In the last few years, a new phenomenon has risen on the political landscape. Almost immediately, it became known as the “Tea Party Movement,” a reference to the well-known incident in Boston in 1773. American colonists, revolting against the imposition of British taxes, dumped an entire shipment of tea into the harbor. Since then, the name has been attached to any number of non-violent protests against what participants view as oppressive actions by the government.
In this case, the movement became populated by, at first, disaffected Republicans and libertarians who grew frustrated with the refusal of those they elected to hold firm to conservative principles. For a long time, these people were considered fringe elements by liberal Democrats and mainline Republicans as well. However within the last year, especially, the movement has grown in strength, numbers, and power resulting in what may be the most fundamental grass-roots political revolution in recent American history.
Ironically, the attempts by both parties to minimize the Tea Party have only served to strengthen and widen the movement’s popularity. If the results of the primary elections are any indication, the 2010 midterms look to be the first wave of political change that may sweep through the 2012 presidential election.
The left have disparaged the Tea Partiers, referring to them with the obscene double-entendre “Tea Baggers.” Described as Red Necks, ignorant and naïve, uneducated, racist and sexist, liberals have used just about every derogatory term in their vast inventory. Even the mainstream Republican Party has noticeably kept them at an arm’s length. But recently, a clearer picture of the Tea Party has begun to emerge. In listening to their rallies, reading their statements, and observing their membership, I have come up with what I think are the characteristics that define the movement and its membership.
1. Socially conservative. They are uniformly against abortion, some on religious grounds, others citing the unknown potential of any human being regardless of the circumstances of birth. For most, their religion, usually Christianity is a major part, if not the driving force in their lives. While they understand that there are people who need financial help, they believe that a responsible approach to life, making moral and ethical choices along the way, is preferable to being trained to be dependent on government handouts.
2. Politically conservative. They believe in small, limited government, responsible management of the budget, low taxes, a strong military, property rights, and marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Their approach to business is firmly laissez-faire, and feel that the natural forces of the marketplace are the best rules for business. They understand that success of any kind means hard work, long hours, and an expectation that failure will occur on the way. But failure is not an end in and of itself, but a platform for learning from mistakes.
3. They understand that the Democrat version of compromise consists of the phrase, “My way, or my way.” That past attempts to reach compromise has resulted in Republicans giving up far more than they receive. As a result, their candidates campaign with one overriding mandate: Stand Your Ground.
4. They also understand that what they term “The Main Stream Media” is uniformly hostile to conservatives and their views. They feel that the principles of their party have been twisted and de-contextualized into something resembling autocratism by reporters, anchors, and editors. They view the members of that elite as promoting liberalism instead of merely reporting it, failing to critically examine the actions of the left to the extent of minimally or even completely failing to report scandals of liberal Democrats while obsessing over even the most minor of misdeeds by Conservatives. The explosion in the popularity of Fox News is symptomatic of that belief.
Hounded by circumstance into a unique situation, rejecting liberalism/socialism, and their concerns actively dismissed by their own party, they have spontaneously organized, first at the local levels, and now into a national force to be reckoned with.
The recognition of the new reality has been slow in coming. Democrats, staring at the results of the fiscal policies of the President, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate Majority leader, are fleeing from those policies. Many candidates have turned down the offer of the Administration to have President Obama speak at their rallies. Republicans, finally realizing that the Tea Party is now firmly entrenched, is now beginning to reach out, hoping to avoid a civil war at the polls in November.
In a very real way, the appearance of the Tea Party mirrors the ideological shift within the Democrat party. Liberals took control of their party away from the Clintonian centrists and moved it decisively to the left. This shift took them away from the center and into the arms of those who 40 years earlier had been known as campus radicals. This tactic motivated voters, giving them the victory in 2006 that gave them control of both the House and the Senate, and the big prize, the White House in 2008, electing the first President of African-American heritage.
This model of success showed that in order for Conservatives to regain power, they, too had to move decisively away from the center and towards their conservative roots. In a sense, American politics is now dominated by two Parties of McCarthy; Eugene and Joe.
But the actions of both parties in their lunge to the left and to the right have opened up a cultural chasm in the middle, one that seems to widen on a daily basis. People, instead of debating intellectually, are now screaming at each other, completely consumed by their emotions. What was once the arena of ideas is now a pit of passion. Irrationality rules the day.
