This week, Cuba will celebrate the 40th anniversary of Che Guevara’s death. Guevara, idolized by communists and college students alike, was largely responsible for putting Fidel Castro in to power in Cuba, as well as starting revolutions in other countries, including Bolivia. In 1967 he was captured and killed by US-backed Bolivian forces. His face, often emblazoned upon red t-shirts, posters and other paraphernalia, has become a fashion statement within a capitalist society, despite his anti-capitalist ideology.
It is not difficult to find college students, even at our beloved Fordham, wearing these red shirts, seemingly idolizing the man on their chest. But how many students know the truth about Che? How many know that by wearing this shirt, they are advertising and essentially supporting a man not only guilty of fighting against US interests in Latin America, but likewise guilty of killing millions of Cubans, Bolivians and others who opposed his grand revolution?
It may surprise some students to learn that Guevara, despite what our modern culture and celebrities may say about him, executed tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Cubans who disagreed with him. Ever wonder why there are so many Cubans in Miami and other parts of Florida? Look no further than your friend’s chest. Guevara is largely responsible for establishing the Castro dictatorship, which since having come to power, has indoctrinated the Cuban people with pro-communist garbage, outlawed freedom of speech and caused the flight of millions of Cubans who now seek freedom in the USA.
Students who wear Che’s face plastered across their chest (or anywhere else for that matter) should seriously reconsider their attire. Wearing Che’s face is not unlike wearing Stalin’s, Saddam Hussein’s or Chairman Mao’s. This is a man who is guilty of crimes against humanity as well as being an enemy of the USA. His actions forty plus years ago have resulted in at least one country, a mere 90 miles from our nation’s shores, having to live under a tyrannical dictator. But, at least they have a great health-care system (according to Michael Moore that is).
Ignorance is no excuse for college students to adorn themselves or their dorm rooms with Che. Che’s mass murdering is well documented, and one only needs to talk to Cuban refugees or their descendents to learn of his and Castro’s atrocities. Make no mistake; Cuban refugees don’t risk their lives coming to the USA because Cuba is a great place to live today. They come here because Cuba’s state-run economy is in shambles; they can’t get the proper health-care for them or their children; education largely stops after the sixth grade; they’re tired of the communist indoctrination and propaganda and furthermore, they’re tired of not being able to criticize their government.
In fact, Cuban refugees aren’t merely tired of all these things, ladies and gentlemen. They’re frightened. They’re frightened about what will happen to them and their families if they criticize the Castro government. While Che’s success was unfortunate to say the least, there may be some hope on the horizon. Castro’s health is failing, and he has largely passed on his power to his brother, Raul. Of course, Castro’s death can’t come quick enough for many, but in the meantime, let’s not mock the tragic family histories of our Cuban brethren living in the USA by adorning ourselves with the face of the man responsible for the deaths of their family members.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Columbia Shames itself by hosting Ahmadinejad
This Monday, Columbia University, largely considered one of the best in the world, hosts the visiting President of Iran. Ahmadinejad’s visit has largely been hailed with criticism and opposition, and rightfully so. Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, shames himself and his university by not only allowing, but actively inviting Ahmadinejad to speak.
Those who are not familiar with Ahmadinejad should know this: he is not only a radical Islamofascist who supports terrorism against the US, but he is also a leading anti-Semite. In addition to calling the Holocaust a myth, he has called for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. I find it unbelievable at best that Bollinger would allow such a man to speak at a university with such a significant Jewish population, when, if it were up to Ahmadinejad, those very students wouldn’t be alive to listen to him speak.
This should not only be an outrage to every Jewish student at Columbia, but to every man and woman who believes in freedom of religion and pluralism, regardless of religious background.
Perhaps Bollinger should follow the lead of the City of New York, who declined Ahmadinejad’s request to visit Ground Zero. This request in itself is outrage enough to deny providing a speaking opportunity to Ahmadinejad at Columbia. The president of Iran essentially slapped this country in the face by making such a request in the first place. Do not be fooled: Ahmadinejad did not intend to pay respect to any American had he visited the WTC. Instead, any wreath he laid would have been in commemoration of the terrorists who murdered three thousand Americans, and not the victims who died.
There have been two main arguments advanced in support of Ahmadinejad speaking. The first contends that students (and everyone else who hears his speech presumably) will have a valuable educational experience. This is hogwash.
Any one who truly wishes to understand Ahmadinejad’s views needs simply read speeches he has made in his own country. Speeches that include things like, “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury” and “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” Fortunately for Ahmadinejad, Lee Bollinger is making it just a little easier for that Islamic revolutionary wave to reach NYC.
The second argument that has been advanced is that Ahmadinejad has a right to speak. This argument is even worse than the first. As the head of a member nation, Ahmadinejad has the right to speak at the United Nations. This right does not extend, however, beyond the physical walls of that establishment.
The President of Iran is not an American. Our first amendment does not apply to him, nor should even the notion of free speech be applied so. If you do think Ahmadinejad has a right to speak, then I challenge you to go ask the many Iranians he has had murdered for standing up to his regime how they feel about it. But wait, it doesn’t really seem like Ahmadinejad felt that freedom of speech applied to them, does it?
Those who are not familiar with Ahmadinejad should know this: he is not only a radical Islamofascist who supports terrorism against the US, but he is also a leading anti-Semite. In addition to calling the Holocaust a myth, he has called for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. I find it unbelievable at best that Bollinger would allow such a man to speak at a university with such a significant Jewish population, when, if it were up to Ahmadinejad, those very students wouldn’t be alive to listen to him speak.
This should not only be an outrage to every Jewish student at Columbia, but to every man and woman who believes in freedom of religion and pluralism, regardless of religious background.
Perhaps Bollinger should follow the lead of the City of New York, who declined Ahmadinejad’s request to visit Ground Zero. This request in itself is outrage enough to deny providing a speaking opportunity to Ahmadinejad at Columbia. The president of Iran essentially slapped this country in the face by making such a request in the first place. Do not be fooled: Ahmadinejad did not intend to pay respect to any American had he visited the WTC. Instead, any wreath he laid would have been in commemoration of the terrorists who murdered three thousand Americans, and not the victims who died.
There have been two main arguments advanced in support of Ahmadinejad speaking. The first contends that students (and everyone else who hears his speech presumably) will have a valuable educational experience. This is hogwash.
Any one who truly wishes to understand Ahmadinejad’s views needs simply read speeches he has made in his own country. Speeches that include things like, “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury” and “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” Fortunately for Ahmadinejad, Lee Bollinger is making it just a little easier for that Islamic revolutionary wave to reach NYC.
The second argument that has been advanced is that Ahmadinejad has a right to speak. This argument is even worse than the first. As the head of a member nation, Ahmadinejad has the right to speak at the United Nations. This right does not extend, however, beyond the physical walls of that establishment.
The President of Iran is not an American. Our first amendment does not apply to him, nor should even the notion of free speech be applied so. If you do think Ahmadinejad has a right to speak, then I challenge you to go ask the many Iranians he has had murdered for standing up to his regime how they feel about it. But wait, it doesn’t really seem like Ahmadinejad felt that freedom of speech applied to them, does it?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Bush Betrays Basic Conservative Principles
Alan Greenspan, recently retired chairman of the Federal Reserve and life-long Republican, recently lambasted President Bush and the former Republican Congress this past weekend. In his new memoir, Greenspan accuses Bush and company of betraying “principle for power”. He writes, “The Republicans in Congress lost their way. They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”
Unfortunately, Greenspan’s criticism is both accurate and true. Over the past six years, the former Republican Congress and President Bush have betrayed basic conservative principles.
Greenspan specifically criticizes “runaway deficit spending” and in particular the fact that the White House and Congress allowed a Clinton-era produced budget surplus to turn in to a Bush-era produced deficit.
One should note my wording. While President Clinton held office when the federal budget moved from red to black (the Clinton-era), it is not fair to say this was his achievement alone. Bush-opponents love to forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress keeping him in line. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and later Denny Hastert wielded a legitimately conservative Congress who practiced what they preached: fiscal discipline.
It appears that the partisan divide in Washington at the time actually produced good policy (at least from Congress). The election of Bush seemed to usher in a new Congress-White House relationship, however. While this new partnership was given the opportunity to execute conservative principles and fix a number of problems once and for all, it failed miserably.
According to Greenspan, Bush “…didn’t want to challenge former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.” Apparently, Bush thought that he could control Hastert better by “not antagonizing him”. Believe it or not, Mr. President, even Republicans need to be antagonized sometimes.
It seems that since Bush did not want to antagonize the Speaker, nor likely, be seen as fighting with other Republicans, that conservative principle fell by the way side, and Republicans, drunk with power, started acting like Democrats.
Unfortunately this behavior extended beyond fiscal discipline (or lack thereof). The collective congressional Republican Party started acting like Clinton and Monica (only with male pages and prostitution rings of course) and government has grown larger and faster than even FDR could have dreamed of.
Perhaps being out of power is the best thing for the Republican Party right now. It’s almost like when your parents sent you to your room when you were younger. You thought about your actions and came out a better person (or at least better behaved). The only difference is our American parents have sent us to our room for at least two years.
Unfortunately, Greenspan’s criticism is both accurate and true. Over the past six years, the former Republican Congress and President Bush have betrayed basic conservative principles.
Greenspan specifically criticizes “runaway deficit spending” and in particular the fact that the White House and Congress allowed a Clinton-era produced budget surplus to turn in to a Bush-era produced deficit.
One should note my wording. While President Clinton held office when the federal budget moved from red to black (the Clinton-era), it is not fair to say this was his achievement alone. Bush-opponents love to forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress keeping him in line. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and later Denny Hastert wielded a legitimately conservative Congress who practiced what they preached: fiscal discipline.
