but this is nothing but a façade, a clever, yet apparently effective amalgamation of Constitutional principles and political correctness designed to stifle dissent and paint opposition with the broad brush of racism, or more succinctly, Islamaphobia. But as Jasser points out, the term “moderate” has become synonymous with being “non-violent” or anti-terrorism.” Jasser asserts this gross oversimplification blinds people to the very political ideologies — which he identifies as “Islamism” — that are the mechanisms that propel and expand terrorism.
This theme is echoed by Rauf in his advocacy for and promulgation of Shariah law as set forth in his Shariah Index project. The idea that Shariah law somehow dovetails with the American Constitution is preposterous at best, and outright dangerous at worst. Although there are tenants of Sharia theology that aspire to equality and justice, the overall thrust is one of submission to Allah, a fact that is irreconcilable with principle of separation of church and state, so conveniently abandoned by those who are ardently advocating for this building. Moreover, whatever the intent of Shariah law may be, its interpretation has often been malicious, time and again resulting in systematic repression of women’s and children’s rights, domestic brutality, and even honor killings. No, these acts are not the global norm for Muslims; but neither are they an isolated dynamic. They are, however, another indicator of the spiritual and political schism facing Muslims.
Americans would be wise to examine our own history to discover similar themes, for this was the same dynamic the United States found itself in during the late 1940’s and early 1950s, as exemplified by Walter Reuther. Despite being labeled as soft on communism, Reuther worked tirelessly to expunge radical communist elements from American labor unions, and was supportive of America’s role in labor movement specifically, and the Democratic Party in genral. While one path was genuinely concerned with civil rights and creating opportunity for all Americans, the other was moving toward towards full-out Marxism. This same tension, a dichotomy between true moderation and tolerance on one hand, and extremism cloaked in pretentious piety on the other, is now pressing Americans, including our Muslim brothers and sisters, to see the forest beyond the trees.
Moreover, a crucial factor has been left out of the debate. Conservatives need to understand that Muslims, in general, are traditional in their philosophy and behavior. They value family, worship, and are grateful patriotic citizens, many whom have served with honor in our armed forces. Their children tend to be respectful, top-notch students, and parents are typically unabashed supporters of teachers. What they do object to is the same thing non-Muslim conservatives find fault with: the tawdry, selfish, and superficial traits of popular culture that result in, or at the very least are reflective of, broken families, drug addiction, gangs, and the general malaise that colors much of our youth.
Yet, the plans to build Park 51 must go forward. If plans to derail the mosque are successful and our darker beliefs about Rauf are true, then we will end up driving him and his network underground. This portends badly for all of us, especially Muslim Americans who want to assimilate and take part of the American dream. To know the truth means there must be transparency and accountability, and the best guarantee of these democratic principles as well the public good is the vigilance of We the People. It is New Yorkers who must hold Raufe and his associates responsible. They can do this by taking his invitation to multiculturalism seriously. They should gather in masses at the proposed center for fellowship, take classes and attend seminars, actively attend meetings, and even pray in the mosque during regular and inter-faith services. If, as he has stated, he is about bridge building, than Rauf and his colleagues should embrace this approach. Nothing bad can come as a result. Over time, either we will learn that that we have been induced by a consuming and ill-conceived paranoia, or the Imam and his co-leaders will be exposed as the frauds many believe them to be. Regardless, justice will be served, and truth will be known. Our future depends on it.
G.L.
Constitutionally speaking, there is no doubt that a denial of permission to build would be a direct violation of our founding principles of freedom of expression and religious tolerance. Anyone taking this tact is historically, legally, and foundationally under water—it’s simply indefensible. Sensitivity has also been cited as a moral or ethical underpinning. There is some merit here. Families and friends of those who lost their lives in 9-11 should have their voices heard. And if we’re honest, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has shown little evidence of sensitivity thus far on this issue. One cannot both argue vociferously for sensitivity and understanding while demonstrating neither.
However, the argument with the most merit raises questions about ties Rauf has to shadowy individuals and terrorist organizations. This is no small matter. Despite protestations that overall, Islam is a peaceful religion, we are left with the reality that the overwhelming majority of terroristic events have been perpetrated by people acting directly in the name of Islam and in accordance with jihadist creeds. This does not make all Muslims guilty by association; but it is an undeniable correlation we must come to grips with as a society.