What will become of these developments? No one can say for sure. It could be that the political divide will reach a point of critical division, causing people on both sides to stop the rifting. Or, if no such rapprochement occurs, it may be that today marks the beginning of our eventual dissolution as a nation.
What the British failed to do; what the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets could not accomplish, the destruction of the United States will occur not at the tip of an enemy’s sword, but at our own hands.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Politics and the Palin Moment
After spending several months off the political radar, former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, has boomed to the forefront of American attention. Predictably, the response from the left and that portion of the media enamored thereof has been brutal. Throughout the ’08 campaign, and in the time afterwards, politicians, pundits, and political gadflies broke new ground in the viciousness of their attacks. However, with the release of Palin’s biographical tome “Going Rogue,” the attacks on her have reached a fever pitch, surpassing even the right’s attempted blowtorching of Hilary Clinton.
One wonders why she is so hated by the left. She is a successful woman, a wife, a mom, a governor who relished a 72% approval rating. She ran a successful administration, defeating the aims of old-line Republicans, and generated a BILLION-dollar surplus. It wasn’t until a mountain of ethics charges, relentlessly spewed by Democrat operatives (all of which were proven false) took up so much time that it made it impossible for her to do her job. Her resignation prompted charges of being a quitter. But it’s interesting to note that as soon as she resigned, the ethics charges ceased. This incident was not so much an indictment of Palin’s commitment as it was an example of the Gestapo-like glee of the Democrat attack machine.
Palin’s book tour, easily inferred to be a PR tactic to position herself as the GOP front-runner, has thus far revealed the fighter within, now freed from the jealous restrictions of the McCain leash-holders. Make no mistake. She has identified her enemies and she is on the attack.
One wonders why she is so hated by the left. She is a successful woman, a wife, a mom, a governor who relished a 72% approval rating. She ran a successful administration, defeating the aims of old-line Republicans, and generated a BILLION-dollar surplus. It wasn’t until a mountain of ethics charges, relentlessly spewed by Democrat operatives (all of which were proven false) took up so much time that it made it impossible for her to do her job. Her resignation prompted charges of being a quitter. But it’s interesting to note that as soon as she resigned, the ethics charges ceased. This incident was not so much an indictment of Palin’s commitment as it was an example of the Gestapo-like glee of the Democrat attack machine.
Palin’s book tour, easily inferred to be a PR tactic to position herself as the GOP front-runner, has thus far revealed the fighter within, now freed from the jealous restrictions of the McCain leash-holders. Make no mistake. She has identified her enemies and she is on the attack.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Death of America
The sun sets on the American flag.Photo by R. Couey
On September 11th, 2009, I was privileged to attend the annual commemoration ceremony at the temporary Flight 93 Memorial near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The distinguished speakers, including the keynoter, Colin Powell, were superb. The speeches were eloquent, extolling the courage and unity of the passengers and crew as they fought back against the hijackers.
The anniversary of the terror attacks on America is a meaningful day for me. Every September 11th, I mourn those who were lost. I pray for their families and friends.
And I renew my own very personal promise: I will never forget.
As I sat through the ceremony, however, I found that I was mourning something else, something unexpected.
Before 9/11, Americans had been embroiled in a series of political arguments. The level of vitriol from the networks to the back fence had risen to, what I felt, was a dangerous level. But on that day, as the shock gave way to horrible clarity, all that anger, all that hate, all that vitriol ended. For a few brief, priceless days, Americans stood together; shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm. We spoke with one voice.
We felt with one heart.
There were no Republicans, no Democrats, and no hyphens. We were all Americans.
That evening, members of congress gathered on the capitol steps in a show of unity. As they ended their joint statement, they spontaneously broke out in a chorus of “God Bless America.” At home in front of the television, I wept unashamedly.
It was a special moment in time. Unity reigned supreme. People who had been arguing violently, clasped hands and even embraced. Even among the most cynical, patriotism became fashionable, and across America, flags blossomed like flowers in springtime.
All too soon, however, the politically powerful began to use the attacks for ideological purposes. Within days, it seemed, the bright sunshine of a united nation dimmed once again. Now, a fearful darkness covers the land. The political differences which were once lines in the sand have become impossibly deep chasms. The political divide in this country is deeper than at any time since the Civil War.