It appears that the partisan divide in Washington at the time actually produced good policy (at least from Congress). The election of Bush seemed to usher in a new Congress-White House relationship, however. While this new partnership was given the opportunity to execute conservative principles and fix a number of problems once and for all, it failed miserably.
According to Greenspan, Bush “…didn’t want to challenge former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.” Apparently, Bush thought that he could control Hastert better by “not antagonizing him”. Believe it or not, Mr. President, even Republicans need to be antagonized sometimes.
It seems that since Bush did not want to antagonize the Speaker, nor likely, be seen as fighting with other Republicans, that conservative principle fell by the way side, and Republicans, drunk with power, started acting like Democrats.
Unfortunately this behavior extended beyond fiscal discipline (or lack thereof). The collective congressional Republican Party started acting like Clinton and Monica (only with male pages and prostitution rings of course) and government has grown larger and faster than even FDR could have dreamed of.
Perhaps being out of power is the best thing for the Republican Party right now. It’s almost like when your parents sent you to your room when you were younger. You thought about your actions and came out a better person (or at least better behaved). The only difference is our American parents have sent us to our room for at least two years.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Political Season off to a (not so) Great Start
If the last the Congress wasn’t ethics and scandal ridden enough for you, don’t worry, because this summer and fall are shaping up to be stellar shows in their own rights. Of course in typical Washington DC fashion, partisanship is expected, but in the case of ethics (or the lack thereof), it appears both Party’s can agree. On the right we have the Senator Vitter and Senator Craig scandals- the former caught in a prostitution ring and the latter who, of course, just has a “wide stance” relieving himself. On the left there’s Senator Hillary Clinton- the leading Democratic candidate for her Party’s nomination- accepting campaign donations from 15 year-fugitive, Norman Hsu.
Vitter, a Republican senator from Louisiana, recently admitted to “serious sins” in his past after it was revealed his name was present on the phone records of the DC Madame- a woman charged with running an escort service (read: high class prostitution ring). His quick admission of guilt seems to have spared him the gallows, because the Senate Republican leadership did not call for his resignation.
The same can not be said of Senator Craig of Idaho, who recently plead guilty to disorderly conduct after he allegedly sought sex from an undercover police officer in a public airport bathroom. Senate Republican leadership quickly jumped on the matter after news broke, calling for Craig’s resignation.
If it sounds funny, that’s because it is. Both Senators plead guilty to equally serious moral and ethical lapses, yet Senate Republican leadership only called for the resignation of one of them. The reason? Some speculate that the calls for resignation were based, sadly, on sexuality. That being Vitter, caught in a “straight” scandal, was “pardoned” by Senate Republican leadership while Craig, caught in a “gay” scandal, was almost forced to resign. I find it difficult to believe Senate Republicans would base their calls for resignation upon this alone, however.
Instead, I find it far more likely that Republicans called for Craig’s resignation because he would be replaced by a Republican (Iowa has a Republican Governor- the appointing authority) and failed to call for Vitter’s because- can you believe it? - he would be replaced by a Democrat!
Unfortunately the Senate Republican leadership has decided to put politics over ethics. From the get-go they should have allowed the judicial system to sort these matters out, but since they decided to call for one resignation, it is only to right to call for two. Craig and Vitter were both caught in equally morally reprehensible acts. There is nothing more immoral about Craig’s “gay” antics than Vitter’s “straight” ones, and interestingly enough, Craig is defending his innocence a hell of a lot more than Vitter.
Senate Republican leadership calls in to question their motives when the scandals are so similar, and make this entire episode reek of hypocrisy.
Of course, Hillary Clinton is caught in a scandal of her own. The difference between her scandal and the Senate Republican leadership: the latter is guilty of hypocrisy; Hillary is just doing business as usual.
Hillary may believe that giving the $23,000 she accepted from Hsu to charity will somehow wipe her sins clear, but the fact is that Hsu has been a fugitive from the law for the past 15 years!
Perhaps best of all, Clinton’s scandal prompted CT Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd to release a statement saying he would, “…refuse to accept or possess campaign contributions raised, solicited, or delivered by fugitives from justice.” Genius! Maybe that will matter, Senator, if anyone every actually donates to your campaign!
Vitter, a Republican senator from Louisiana, recently admitted to “serious sins” in his past after it was revealed his name was present on the phone records of the DC Madame- a woman charged with running an escort service (read: high class prostitution ring). His quick admission of guilt seems to have spared him the gallows, because the Senate Republican leadership did not call for his resignation.
The same can not be said of Senator Craig of Idaho, who recently plead guilty to disorderly conduct after he allegedly sought sex from an undercover police officer in a public airport bathroom. Senate Republican leadership quickly jumped on the matter after news broke, calling for Craig’s resignation.
If it sounds funny, that’s because it is. Both Senators plead guilty to equally serious moral and ethical lapses, yet Senate Republican leadership only called for the resignation of one of them. The reason? Some speculate that the calls for resignation were based, sadly, on sexuality. That being Vitter, caught in a “straight” scandal, was “pardoned” by Senate Republican leadership while Craig, caught in a “gay” scandal, was almost forced to resign. I find it difficult to believe Senate Republicans would base their calls for resignation upon this alone, however.
Instead, I find it far more likely that Republicans called for Craig’s resignation because he would be replaced by a Republican (Iowa has a Republican Governor- the appointing authority) and failed to call for Vitter’s because- can you believe it? - he would be replaced by a Democrat!
Unfortunately the Senate Republican leadership has decided to put politics over ethics. From the get-go they should have allowed the judicial system to sort these matters out, but since they decided to call for one resignation, it is only to right to call for two. Craig and Vitter were both caught in equally morally reprehensible acts. There is nothing more immoral about Craig’s “gay” antics than Vitter’s “straight” ones, and interestingly enough, Craig is defending his innocence a hell of a lot more than Vitter.
Senate Republican leadership calls in to question their motives when the scandals are so similar, and make this entire episode reek of hypocrisy.
Of course, Hillary Clinton is caught in a scandal of her own. The difference between her scandal and the Senate Republican leadership: the latter is guilty of hypocrisy; Hillary is just doing business as usual.
Hillary may believe that giving the $23,000 she accepted from Hsu to charity will somehow wipe her sins clear, but the fact is that Hsu has been a fugitive from the law for the past 15 years!
Perhaps best of all, Clinton’s scandal prompted CT Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd to release a statement saying he would, “…refuse to accept or possess campaign contributions raised, solicited, or delivered by fugitives from justice.” Genius! Maybe that will matter, Senator, if anyone every actually donates to your campaign!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
American Service Learning Academy is Bad Idea
Last month, bills were introduced into both houses of Congress that would create an American Public Service Academy. According to USpublicserviceacademy.org, the purpose of such an institution would be to produce graduates committed to a life of public service and would be modeled after the US military academies, such as West Point.
Senator Hillary Clinton, the main proponent of the bill in the Senate had this to say:
"We are facing ... the impending retirement of so many of the senior ranks of our government. The people who do everything from help predict the weather, to run our nuclear power plants, to figure out how the Social Security system will keep functioning ... we're concerned that we're not going to have the workforce that we need in the next 10 years to keep this complicated government functioning."
Applicants for the Academy would have to acquire the recommendation of their congressperson and would be required to serve the government for five years after graduation. According to the same website, the Academy would cost at least $205,000,000 a year to run and operate for about 5,000 students.
While the idea of a national academy dedicated to public service is honorable and seems sensible at first hearing it, such an institution is both unnecessary and unwise.
According to the same website, which is the main proponent behind this idea, “The cost of pursuing public service careers (as opposed to just one or two years) after graduation can be prohibitive because college tuition has increased dramatically in the past decade – according to the Project on Student Debt, the average college graduate owes about $20,000, an increase of more than 50% in the past decade. With so much debt, students often must give up their dreams of public service careers in favor of more lucrative fields.”
While there is no doubt that more students are taking on more college debt, it would be foolish to create an entirely new university to alleviate this problem, mainly because it would have no real impact. While there were no statistics as to how much it would cost per student per year for taxpayers to support this new initiative, it is probably safe to assume it costs at least $20,000 a year/student. That would mean that a four year education would cost at least $80,000, or $60,000 more than an average college graduates debt.
If there is truly a public-servant deficit, it would make much more sense financially for the government to simply pay off the debt of college graduates in return for service. Better yet, the government could take the $205,000,000 it would cost to run the academy per year and subsidize more student loans, thusly lessening the debt burden on students and, according to the logic of USpublicserviceacademy.org, making more college graduates more likely to make a career of public service.
It seems a bit amusing that Senator Clinton is worried about running a “complicated government” in the future, but her answer to this is not to make government less complicated, but more so. Instead of lessening the size and scope of government, which would in turn make it less complicated, Clinton feels it necessary to create an entirely new university with graduates specifically trained in how to deal with this complexity. Senator Clinton’s answer to a bureaucratic mess: more bureaucracy.
While an American Public Service Academy would be financially unwise, it would also be rather un-American. If there is one thing we can gleam from our Founding Fathers, it is that public service is an honor and a privilege, and should not be a career. Let us consider a prime example: George Washington.
The former president was a farmer turned military leader who would deny the kingship of our new country and later limit himself to two terms as president. Instead of carrying on as president indefinitely, Washington decided to retire back to his Virginian farm. He put his time in, and then left. This would hold true until President Franklin Roosevelt, who would win four terms in the White House and had committed most of his life to public service as Governor of New York and in other elected positions.
The American public is not served well by elected officials who know nothing but government. Such people, like Senator Clinton, inevitably come up with the same answer for society’s and government’s problems: more government. Unfortunately, government is more often the cause of problems than the solution. If Social Security is too complicated for Senator Clinton and others to understand, we do not need to create a college to study it, but rather reduce its complexity.