However, to fully grasp this situation, we have to understand there is an internal war within the Moslem religion itself. Two faces of Islam are vying for the future of Islamic society, and the outcome of this conflict will decide not only the fate of the Muslim people, but the overall prospects for relative global peace and prosperity. According to Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), “until anti-Islamist Muslims wage the intellectual battle against Islamism within the Muslim consciousness, we will make no headway against ‘the narrative.’” The narrative Dr. Jasser is referring to is the assumption that the U.S. and its allies are waging war against the Muslim world in general, rather than fighting the same radical elements that have made life unbearable not just in the free world, but for Muslim people in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan, where the Taliban, has a track record of intimidation and violence amongst it own populace.
The other face of the Muslim people, the traditions and tenets that Jasser grew up with, is the genuine deal, a truly tolerant religion that promotes love and the brotherhood of man, much like its modern counterparts: Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism. Our failure to grasp this struggle is tantamount to ultimately sticking the proverbial knife in the back of the Muslims who struggle against this tyranny. Rauf may proclaim he is “moderate” or “tolerant,” but this is nothing but a façade, a clever, yet apparently effective amalgamation of Constitutional principles and political correctness designed to stifle dissent and paint opposition with the broad brush of racism, or more succinctly, Islamaphobia. But as Jasser points out, the term “moderate” has become synonymous with being “non-violent” or anti-terrorism.” Jasser asserts this gross oversimplification blinds people to the very political ideologies — which he identifies as “Islamism” — that are the mechanisms that propel and expand terrorism.
This theme is echoed by Rauf in his advocacy for and promulgation of Shariah law as set forth in his Shariah Index project. The idea that Shariah law somehow dovetails with the American Constitution is preposterous at best, and outright dangerous at worst. Although there are tenants of Sharia theology that aspire to equality and justice, the overall thrust is one of submission to Allah, a fact that is irreconcilable with principle of separation of church and state, so conveniently abandoned by those who are ardently advocating for this building. Moreover, whatever the intent of Shariah law may be, its interpretation has often been malicious, time and again resulting in systematic repression of women’s and children’s rights, domestic brutality, and even honor killings. No, these acts are not the global norm for Muslims; but neither are they an isolated dynamic. They are, however, another indicator of the spiritual and political schism facing Muslims.
Americans would be wise to examine our own history to discover similar themes, for this was the same dynamic the United States found itself in during the late 1940’s and early 1950s, as exemplified by Walter Reuther. Despite being labeled as soft on communism, Reuther worked tirelessly to expunge radical communist elements from American labor unions, and was supportive of America’s role in labor movement specifically, and the Democratic Party in genral. While one path was genuinely concerned with civil rights and creating opportunity for all Americans, the other was moving toward towards full-out Marxism. This same tension, a dichotomy between true moderation and tolerance on one hand, and extremism cloaked in pretentious piety on the other, is now pressing Americans, including our Muslim brothers and sisters, to see the forest beyond the trees.
Moreover, a crucial factor has been left out of the debate. Conservatives need to understand that Muslims, in general, are traditional in their philosophy and behavior. They value family, worship, and are grateful patriotic citizens, many whom have served with honor in our armed forces. Their children tend to be respectful, top-notch students, and parents are typically unabashed supporters of teachers. What they do object to is the same thing non-Muslim conservatives find fault with: the tawdry, selfish, and superficial traits of popular culture that result in, or at the very least are reflective of, broken families, drug addiction, gangs, and the general malaise that colors much of our youth.
Yet, the plans to build Park 51 must go forward. If plans to derail the mosque are successful and our darker beliefs about Rauf are true, then we will end up driving him and his network underground. This portends badly for all of us, especially Muslim Americans who want to assimilate and take part of the American dream. To know the truth means there must be transparency and accountability, and the best guarantee of these democratic principles as well the public good is the vigilance of We the People. It is New Yorkers who must hold Raufe and his associates responsible. They can do this by taking his invitation to multiculturalism seriously. They should gather in masses at the proposed center for fellowship, take classes and attend seminars, actively attend meetings, and even pray in the mosque during regular and inter-faith services. If, as he has stated, he is about bridge building, than Rauf and his colleagues should embrace this approach. Nothing bad can come as a result. Over time, either we will learn that that we have been induced by a consuming and ill-conceived paranoia, or the Imam and his co-leaders will be exposed as the frauds many believe them to be. Regardless, justice will be served, and truth will be known. Our future depends on it.
G.L.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)