Politics, once a contest of the intellect, has become solely an arena of emotion. Facts are meaningless; insults fly freely. People on both sides are paid millions to incite controversy. Anger has become a profitable business. And we the public slavishly flock to the sound of their voices
The United States of America was born of revolution and nurtured on debate. In fact the debate was necessary, as this experiment in democracy and liberty grew and matured. The principals upon which it was founded have been tested in war both outside our borders, and for five bloody, destructive years, within our own family.
But even in the worst times, there still remained that undercurrent of unity; that despite all else, we all still remained Americans.
Our differences now no longer just divide us. We are a people irretrievably polarized. We no longer listen; we simply scream at each other. Every night, we flock to the television and watch as politicians and pundits thunder away, red-faced and fanatical. Reinforced by the ravings of the Chris Matthews’, Keith Olbermans, Sean Hannitys, and Rush Limbaughs of our world, we carry their rantings into the streets, while, coldly calculating, they sit safe behind bunkers sandbagged with their millions, watching us do their bidding.
I have come to a terrible conclusion.
America is dying.
In the coming decades, this country will begin to fracture, and eventually cease to exist, replaced by a nation of Beiruts, where all live separately; warily; huddled behind walls of fear and hate
Whose fault is it? Everyone shares ample blame and responsibility, the government, and those of us who put them there. We The People made this choice. This is the path we chose to walk, a path paved by the cold stones of arrogance. We’ve sowed a field with seeds of hate. Now, we reap this bitterest of harvests.
235 years ago, Americans declared to the world that we were a nation. From a ragtag collection of colonies, we grew to the pinnacle of power and the heights of international benevolence. When human beings sought freedom from oppression, a place where their dreams could be realized, their destination of choice was the United States of America.
But our time in history is coming to a close. The page is being turned; this chapter is ending.
Gloriously united, we have stood.
Thoroughly divided, we now fall.
The anniversary of the terror attacks on America is a meaningful day for me. Every September 11th, I mourn those who were lost. I pray for their families and friends.
And I renew my own very personal promise: I will never forget.
As I sat through the ceremony, however, I found that I was mourning something else, something unexpected.
Before 9/11, Americans had been embroiled in a series of political arguments. The level of vitriol from the networks to the back fence had risen to, what I felt, was a dangerous level. But on that day, as the shock gave way to horrible clarity, all that anger, all that hate, all that vitriol ended. For a few brief, priceless days, Americans stood together; shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm. We spoke with one voice.
We felt with one heart.
There were no Republicans, no Democrats, and no hyphens. We were all Americans.
That evening, members of congress gathered on the capitol steps in a show of unity. As they ended their joint statement, they spontaneously broke out in a chorus of “God Bless America.” At home in front of the television, I wept unashamedly.
It was a special moment in time. Unity reigned supreme. People who had been arguing violently, clasped hands and even embraced. Even among the most cynical, patriotism became fashionable, and across America, flags blossomed like flowers in springtime.
All too soon, however, the politically powerful began to use the attacks for ideological purposes. Within days, it seemed, the bright sunshine of a united nation dimmed once again. Now, a fearful darkness covers the land. The political differences which were once lines in the sand have become impossibly deep chasms. The political divide in this country is deeper than at any time since the Civil War.
Politics, once a contest of the intellect, has become solely an arena of emotion. Facts are meaningless; insults fly freely. People on both sides are paid millions to incite controversy. Anger has become a profitable business. And we the public slavishly flock to the sound of their voices
The United States of America was born of revolution and nurtured on debate. In fact the debate was necessary, as this experiment in democracy and liberty grew and matured. The principals upon which it was founded have been tested in war both outside our borders, and for five bloody, destructive years, within our own family.
But even in the worst times, there still remained that undercurrent of unity; that despite all else, we all still remained Americans.
Our differences now no longer just divide us. We are a people irretrievably polarized. We no longer listen; we simply scream at each other. Every night, we flock to the television and watch as politicians and pundits thunder away, red-faced and fanatical. Reinforced by the ravings of the Chris Matthews’, Keith Olbermans, Sean Hannitys, and Rush Limbaughs of our world, we carry their rantings into the streets, while, coldly calculating, they sit safe behind bunkers sandbagged with their millions, watching us do their bidding.
I have come to a terrible conclusion.
America is dying.