If there is an actual shortage of government workers, we should lessen the size of government, not increase the amount of employees at a cost to the American tax payers. The answer to government problems should not be more government, but less.
Senator Hillary Clinton, the main proponent of the bill in the Senate had this to say:
"We are facing ... the impending retirement of so many of the senior ranks of our government. The people who do everything from help predict the weather, to run our nuclear power plants, to figure out how the Social Security system will keep functioning ... we're concerned that we're not going to have the workforce that we need in the next 10 years to keep this complicated government functioning."
Applicants for the Academy would have to acquire the recommendation of their congressperson and would be required to serve the government for five years after graduation. According to the same website, the Academy would cost at least $205,000,000 a year to run and operate for about 5,000 students.
While the idea of a national academy dedicated to public service is honorable and seems sensible at first hearing it, such an institution is both unnecessary and unwise.
According to the same website, which is the main proponent behind this idea, “The cost of pursuing public service careers (as opposed to just one or two years) after graduation can be prohibitive because college tuition has increased dramatically in the past decade – according to the Project on Student Debt, the average college graduate owes about $20,000, an increase of more than 50% in the past decade. With so much debt, students often must give up their dreams of public service careers in favor of more lucrative fields.”
While there is no doubt that more students are taking on more college debt, it would be foolish to create an entirely new university to alleviate this problem, mainly because it would have no real impact. While there were no statistics as to how much it would cost per student per year for taxpayers to support this new initiative, it is probably safe to assume it costs at least $20,000 a year/student. That would mean that a four year education would cost at least $80,000, or $60,000 more than an average college graduates debt.
If there is truly a public-servant deficit, it would make much more sense financially for the government to simply pay off the debt of college graduates in return for service. Better yet, the government could take the $205,000,000 it would cost to run the academy per year and subsidize more student loans, thusly lessening the debt burden on students and, according to the logic of USpublicserviceacademy.org, making more college graduates more likely to make a career of public service.
It seems a bit amusing that Senator Clinton is worried about running a “complicated government” in the future, but her answer to this is not to make government less complicated, but more so. Instead of lessening the size and scope of government, which would in turn make it less complicated, Clinton feels it necessary to create an entirely new university with graduates specifically trained in how to deal with this complexity. Senator Clinton’s answer to a bureaucratic mess: more bureaucracy.
While an American Public Service Academy would be financially unwise, it would also be rather un-American. If there is one thing we can gleam from our Founding Fathers, it is that public service is an honor and a privilege, and should not be a career. Let us consider a prime example: George Washington.
The former president was a farmer turned military leader who would deny the kingship of our new country and later limit himself to two terms as president. Instead of carrying on as president indefinitely, Washington decided to retire back to his Virginian farm. He put his time in, and then left. This would hold true until President Franklin Roosevelt, who would win four terms in the White House and had committed most of his life to public service as Governor of New York and in other elected positions.
The American public is not served well by elected officials who know nothing but government. Such people, like Senator Clinton, inevitably come up with the same answer for society’s and government’s problems: more government. Unfortunately, government is more often the cause of problems than the solution. If Social Security is too complicated for Senator Clinton and others to understand, we do not need to create a college to study it, but rather reduce its complexity.
If there is an actual shortage of government workers, we should lessen the size of government, not increase the amount of employees at a cost to the American tax payers. The answer to government problems should not be more government, but less.
Monday, April 16, 2007
The State of Modern American Elections
Americans should consider themselves blessed to live in a country that has elections. Perhaps there are more nations in existence today that have elections than at any other time in history, but there are still many nations where people do not have this right, and those who advocate for it are either imprisoned or killed. It is with this perspective then that we must approach the following problem: the sad, unfortunate and wrong state of modern American elections.
I like to think that I am generally more aware of American politics than the average voter. I read the news everyday and even do some extra research on the Presidential candidates. It troubles me then when I am unable to speak to any meaningful differences that I can gather between the major contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations. That is to say, I am generally incapable of explaining to a person what the political and philosophical differences are between say Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are on the one hand, and Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney are on the other.
If my life depended on it, I would not be able to tell you how the Democrats differ amongst each other and the Republicans differ amongst each other on issues like healthcare or how to prosecute the War on Terrorism.
I will assume that a good portion of my ignorance is my own fault. After all, because I am conscious of my ignorance it is my responsibility to enlighten myself. I do think it noteworthy to mention, however, that I can list in descending order who on both sides of the aisle have raised the most money. I can tell you that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are leading their expected fields in fundraising and that the 2008 election is expected to be the first billion-dollar race in the United States’ history.
Does this information matter? Absolutely not. If any voter in this country is at all truly considering who the next President or candidates should be based upon how much money they have raised, they should be promptly deported. The philosophy and proposed policies of the candidates are what matters, and not how much money they have raised, how many times they have been to Iowa or even how many wives they have had (or could have).
But why do so many Americans (or at least just me) seem to know more about these negligible aspects of candidates rather than what really matters? Not surprisingly, the mass media is the primary culprit.
Let me preface the following by saying that it is unfortunate a free society necessitates a free press for its continued survival. While a free press has the ability to hold government accountable and shed light on government scandal, it is also subject to the free market.
Newspapers and news channels are privately owned businesses, and in the game to make money for their owners. By being so, most media looses any intelligence and most of its virtue.
The Media focuses on what will hold its viewers’ attention and inevitably yield the highest economic profit. Unfortunately, it makes more sense from the perspective of media companies to harp on how much money Hillary Clinton has raised rather than her proposed health care plan.
But if the Media is only doing what makes the most economic sense, it must be following the demands of the public, and therefore our second culprit is the American public. In our modern age of instant communication and instant answers, it almost seems as if Americans want instant candidates. Very few people are willing to take the time (or maybe, don’t have the time) to really learn about the candidates’ ideas.
People want the news delivered in a quick and hard hitting twenty minute segment. Inevitably, the Media delivers this, and so candidates find themselves forced to create catch phrases in order to get air time. Instead of telling us their philosophy on human existence, a candidate is either pro-life or pro-choice. Instead of explaining their own interpretation of the judicial branch, candidates label judges they disagree with as activist. Instead of debating the nature of a just war, candidates are labeled as either hawks or doves. These terms mean nothing.
Unfortunately, Americans’ short attention span and disinterest in what really matters in politics has lead to the dumbing-down of American elections. No longer does the candidate with the best philosophy win, but the candidate who can raise fifty million dollars in two months, has the best one-liners and best appeals to the ignorance of the masses.
Modern American elections are in a sad, sad state.
I like to think that I am generally more aware of American politics than the average voter. I read the news everyday and even do some extra research on the Presidential candidates. It troubles me then when I am unable to speak to any meaningful differences that I can gather between the major contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations. That is to say, I am generally incapable of explaining to a person what the political and philosophical differences are between say Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are on the one hand, and Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney are on the other.
If my life depended on it, I would not be able to tell you how the Democrats differ amongst each other and the Republicans differ amongst each other on issues like healthcare or how to prosecute the War on Terrorism.
I will assume that a good portion of my ignorance is my own fault. After all, because I am conscious of my ignorance it is my responsibility to enlighten myself. I do think it noteworthy to mention, however, that I can list in descending order who on both sides of the aisle have raised the most money. I can tell you that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are leading their expected fields in fundraising and that the 2008 election is expected to be the first billion-dollar race in the United States’ history.
Does this information matter? Absolutely not. If any voter in this country is at all truly considering who the next President or candidates should be based upon how much money they have raised, they should be promptly deported. The philosophy and proposed policies of the candidates are what matters, and not how much money they have raised, how many times they have been to Iowa or even how many wives they have had (or could have).
But why do so many Americans (or at least just me) seem to know more about these negligible aspects of candidates rather than what really matters? Not surprisingly, the mass media is the primary culprit.
Let me preface the following by saying that it is unfortunate a free society necessitates a free press for its continued survival. While a free press has the ability to hold government accountable and shed light on government scandal, it is also subject to the free market.
Newspapers and news channels are privately owned businesses, and in the game to make money for their owners. By being so, most media looses any intelligence and most of its virtue.
The Media focuses on what will hold its viewers’ attention and inevitably yield the highest economic profit. Unfortunately, it makes more sense from the perspective of media companies to harp on how much money Hillary Clinton has raised rather than her proposed health care plan.
But if the Media is only doing what makes the most economic sense, it must be following the demands of the public, and therefore our second culprit is the American public. In our modern age of instant communication and instant answers, it almost seems as if Americans want instant candidates. Very few people are willing to take the time (or maybe, don’t have the time) to really learn about the candidates’ ideas.
People want the news delivered in a quick and hard hitting twenty minute segment. Inevitably, the Media delivers this, and so candidates find themselves forced to create catch phrases in order to get air time. Instead of telling us their philosophy on human existence, a candidate is either pro-life or pro-choice. Instead of explaining their own interpretation of the judicial branch, candidates label judges they disagree with as activist. Instead of debating the nature of a just war, candidates are labeled as either hawks or doves. These terms mean nothing.
Unfortunately, Americans’ short attention span and disinterest in what really matters in politics has lead to the dumbing-down of American elections. No longer does the candidate with the best philosophy win, but the candidate who can raise fifty million dollars in two months, has the best one-liners and best appeals to the ignorance of the masses.
Modern American elections are in a sad, sad state.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Pelosi is Not President
There is a saying that goes, “Politics stops at the water’s edge.” Such a short and concise statement is actually quite powerful and wise. It recognizes that there will be disagreement on policy and other issues at home, but that for the sake of the country, these disagreements should not carry overseas.
One legislator, Arthur Vandenberg, understood this idea when he annunciated the above phrase. Prior to the speech in which he initially expressed this idea, Vandenberg had considered himself an isolationist. Times had changed, however, and in late 1945 the Cold War was already starting. Vandenberg found himself at odds with then President Truman, who was pushing for the creation of NATO and the Marshall Plan.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he could easily have created a shadow foreign policy- undermining President Truman’s policies while at the same time pushing his own. Vandenberg did not of course, because he realized that as a member of the legislative branch of the Federal government, it was neither his responsibility nor that of any of his colleagues to dictate foreign policy. Foreign policy was undoubtedly the realm of the President.
Unfortunately, today’s legislators do not understand this. One in particular does not seem to be aware of the model that Senator Vandenberg created; she would rather create a shadow presidency at the expense of America than fulfill her proper role as Speaker of the House. Of course, Nancy Pelosi hasn’t understood her proper role since she became Speaker. It was clear to anyone watching her since last November that Pelosi felt (and clearly still feels) a large degree of empowerment. This was beyond evident when she requested her own Air Force Three to shuttle her back and forth between Washington DC and San Francisco. The President and Vice-president travel on Air Force planes, Ms. Pelosi, not congresswomen who represent a few hundred-thousand liberals in California.
As much as she may hate it, Speaker Pelosi must realize that the President of the United States, regardless of who it is, is the Commander in Chief, and thusly the head of foreign relations and diplomacy. It follows then that when the President sets a policy that the United States will not have relations with the leaders of radical, terrorist-supporting countries like Syria, that our other elected representatives fall in line and not have relations with the heads of these countries. Of course, Pelosi did just the opposite, and last week took a trip to Syria to meet President Bashar al-Assad- a man the US has been trying to isolate for several years now.
By meeting with Assad, Pelosi successfully undermined years-worth of American policy. In the one half-hour period that Pelosi met with Assad, the Syrian President (do not be fooled by the title, it is an inherited position) went from international outcast to legitimate ruling authority. This of course is the same man who organized the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister (an actual legitimate ruling authority) last summer, allows countless terrorists and fighters to stream over his border in to Iraq and is the second largest financier of terrorism behind Iran. It is not difficult to wonder why the US hasn’t had relations with him in so many years.
Despite the fact that Pelosi never should have been in Syria in the first place, she did a terrible job as a diplomat while there. In a press conference after meeting with Assad, Pelosi proclaimed that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. Of course, the Prime Minister of Israel said no such thing when he met with Pelosi earlier, and was forced to issue a press release saying nothing had in fact changed in Israel’s foreign policy.
This isn’t the end of it however. In the same press conference, Pelosi mischaracterized Syria’s position, and insisted that they too were ready for peace talks, seemingly heralding a new era in Israeli-Syrian relations. And just like the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Syria was forced to issue a statement essentially saying that Syria was still committed to the elimination of the State of Israel and the killing of Jews. It really sounds like Israel and Syria are ready for peace talks, doesn’t it?
Now that the congresswoman from San Francisco is back where she should be, I hope she will absorb the many criticisms that have been thrown her way. Speaker Pelosi needs to realize that she is in fact Speaker Pelosi, and not President Pelosi. Undoubtedly though, it will not be too far in the future to see her sleeping with our other wonderful friend, President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
If Pelosi is so concerned about America’s foreign relations, perhaps she should throw her name in the ring for 2008. I’m sure Hillary Clinton would welcome her.
One legislator, Arthur Vandenberg, understood this idea when he annunciated the above phrase. Prior to the speech in which he initially expressed this idea, Vandenberg had considered himself an isolationist. Times had changed, however, and in late 1945 the Cold War was already starting. Vandenberg found himself at odds with then President Truman, who was pushing for the creation of NATO and the Marshall Plan.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he could easily have created a shadow foreign policy- undermining President Truman’s policies while at the same time pushing his own. Vandenberg did not of course, because he realized that as a member of the legislative branch of the Federal government, it was neither his responsibility nor that of any of his colleagues to dictate foreign policy. Foreign policy was undoubtedly the realm of the President.
Unfortunately, today’s legislators do not understand this. One in particular does not seem to be aware of the model that Senator Vandenberg created; she would rather create a shadow presidency at the expense of America than fulfill her proper role as Speaker of the House. Of course, Nancy Pelosi hasn’t understood her proper role since she became Speaker. It was clear to anyone watching her since last November that Pelosi felt (and clearly still feels) a large degree of empowerment. This was beyond evident when she requested her own Air Force Three to shuttle her back and forth between Washington DC and San Francisco. The President and Vice-president travel on Air Force planes, Ms. Pelosi, not congresswomen who represent a few hundred-thousand liberals in California.
As much as she may hate it, Speaker Pelosi must realize that the President of the United States, regardless of who it is, is the Commander in Chief, and thusly the head of foreign relations and diplomacy. It follows then that when the President sets a policy that the United States will not have relations with the leaders of radical, terrorist-supporting countries like Syria, that our other elected representatives fall in line and not have relations with the heads of these countries. Of course, Pelosi did just the opposite, and last week took a trip to Syria to meet President Bashar al-Assad- a man the US has been trying to isolate for several years now.
By meeting with Assad, Pelosi successfully undermined years-worth of American policy. In the one half-hour period that Pelosi met with Assad, the Syrian President (do not be fooled by the title, it is an inherited position) went from international outcast to legitimate ruling authority. This of course is the same man who organized the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister (an actual legitimate ruling authority) last summer, allows countless terrorists and fighters to stream over his border in to Iraq and is the second largest financier of terrorism behind Iran. It is not difficult to wonder why the US hasn’t had relations with him in so many years.
Despite the fact that Pelosi never should have been in Syria in the first place, she did a terrible job as a diplomat while there. In a press conference after meeting with Assad, Pelosi proclaimed that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. Of course, the Prime Minister of Israel said no such thing when he met with Pelosi earlier, and was forced to issue a press release saying nothing had in fact changed in Israel’s foreign policy.
This isn’t the end of it however. In the same press conference, Pelosi mischaracterized Syria’s position, and insisted that they too were ready for peace talks, seemingly heralding a new era in Israeli-Syrian relations. And just like the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Syria was forced to issue a statement essentially saying that Syria was still committed to the elimination of the State of Israel and the killing of Jews. It really sounds like Israel and Syria are ready for peace talks, doesn’t it?
Now that the congresswoman from San Francisco is back where she should be, I hope she will absorb the many criticisms that have been thrown her way. Speaker Pelosi needs to realize that she is in fact Speaker Pelosi, and not President Pelosi. Undoubtedly though, it will not be too far in the future to see her sleeping with our other wonderful friend, President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
If Pelosi is so concerned about America’s foreign relations, perhaps she should throw her name in the ring for 2008. I’m sure Hillary Clinton would welcome her.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Resolution Opposing Troop Increase is a Bad Move
This past week, the US House of Representatives voted 246-182 to pass a non-binding resolution which states Congress’ opposition to President Bush’s proposed deployment of 21,500 more troops in Iraq. The resolution is short and to the point: “Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.” The Senate failed to pass the same resolution in their chamber as the result of a Republican filibuster.
While the resolution is non-binding, it is none the less significant. As stated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it is a precursor to other resolutions and bills which will seek to alter the President’s handling of the war. But it is significant for another reason as well: the Democrat controlled House has succeeded in undermining America’s mission in Iraq and made it clear to our enemies all over the world that we are not committed as a nation to solving this problem. Instead, Democrats would have the US cut and run- cutting our loses in the near term but eventually leaving an unstable Iraq which will not only become a home for terrorists but a play ground for Iran.
The folly of this resolution can be understood once the importance of succeeding in Iraq is understood. There are a minimum of two reasons why the US must stay in Iraq and win: 1. If you think the blood shed in Iraq is bad now, wait until the US leaves and the Iraqi government collapses as a result. The current Iraqi government is not strong enough or stable enough to govern effectively or at all in the case of American withdrawal. Many times more innocent Iraqi lives will be lost as the result of withdrawal than are dying now. 2. A strong and stable Iraq is a necessary counter-weight to Iran. With President Ahmadinejad seeking nuclear weapons, fostering closer ties with other US rivals like Hugo Chavez and asserting greater influence in the Middle East since the fall of Saddam, it is in the interest of the world to have a strong Iraq next door to him.
Interestingly, while Democrats bemoan the American lives that have been lost in Iraq (and rightfully so), they seem to ignore the 50,000+ Iraqi lives that have been lost as the result of sectarian violence and terrorism. The US has a responsibility to do everything in its power to quell this violence, mainly because we created the stage on which it is played out. If this means sending in 21,500 more troops, then we must do it. Likewise, as Democrats have already begun to criticize President Bush’s supposed saber-rattling against Iran, they fail to realize that for the last several decades, a strong Iraq has been keeping Iran in its place. Since the fall of Saddam, we have seen Iran more aggressively seek nuclear weapons and form closer ties with other American detractors. A strong Iraq could more successfully pressure Iran to stop these actions than the US or any other nation.
While the Democrats have done their damage, they have an opportunity to slightly redeem themselves this week when they will vote on the President’s requested $93 billion for military and war spending. Unfortunately such redemption seems unlikely. Leading Democrats have already said that they will seek to tie Bush’s hands on this appropriation and with Harry Reid’s statement that this week’s non-binding resolution was only a first step in changing policy, it seems the Democrats will dig America in to a deeper hole than it is actually in.
While the resolution is non-binding, it is none the less significant. As stated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it is a precursor to other resolutions and bills which will seek to alter the President’s handling of the war. But it is significant for another reason as well: the Democrat controlled House has succeeded in undermining America’s mission in Iraq and made it clear to our enemies all over the world that we are not committed as a nation to solving this problem. Instead, Democrats would have the US cut and run- cutting our loses in the near term but eventually leaving an unstable Iraq which will not only become a home for terrorists but a play ground for Iran.
The folly of this resolution can be understood once the importance of succeeding in Iraq is understood. There are a minimum of two reasons why the US must stay in Iraq and win: 1. If you think the blood shed in Iraq is bad now, wait until the US leaves and the Iraqi government collapses as a result. The current Iraqi government is not strong enough or stable enough to govern effectively or at all in the case of American withdrawal. Many times more innocent Iraqi lives will be lost as the result of withdrawal than are dying now. 2. A strong and stable Iraq is a necessary counter-weight to Iran. With President Ahmadinejad seeking nuclear weapons, fostering closer ties with other US rivals like Hugo Chavez and asserting greater influence in the Middle East since the fall of Saddam, it is in the interest of the world to have a strong Iraq next door to him.
Interestingly, while Democrats bemoan the American lives that have been lost in Iraq (and rightfully so), they seem to ignore the 50,000+ Iraqi lives that have been lost as the result of sectarian violence and terrorism. The US has a responsibility to do everything in its power to quell this violence, mainly because we created the stage on which it is played out. If this means sending in 21,500 more troops, then we must do it. Likewise, as Democrats have already begun to criticize President Bush’s supposed saber-rattling against Iran, they fail to realize that for the last several decades, a strong Iraq has been keeping Iran in its place. Since the fall of Saddam, we have seen Iran more aggressively seek nuclear weapons and form closer ties with other American detractors. A strong Iraq could more successfully pressure Iran to stop these actions than the US or any other nation.
While the Democrats have done their damage, they have an opportunity to slightly redeem themselves this week when they will vote on the President’s requested $93 billion for military and war spending. Unfortunately such redemption seems unlikely. Leading Democrats have already said that they will seek to tie Bush’s hands on this appropriation and with Harry Reid’s statement that this week’s non-binding resolution was only a first step in changing policy, it seems the Democrats will dig America in to a deeper hole than it is actually in.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
US Needs to be Tougher on Hugo Chavez
When Adolf Hitler rose to power, he asserted that the dire circumstances that Germany had fallen in to were problems enough for him to assume dictatorial powers. He promised to fix these problems, while at the same time allying himself with other foreign despots and rattling his saber. Everyone knows what happened after this. Unfortunately what some people do not realize is that the US very well might have a miniature if not equally scary tyrant saber rattling very close to our own border. Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, has embarked on a thoroughly anti-American and anti-capitalist crusade since his rise to power in 1999. His hateful rhetoric and radical policies have given rise to a very real problem for America and one that must be dealt with before it gets out of hand.
On January 31, the Venezuelan National Assembly gave Hugo Chavez the right to rule by decree for 18 months. Put simply, the Venezuelan National Assembly essentially gave up the few democratic powers they had maintained up to this point and has made Chavez dictator of their country. Perhaps this wouldn’t be such a problem if we were talking about Fiji or some other small and discreet country, but Venezuela is a completely different situation. Although we normally associate oil with the Middle East, Venezuela is possibly sitting on the single largest oil reserve in the world by many estimates. Likewise, the US receives about 10% of its oil imports from Venezuela, making it one of our largest oil trading partners.
The idea of having such a large oil producer so close to our borders should excite the US because of the possibility of cheaper oil, but President Hugo Chavez has embarked on a mission of using Venezuela’s oil as a weapon. He has begun the process of nationalizing Venezuela’s oil industry, even at the expense of foreign oil companies, and has promised to take his product to a non-American market. He has also made a request of OPEC to cut back oil supplies so the price of oil in America would increase even beyond its current astronomical rate.
But while Chavez attempts to increase prices in America, he is also playing games with America’s poor. Chavez has begun to offer discounted and even free heating oil for the winter to poor Americans who can not afford it otherwise. While this may seem like a benevolent action on his part, we must keep in mind that as he provides oil for the poor, and subsequently makes himself look like a hero, he is also purposely holding back oil in order to increase the price. Essentially, Chavez is creating a problem, and then giving the appearance of fixing it and in doing so undermining America on its own soil. If he were truly concerned about America’s poor, he would increase production of oil, thusly decreasing its price, and therefore allowing for more poor Americans to afford it.
Chavez’s actions do not stop with his oil shenanigans however. Besides cozying up with Fidel Castro and other socialist dictators in Latin and South America, he has also started a warm relationship with an avid Holocaust denier, the President of Iran. These two dictators, who are as radical as they are anti-American, have begun to challenge the US at every step, and even actively undermine it, as is Iran’s case in Iraq.
The Bush administration backed an unsuccessful coupe in 2002 against Chavez, but more must be done. Anti-American dictators with significant economic might, regional influence and powerful anti-American allies must not be allowed to go un-fettered. The US must rally the few Latin and South American countries who oppose Chavez’s burgeoning influence in their region to assert their own influence and stand up to Chavez. Likewise, as Chavez courts America’s poor, it should not be beyond the US to court Venezuela’s poor, who make up Chavez’s political base. By offering food, farming technology and other goods that could better the lives of Venezuela’s poor, America could very well better its own image and defeat the myth that has been created amongst these poor that Chavez is their way out of poverty.
On January 31, the Venezuelan National Assembly gave Hugo Chavez the right to rule by decree for 18 months. Put simply, the Venezuelan National Assembly essentially gave up the few democratic powers they had maintained up to this point and has made Chavez dictator of their country. Perhaps this wouldn’t be such a problem if we were talking about Fiji or some other small and discreet country, but Venezuela is a completely different situation. Although we normally associate oil with the Middle East, Venezuela is possibly sitting on the single largest oil reserve in the world by many estimates. Likewise, the US receives about 10% of its oil imports from Venezuela, making it one of our largest oil trading partners.
The idea of having such a large oil producer so close to our borders should excite the US because of the possibility of cheaper oil, but President Hugo Chavez has embarked on a mission of using Venezuela’s oil as a weapon. He has begun the process of nationalizing Venezuela’s oil industry, even at the expense of foreign oil companies, and has promised to take his product to a non-American market. He has also made a request of OPEC to cut back oil supplies so the price of oil in America would increase even beyond its current astronomical rate.
But while Chavez attempts to increase prices in America, he is also playing games with America’s poor. Chavez has begun to offer discounted and even free heating oil for the winter to poor Americans who can not afford it otherwise. While this may seem like a benevolent action on his part, we must keep in mind that as he provides oil for the poor, and subsequently makes himself look like a hero, he is also purposely holding back oil in order to increase the price. Essentially, Chavez is creating a problem, and then giving the appearance of fixing it and in doing so undermining America on its own soil. If he were truly concerned about America’s poor, he would increase production of oil, thusly decreasing its price, and therefore allowing for more poor Americans to afford it.
Chavez’s actions do not stop with his oil shenanigans however. Besides cozying up with Fidel Castro and other socialist dictators in Latin and South America, he has also started a warm relationship with an avid Holocaust denier, the President of Iran. These two dictators, who are as radical as they are anti-American, have begun to challenge the US at every step, and even actively undermine it, as is Iran’s case in Iraq.
The Bush administration backed an unsuccessful coupe in 2002 against Chavez, but more must be done. Anti-American dictators with significant economic might, regional influence and powerful anti-American allies must not be allowed to go un-fettered. The US must rally the few Latin and South American countries who oppose Chavez’s burgeoning influence in their region to assert their own influence and stand up to Chavez. Likewise, as Chavez courts America’s poor, it should not be beyond the US to court Venezuela’s poor, who make up Chavez’s political base. By offering food, farming technology and other goods that could better the lives of Venezuela’s poor, America could very well better its own image and defeat the myth that has been created amongst these poor that Chavez is their way out of poverty.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
US Must do more to Combat Iran's Influence
President Bush revealed this week that he has authorized the American military in Iraq to capture or kill Iranian operatives who are engaged in activities that are killing US soldiers and Iraqi civilians or helping Iraqi militias in doing the same. It appears that along with fighting American and Iraqi government forces themselves, the Iranians have been providing terrorist groups and militias with Improvised Explosive Devices, or IED’s, which have accounted for approximately seventy percent of US military casualties.
President Bush has made the correct choice in deciding to take strong and decisive action against these Iranian operatives. Iran’s leaders, specifically President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, must be taught a lesson: Iran will not be allowed to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors by sowing chaos in an attempt to become the regional power. If executed correctly, this new policy in Iraq could have longer reaching effects than simply saving American and Iraqi lives; it will give the United States a stronger diplomatic hand in dealing with Iran in regards to its nuclear ambitions. This increased diplomatic weight will be especially important considering reports are now surfacing that Iran has authorized the installation of 3,00 centrifuges, which are necessary for enriching uranium for nuclear devices.
Iran has become increasingly brazen and ambitious with its nuclear plans and UN sanctions against it are set to expire in about a month, with no accomplishments to be seen. Although UN sanctions are hardly ever effective, some in the US have criticized Bush’s new policy. They contend that killing and capturing Iranian operatives in Iraq could provoke Iran to strike back against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are two points that must be understood here.
First of all, Iran can not be provoked in this situation. Quite contrary, Iran has actually provoked the United States. By actively supporting terrorist groups and undermining the legitimate Iraqi government, Iran has forced the US to respond in this manner. Could anyone reasonably expect the US to stand by idly as its troops are killed and resources drained by an active but semi-clandestine aggressor?
Secondly, Iran can respond in one of at least two ways to this new policy. It can either increase the amount of operatives it has in Iraq or pursue a more open and militaristic campaign against the United States. Both are highly unlikely, however. The former is unlikely because it is within Iran’s interest to be undermining the US as much as possible. This means that Iran is most likely already utilizing the majority of its available resources to get this done in Iraq. It seems improbable that Iran would contribute many more troops or resources to its operations in Iraq, because it should already be doing so.
Iran’s second possible response seems even less likely than the first for several strategic reasons. Iran is bordered on two sides by Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US maintains large military garrisons. In the event that Iran did decide to take up open arms against the US, it would be facing an immediate two front war. Likewise, the US has increased its naval presence in the Persian Gulf in recent weeks. On top of this large and domineering American military presence, the majority of Middle Eastern nations are opposed to Iran’s ambitions. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and a number of other Sunni-dominated countries might not take up open arms against an Iranian aggressor, but they would certainly do everything else they could to aid in its defeat.
It appears then that Iran is in between a rock and a hard place. It does not have the military ability or allies to take up open arms against the US and it is perhaps one of the few nations in the world who have even less credibility on the world stage than the US. Despite these truths though, Iran still poses as one of the greatest threats to American and Middle Eastern interests in the world. Its very real and burgeoning nuclear ambitions and capabilities are a real trouble spot.
Because of this, the US should be doing even more to combat Iran’s influence. The US should be networking with dissident religious and political groups within Iran who are opposed to Ahmadinejad’s radical rule. If these groups can be provided with the knowledge and resources to either overthrow Ahmadinejad, weaken his power or defeat him in election, his ability to undermine the US in Iraq will be weakened. While UN sanctions will never amount to anything substantial, it is important to pursue as tough of sanctions as possible because as Iran refuses to follow them, it continues to lose credibility with member nations. As Iran loses credibility, it becomes easier for the US to mount a case against it.
President Bush has made the correct decision in capturing and killing Iranian operatives, but he should take this policy one step further, and actively undermine Iran. It is the only way to better the chances of American success in Iraq, create long-term stability in the region and lessen the chances of more conflict in the future.
President Bush has made the correct choice in deciding to take strong and decisive action against these Iranian operatives. Iran’s leaders, specifically President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, must be taught a lesson: Iran will not be allowed to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors by sowing chaos in an attempt to become the regional power. If executed correctly, this new policy in Iraq could have longer reaching effects than simply saving American and Iraqi lives; it will give the United States a stronger diplomatic hand in dealing with Iran in regards to its nuclear ambitions. This increased diplomatic weight will be especially important considering reports are now surfacing that Iran has authorized the installation of 3,00 centrifuges, which are necessary for enriching uranium for nuclear devices.
Iran has become increasingly brazen and ambitious with its nuclear plans and UN sanctions against it are set to expire in about a month, with no accomplishments to be seen. Although UN sanctions are hardly ever effective, some in the US have criticized Bush’s new policy. They contend that killing and capturing Iranian operatives in Iraq could provoke Iran to strike back against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are two points that must be understood here.
First of all, Iran can not be provoked in this situation. Quite contrary, Iran has actually provoked the United States. By actively supporting terrorist groups and undermining the legitimate Iraqi government, Iran has forced the US to respond in this manner. Could anyone reasonably expect the US to stand by idly as its troops are killed and resources drained by an active but semi-clandestine aggressor?
Secondly, Iran can respond in one of at least two ways to this new policy. It can either increase the amount of operatives it has in Iraq or pursue a more open and militaristic campaign against the United States. Both are highly unlikely, however. The former is unlikely because it is within Iran’s interest to be undermining the US as much as possible. This means that Iran is most likely already utilizing the majority of its available resources to get this done in Iraq. It seems improbable that Iran would contribute many more troops or resources to its operations in Iraq, because it should already be doing so.
Iran’s second possible response seems even less likely than the first for several strategic reasons. Iran is bordered on two sides by Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US maintains large military garrisons. In the event that Iran did decide to take up open arms against the US, it would be facing an immediate two front war. Likewise, the US has increased its naval presence in the Persian Gulf in recent weeks. On top of this large and domineering American military presence, the majority of Middle Eastern nations are opposed to Iran’s ambitions. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and a number of other Sunni-dominated countries might not take up open arms against an Iranian aggressor, but they would certainly do everything else they could to aid in its defeat.
It appears then that Iran is in between a rock and a hard place. It does not have the military ability or allies to take up open arms against the US and it is perhaps one of the few nations in the world who have even less credibility on the world stage than the US. Despite these truths though, Iran still poses as one of the greatest threats to American and Middle Eastern interests in the world. Its very real and burgeoning nuclear ambitions and capabilities are a real trouble spot.
Because of this, the US should be doing even more to combat Iran’s influence. The US should be networking with dissident religious and political groups within Iran who are opposed to Ahmadinejad’s radical rule. If these groups can be provided with the knowledge and resources to either overthrow Ahmadinejad, weaken his power or defeat him in election, his ability to undermine the US in Iraq will be weakened. While UN sanctions will never amount to anything substantial, it is important to pursue as tough of sanctions as possible because as Iran refuses to follow them, it continues to lose credibility with member nations. As Iran loses credibility, it becomes easier for the US to mount a case against it.
President Bush has made the correct decision in capturing and killing Iranian operatives, but he should take this policy one step further, and actively undermine Iran. It is the only way to better the chances of American success in Iraq, create long-term stability in the region and lessen the chances of more conflict in the future.
First Muslim Congressman to be Sworn in on Koran
Keith Ellison is one of the newest members of Congress, and will also be the first Muslim to serve in that body. He hasn’t been sworn in, yet already he is causing controversy. As the result of his Islamic background, Ellison has opted to be sworn in to Congress using the Koran, or Islam’s bible, rather than the Christian Bible, which is used by nearly every other congressmen.
Apparently this minor gesture has riled several conservative commentators, most notably Dennis Prager, a columnist and talk radio show host. In a controversial article on Townhall.com, Prager argues, “He [Keith Ellison] should not be allowed to do so [be sworn in on the Koran]…because the act undermines American civilization.” He goes on to say that, “…America is interested in only one book, the Bible” and even ends his article by saying that if Keith Ellison is allowed to be sworn in on the Koran, he will “…be doing more damage to the unity of America…than the terrorists of 9-11.”
Prager’s shocking comments are not only out of line but completely ill-advised. He seems to lack an understanding of basic American ideals and appears to be driven more by a disdain for Islam and the Koran than any logical or acceptable philosophical argument. In the true spirit of America, Keith Ellison should not only be allowed to be sworn in on the Bible, but should do so proudly as he continues a long American heritage of religious freedom and tolerance.
Prager’s contentions seem to be based upon the presumption that America is not only a Christian nation now, but was founded on Christian ideals. The mere fact that most Americans are Christian does not make America itself Christian. The majority of Americans are also white, but we do not say that America itself is a white nation. In reality, America was not founded on Christian ideals either, but on the philosophical products of the Enlightenment. John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau influenced the establishment of America more than Jesus and St. Peter.
We can not ignore the fact that the Founders believed in unalienable rights “endowed by their Creator”, but we also can not take this statement and similar ones to extremes, and believe that the Founder’s philosophical and political inspiration was Christian in nature. The idea of rights to life, liberty and property did not come from some letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, but rather from the mind of John Locke.
Prager’s second idea regarding American unity is so radically ridiculous that it borders on the laughable. Massive tragedies like9-11 act as unifying forces. People are drawn together out of patriotism and a common idea of fraternity. 9-11 did not damage America’s unity. In fact, it did more to unify America than any event since Pearl Harbor. After 9-11, every house had an American flag on it, and the entire country wanted to strike back at Al Qaeda. The fact is that President Bush’s controversial tactics for fighting terrorism and questionable rationale for war have served as the greatest harbinger of disunity for America. Ellison’s swearing in will do nothing to affect this unity.
Dennis Prager writes, “If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress.” Apparently he feels it is necessary to put our elected officials under a religious test in order for them to serve in office. Unfortunately the American people do not elect Bishops of the Church, in which case it would make perfect sense to put them under a religious test. Instead, we elect public officials who represent all of their constituents, not just small homogenous parts. Interestingly, this concept is in direct violation of the Constitution, of which Article Six reads, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Keith Ellison should take his oath of office on the Koran, and all of us should be proud when he does. To force a person to swear an oath on a religious text that they do not believe in is un-American. When this country’s earliest settlers began the creation of a new nation, they did not do so as Puritans, but as the victims of religious discrimination under a tyrannical King of England. Ellison’s swearing in is merely another step in America’s expanding and progressive religious tolerance.
Apparently this minor gesture has riled several conservative commentators, most notably Dennis Prager, a columnist and talk radio show host. In a controversial article on Townhall.com, Prager argues, “He [Keith Ellison] should not be allowed to do so [be sworn in on the Koran]…because the act undermines American civilization.” He goes on to say that, “…America is interested in only one book, the Bible” and even ends his article by saying that if Keith Ellison is allowed to be sworn in on the Koran, he will “…be doing more damage to the unity of America…than the terrorists of 9-11.”
Prager’s shocking comments are not only out of line but completely ill-advised. He seems to lack an understanding of basic American ideals and appears to be driven more by a disdain for Islam and the Koran than any logical or acceptable philosophical argument. In the true spirit of America, Keith Ellison should not only be allowed to be sworn in on the Bible, but should do so proudly as he continues a long American heritage of religious freedom and tolerance.
Prager’s contentions seem to be based upon the presumption that America is not only a Christian nation now, but was founded on Christian ideals. The mere fact that most Americans are Christian does not make America itself Christian. The majority of Americans are also white, but we do not say that America itself is a white nation. In reality, America was not founded on Christian ideals either, but on the philosophical products of the Enlightenment. John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau influenced the establishment of America more than Jesus and St. Peter.
We can not ignore the fact that the Founders believed in unalienable rights “endowed by their Creator”, but we also can not take this statement and similar ones to extremes, and believe that the Founder’s philosophical and political inspiration was Christian in nature. The idea of rights to life, liberty and property did not come from some letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, but rather from the mind of John Locke.
Prager’s second idea regarding American unity is so radically ridiculous that it borders on the laughable. Massive tragedies like9-11 act as unifying forces. People are drawn together out of patriotism and a common idea of fraternity. 9-11 did not damage America’s unity. In fact, it did more to unify America than any event since Pearl Harbor. After 9-11, every house had an American flag on it, and the entire country wanted to strike back at Al Qaeda. The fact is that President Bush’s controversial tactics for fighting terrorism and questionable rationale for war have served as the greatest harbinger of disunity for America. Ellison’s swearing in will do nothing to affect this unity.
Dennis Prager writes, “If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress.” Apparently he feels it is necessary to put our elected officials under a religious test in order for them to serve in office. Unfortunately the American people do not elect Bishops of the Church, in which case it would make perfect sense to put them under a religious test. Instead, we elect public officials who represent all of their constituents, not just small homogenous parts. Interestingly, this concept is in direct violation of the Constitution, of which Article Six reads, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Keith Ellison should take his oath of office on the Koran, and all of us should be proud when he does. To force a person to swear an oath on a religious text that they do not believe in is un-American. When this country’s earliest settlers began the creation of a new nation, they did not do so as Puritans, but as the victims of religious discrimination under a tyrannical King of England. Ellison’s swearing in is merely another step in America’s expanding and progressive religious tolerance.
Immigration
This Monday, a Los Angeles court will decide whether Jonathan Martinez, 10, who illegally arrived in the US two years ago, will be deported to El Salvador, or allowed to stay with his legal mother in California. Martinez left El Salvador at the age of eight when the aunt he was staying with was hospitalized. Since then, she has left El Salvador and Martinez’s mother contends that he has no one in that country with whom to stay. While his mother has been living and working in Los Angeles legally for several years, a loophole in current immigration law does not allow her to apply for her son’s permanence.
This loophole represents an unfortunate but common example in America’s poorly constructed immigration laws, which are in desperate need of complete revamping. These laws should reflect a strong commitment to the Rule of Law, or the idea that the Law applies equally to everyone, but also give authorities the ability to take in to consideration extenuating circumstances.
Martinez’s case is one of extenuating circumstance. Here we have a ten year old boy (who has more courage than most full grown men in coming so far), whose family has essentially abandoned him and whom if returned to El Salvador would have no home to go to. To send this child back to El Salvador would be terrible judgment on behalf of the court and echo the American tragedy of Elian Gonzalez.
But this issue must be put in the larger context of America’s immigration woes. While massive amounts of illegal immigrants pour over the border every day, the two houses of Congress have failed to reconcile their different bills in defiance of American will and interest. America requires a comprehensive immigration plan that provides a guest worker program and stringent enforcement of our borders. To ignore the need for these is to ignore any far reaching solution to this issue. Radicals on both sides of the aisle provide a disservice to our country when they only support one or the other.
While law and order conservatives oppose any guest worker program, they fail to realize the need for workers who do the jobs that most American citizens won’t. The argument that immigrants steal American jobs is a false one. The current unemployment rate is approximately 4.7%. Any reasonable economist will tell you that this number is as good as zero.
While open border liberals will support nothing but amnesty and bi-lingual education, they fail to realize the need to seriously patrol and enforce our borders. Terrorists, criminals and drug dealers are not stupid. If they can get in to our country via unguarded border rather than through security ridden airports and other legal ports of entry, they will do so. Stringent enforcement of our borders is necessary to protect our homeland.
Of course immigration is a significantly larger and more complex topic whose intricacies can not be dealt with in such a small space, but the Los Angeles court which will be deciding on Martinez’s case on Monday have the opportunity to make a statement: America recognizes the illegality of your being here, but America also has a heart. By allowing this courageous boy to stay in America, the court would also make the statement that America understands what it did to Elian Gonzalez was wrong, and it won’t do it again.
This loophole represents an unfortunate but common example in America’s poorly constructed immigration laws, which are in desperate need of complete revamping. These laws should reflect a strong commitment to the Rule of Law, or the idea that the Law applies equally to everyone, but also give authorities the ability to take in to consideration extenuating circumstances.
Martinez’s case is one of extenuating circumstance. Here we have a ten year old boy (who has more courage than most full grown men in coming so far), whose family has essentially abandoned him and whom if returned to El Salvador would have no home to go to. To send this child back to El Salvador would be terrible judgment on behalf of the court and echo the American tragedy of Elian Gonzalez.
But this issue must be put in the larger context of America’s immigration woes. While massive amounts of illegal immigrants pour over the border every day, the two houses of Congress have failed to reconcile their different bills in defiance of American will and interest. America requires a comprehensive immigration plan that provides a guest worker program and stringent enforcement of our borders. To ignore the need for these is to ignore any far reaching solution to this issue. Radicals on both sides of the aisle provide a disservice to our country when they only support one or the other.
While law and order conservatives oppose any guest worker program, they fail to realize the need for workers who do the jobs that most American citizens won’t. The argument that immigrants steal American jobs is a false one. The current unemployment rate is approximately 4.7%. Any reasonable economist will tell you that this number is as good as zero.
While open border liberals will support nothing but amnesty and bi-lingual education, they fail to realize the need to seriously patrol and enforce our borders. Terrorists, criminals and drug dealers are not stupid. If they can get in to our country via unguarded border rather than through security ridden airports and other legal ports of entry, they will do so. Stringent enforcement of our borders is necessary to protect our homeland.
Of course immigration is a significantly larger and more complex topic whose intricacies can not be dealt with in such a small space, but the Los Angeles court which will be deciding on Martinez’s case on Monday have the opportunity to make a statement: America recognizes the illegality of your being here, but America also has a heart. By allowing this courageous boy to stay in America, the court would also make the statement that America understands what it did to Elian Gonzalez was wrong, and it won’t do it again.
The Netherlands' Burka Ban
This week the Dutch parliament voted to ban the wearing of the burka, a traditional Muslim garb worn by women which covers everything but their eyes, outside of the home. Geert Wilders is the Dutch MP who first suggested the idea. He claims the ban is necessary for two reasons: integration and security. While I am sure Wilders has good intentions, his reasons for this ban are incredulous. The ban is a blatant attack on religious liberty and should be revoked.
Wilders’ first contention that the burka impedes the integration of Muslim communities in to mainstream Holland would be sound if massive amounts of women were wearing the garment and refused to ever take it off. However, this is not the case. According to the BBC, a mere fifty Muslim women wear the burka in Holland, a country of millions of people. If these fifty women are seriously disrupting the cultural integration of Holland then it would appear that country has some very deep problems.
Famala Aslam, a Muslim attorney in Holland, makes the point that many moderate Muslim women, who do not necessarily wear the burka, may start doing so as the result of a perceived attack on their faith. If this is true, the ban would ultimately have the reverse effects it was intended to. Rather than integrate Muslim women in to society, it will create a larger population of burka wearing women who wish to make a political statement.
As to Wilders’ security contention, there seems little true reason within his point, especially considering the amount of women who wear the burka. If these women are going to strap a suicide belt to themselves, they are probably going to detonate it somewhere that security won’t be able to search them. In this case, whether or not they wear a burka is irrelevant. They could wear baggy clothes or even large jackets. They know their chances of smuggling something on to a plane in this post 9-11 world are essentially non-existent. This ban does little to nothing to decrease this likelihood nor does it make any other venue safer.
Wilders’ reasons for this law may be flawed, but there are other serious implications that need to be taken in to account as well. Most notably, this ban is a serious infringement on religious freedom. The burka is very much a religious symbol. It is a visible profession of a woman’s inner faith. While it may seem foreign to many westerners, it is no different than wearing a cross around your neck or wearing a yarmulke, other than the fact that most people in Western culture don’t wear burkas.
If the Dutch government were to ban Christians from wearing crosses on their necks or Jews from wearing skull caps, people would be rioting in the streets and yelling “Fascist! Fascist!” Oddly enough, Geert Wilders is able to say about the burka, “It’s a medieval symbol...” Could you imagine how offended you would be not only as a Muslim, but as any person of minority status if a religious or social practice of yours was referred to as “medieval” by an upper member of government and then outlawed?
If the Dutch government is able to ban burkas, we must wonder what will be next. Will they ban mosques, because these too are medieval? Will they extend bans to target other minorities as well? Interestingly, we need only look a few countries over to see how far European nations are willing to go in their knee jerk reaction to large levels of immigration. In Belgium, not only is the burka banned, but so is the niqab, another traditional form of Muslim dress that only covers the head with a scarf. In 2004, the French government enacted a ban in all of its public schools that bars religious clothing and symbolism of all kinds, including traditional Christian and Jewish crosses and yarmulkes.
Unfortunately, it does not seem that true religious freedom will come back to Europe anytime soon. There was little disagreement over this Dutch ban and even less outrage. We must all keep in mind that while this ban may not affect a large population, it is just as terrible that it affects a small one. It sets a precedent in Holland that if your beliefs and practices clash with the established majority’s, your beliefs and practices will likely not be tolerated. This burka ban does nothing to increase security, does less to promote integration and is a terrible trampling of religious rights. It should be lifted immediately.
Wilders’ first contention that the burka impedes the integration of Muslim communities in to mainstream Holland would be sound if massive amounts of women were wearing the garment and refused to ever take it off. However, this is not the case. According to the BBC, a mere fifty Muslim women wear the burka in Holland, a country of millions of people. If these fifty women are seriously disrupting the cultural integration of Holland then it would appear that country has some very deep problems.
Famala Aslam, a Muslim attorney in Holland, makes the point that many moderate Muslim women, who do not necessarily wear the burka, may start doing so as the result of a perceived attack on their faith. If this is true, the ban would ultimately have the reverse effects it was intended to. Rather than integrate Muslim women in to society, it will create a larger population of burka wearing women who wish to make a political statement.
As to Wilders’ security contention, there seems little true reason within his point, especially considering the amount of women who wear the burka. If these women are going to strap a suicide belt to themselves, they are probably going to detonate it somewhere that security won’t be able to search them. In this case, whether or not they wear a burka is irrelevant. They could wear baggy clothes or even large jackets. They know their chances of smuggling something on to a plane in this post 9-11 world are essentially non-existent. This ban does little to nothing to decrease this likelihood nor does it make any other venue safer.
Wilders’ reasons for this law may be flawed, but there are other serious implications that need to be taken in to account as well. Most notably, this ban is a serious infringement on religious freedom. The burka is very much a religious symbol. It is a visible profession of a woman’s inner faith. While it may seem foreign to many westerners, it is no different than wearing a cross around your neck or wearing a yarmulke, other than the fact that most people in Western culture don’t wear burkas.
If the Dutch government were to ban Christians from wearing crosses on their necks or Jews from wearing skull caps, people would be rioting in the streets and yelling “Fascist! Fascist!” Oddly enough, Geert Wilders is able to say about the burka, “It’s a medieval symbol...” Could you imagine how offended you would be not only as a Muslim, but as any person of minority status if a religious or social practice of yours was referred to as “medieval” by an upper member of government and then outlawed?
If the Dutch government is able to ban burkas, we must wonder what will be next. Will they ban mosques, because these too are medieval? Will they extend bans to target other minorities as well? Interestingly, we need only look a few countries over to see how far European nations are willing to go in their knee jerk reaction to large levels of immigration. In Belgium, not only is the burka banned, but so is the niqab, another traditional form of Muslim dress that only covers the head with a scarf. In 2004, the French government enacted a ban in all of its public schools that bars religious clothing and symbolism of all kinds, including traditional Christian and Jewish crosses and yarmulkes.
Unfortunately, it does not seem that true religious freedom will come back to Europe anytime soon. There was little disagreement over this Dutch ban and even less outrage. We must all keep in mind that while this ban may not affect a large population, it is just as terrible that it affects a small one. It sets a precedent in Holland that if your beliefs and practices clash with the established majority’s, your beliefs and practices will likely not be tolerated. This burka ban does nothing to increase security, does less to promote integration and is a terrible trampling of religious rights. It should be lifted immediately.
The Patriot Act and Our Civil Liberties
In a letter to Senators Leahy and Specter of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed this week that the Bush Administration will cease its practice of using warrantless wiretaps on the communications of people expected of ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Instead, the Administration will go through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was created in 1970 to review requests for warrants to conduct surveillance inside the United States.
Although surprising, this change in Administration policy is a welcomed and necessary shift. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush secretly approved the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), which allowed law enforcement officials to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and terrorist associates without court order or review. Instead, the President himself reviewed the cases every forty-five days. Although this act was created with the best of intentions (as many controversial programs after large national tragedies seem to be), it was flawed in a number of respects.
First of all, it increased the power of law enforcement and thusly the Executive Branch when it did not need to be increased. The ability to eavesdrop on suspected terrorist communications in our country quickly has been available since at least 1970, when the FISA Court was established. There is no recorded (or at least public) instance where the FBI or any other federal agency lost valuable information or an actual attack happened as the result of the FISA Court either not being quick enough or denying a request for a warrant. The difference between the FISA Court and the TSP is that the former offers oversight as well as checks and balances while the latter does not.
This leads in to a second and perhaps the most important flaw of the TSP: the opportunity for abuses of power and infringement on civil liberties is too great to let stand. While it may not be the intention of the Bush Administration and Federal Agencies to walk over our civil liberties, good intentions are not sound enough assurance of their protection. We should not expect to give up certain rights either temporarily or in permanence in order to be safe. Fortunately, safety can be attained as we simultaneously enjoy the rights that we have been doing so up to September 11, 2001.
Unfortunately, however, the Bush Administration does not seem to believe this. They have persisted in creating programs and practices which have run ruff shod over numerous civil liberties. Their main avenue for such abuses has been the Patriot Act, specifically section 215. This section allows investigators to peer in to the reading and internet habits of suspected terrorists in public libraries. While this may not seem to be as large an offense as warrantless wiretapping, it is none the less warrantless and much more so an invasion of privacy.
Supporters of the program will often say that they do not care if the government sees what they have been reading or looking at on the internet, but I will offer a “what if situation” in response. What if the FBI suspected terrorists were planning an underwater attack on a port or harbor on the West Coast, and so decided to obtain the names and addresses of anyone who had taken out books on diving from public libraries in California? Perhaps this does not sound too egregious, but what if the Government then went one step further and sought the names and addresses of everyone in a particular area who had taken diving lessons or bought scuba gear from local scuba shops? Now the government is not only looking at the records of public institutions but those of private enterprises. Unfortunately this situation is not far fetched, as a very similar one is occurring in California at the moment.
But these particular civil liberty abuses are not the worst of all in comparison to what Vice President Dick Cheney discussed on Fox News Sunday. Cheney attempted to defend the idea that the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people’s rights as they examine the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and other suspects. He said, “The Defense Department gets involved because we’ve got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets.” If worrying about the NSA, FBI and other traditional law enforcement groups spying on us was not enough, we can now add to the list the Defense Department (which traditionally fights Nazis and other foreign armies) and the CIA (which traditionally spies on and disrupts our enemies’ activities overseas).
As it becomes more apparent every week that our government is actively and unapologetically spying on an untold number of loyal and patriotic Americans, it becomes difficult not to feel a great sense of unease about living our daily lives- not in fear of Al Qaeda killing us, but our own government keeping tabs on us. We must accept an unwanted fact if we are to recover our civil liberties unabridged: terrorism will never, ever be exterminated. Bush is wrong when he says the war on terrorism will be a long war- it will be a war that outlasts anyone who is reading this editorial. Terrorism will never disappear because there will always be people who hate America enough to hurt her and her people. If terrorism will never be completely defeated, are we to live under the ominous shroud of our government forever? We should keep in mind Ben Franklin’s saying, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Although surprising, this change in Administration policy is a welcomed and necessary shift. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush secretly approved the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), which allowed law enforcement officials to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and terrorist associates without court order or review. Instead, the President himself reviewed the cases every forty-five days. Although this act was created with the best of intentions (as many controversial programs after large national tragedies seem to be), it was flawed in a number of respects.
First of all, it increased the power of law enforcement and thusly the Executive Branch when it did not need to be increased. The ability to eavesdrop on suspected terrorist communications in our country quickly has been available since at least 1970, when the FISA Court was established. There is no recorded (or at least public) instance where the FBI or any other federal agency lost valuable information or an actual attack happened as the result of the FISA Court either not being quick enough or denying a request for a warrant. The difference between the FISA Court and the TSP is that the former offers oversight as well as checks and balances while the latter does not.
This leads in to a second and perhaps the most important flaw of the TSP: the opportunity for abuses of power and infringement on civil liberties is too great to let stand. While it may not be the intention of the Bush Administration and Federal Agencies to walk over our civil liberties, good intentions are not sound enough assurance of their protection. We should not expect to give up certain rights either temporarily or in permanence in order to be safe. Fortunately, safety can be attained as we simultaneously enjoy the rights that we have been doing so up to September 11, 2001.
Unfortunately, however, the Bush Administration does not seem to believe this. They have persisted in creating programs and practices which have run ruff shod over numerous civil liberties. Their main avenue for such abuses has been the Patriot Act, specifically section 215. This section allows investigators to peer in to the reading and internet habits of suspected terrorists in public libraries. While this may not seem to be as large an offense as warrantless wiretapping, it is none the less warrantless and much more so an invasion of privacy.
Supporters of the program will often say that they do not care if the government sees what they have been reading or looking at on the internet, but I will offer a “what if situation” in response. What if the FBI suspected terrorists were planning an underwater attack on a port or harbor on the West Coast, and so decided to obtain the names and addresses of anyone who had taken out books on diving from public libraries in California? Perhaps this does not sound too egregious, but what if the Government then went one step further and sought the names and addresses of everyone in a particular area who had taken diving lessons or bought scuba gear from local scuba shops? Now the government is not only looking at the records of public institutions but those of private enterprises. Unfortunately this situation is not far fetched, as a very similar one is occurring in California at the moment.
But these particular civil liberty abuses are not the worst of all in comparison to what Vice President Dick Cheney discussed on Fox News Sunday. Cheney attempted to defend the idea that the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people’s rights as they examine the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and other suspects. He said, “The Defense Department gets involved because we’ve got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets.” If worrying about the NSA, FBI and other traditional law enforcement groups spying on us was not enough, we can now add to the list the Defense Department (which traditionally fights Nazis and other foreign armies) and the CIA (which traditionally spies on and disrupts our enemies’ activities overseas).
As it becomes more apparent every week that our government is actively and unapologetically spying on an untold number of loyal and patriotic Americans, it becomes difficult not to feel a great sense of unease about living our daily lives- not in fear of Al Qaeda killing us, but our own government keeping tabs on us. We must accept an unwanted fact if we are to recover our civil liberties unabridged: terrorism will never, ever be exterminated. Bush is wrong when he says the war on terrorism will be a long war- it will be a war that outlasts anyone who is reading this editorial. Terrorism will never disappear because there will always be people who hate America enough to hurt her and her people. If terrorism will never be completely defeated, are we to live under the ominous shroud of our government forever? We should keep in mind Ben Franklin’s saying, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)