In the coming decades, this country will begin to fracture, and eventually cease to exist, replaced by a nation of Beiruts, where all live separately; warily; huddled behind walls of fear and hate
Whose fault is it? Everyone shares ample blame and responsibility, the government, and those of us who put them there. We The People made this choice. This is the path we chose to walk, a path paved by the cold stones of arrogance. We’ve sowed a field with seeds of hate. Now, we reap this bitterest of harvests.
235 years ago, Americans declared to the world that we were a nation. From a ragtag collection of colonies, we grew to the pinnacle of power and the heights of international benevolence. When human beings sought freedom from oppression, a place where their dreams could be realized, their destination of choice was the United States of America.
But our time in history is coming to a close. The page is being turned; this chapter is ending.
Gloriously united, we have stood.
Thoroughly divided, we now fall.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Boycott Illegal Drugs!!!
Over the years, people attempting to change conditions they deem to be destructive have resorted to the practice known as the boycott. The term arises from the actions taken against a landowner named Boycott who ruthlessly evicted Irish landowners from their property.
The boycott is a selective act of refusing to use a product or service as a way of altering the public policy of the organization providing that product or service. The most historically successful and well known action was the boycott of the Birmingham, Alabama bus system following an incident in which a black woman, Rosa Parks, refused to give up her seat to a white man. The incident became the focal point for civil rights activists, including Dr. Martin Luther King, in their quest to secure equal rights for minorities. The action was successful. After nearly a year of nearly-empty busses, the bus company capitulated and removed its racially-motivated seating policies.
Other examples of successful boycotts include:
• companies that did business with South Africa during the days of apartheid
• retailers like Wal-Mart and Target for allegedly selling products manufactured in sweat shops
• tuna producers for failing to act to protect dolphins from getting entangled in their seining nets
• agricultural interests to stop the exploitation of immigrant labor in the United States.
All those actions and many, many others as well, were geared towards ending the misery of specific groups of humans and animals. Most were successful in their aims, since negative publicity can be a crippling influence for even the largest corporations.
Yet, there exists today, and for much of the last four decades, an ongoing source of human misery which has been largely ignored by boycotters.
The boycott is a selective act of refusing to use a product or service as a way of altering the public policy of the organization providing that product or service. The most historically successful and well known action was the boycott of the Birmingham, Alabama bus system following an incident in which a black woman, Rosa Parks, refused to give up her seat to a white man. The incident became the focal point for civil rights activists, including Dr. Martin Luther King, in their quest to secure equal rights for minorities. The action was successful. After nearly a year of nearly-empty busses, the bus company capitulated and removed its racially-motivated seating policies.
Other examples of successful boycotts include:
• companies that did business with South Africa during the days of apartheid
• retailers like Wal-Mart and Target for allegedly selling products manufactured in sweat shops
• tuna producers for failing to act to protect dolphins from getting entangled in their seining nets
• agricultural interests to stop the exploitation of immigrant labor in the United States.
All those actions and many, many others as well, were geared towards ending the misery of specific groups of humans and animals. Most were successful in their aims, since negative publicity can be a crippling influence for even the largest corporations.
Yet, there exists today, and for much of the last four decades, an ongoing source of human misery which has been largely ignored by boycotters.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Rising From the Ashes
“Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”
--Thomas Campbell, The Battle of the Baltic; as quoted by President Kennedy
In every war, after every hard-fought battle there is that period of mourning, blame, and recrimination, or as the Japanese so eloquently put it, “biting one’s navel.” In contemporary terms, we call it “the morning after.” For American conservatives, the early hours of November 5th found them, for the first time in 16 years, in a position to be virtually shut out of the political process. So flushed with victory was Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that she was already promising to begin implementing the President-Elect’s policies as soon as congress returned in mid-November, two full months before his inauguration.
On the Republican side, the public recriminations were already starting. Sarah Palin became the target of John McCain’s handlers, blaming her for the defeat. For the Alaska Governor, it had been an uphill fight from day one. The systematic trashing of her and her family undertaken by the media and the blogosphere was both brutal and utterly unprecedented. Some may roll their eyes at that statement, but let’s face facts. If Geraldine Ferraro, the Democrat candidate for Vice President in 1984, had been subjected to this level of scorn and ridicule at the hands of the Fourth Estate, feminists would have had the heads of every guilty political pundit impaled on the point of a spear and paraded down 5th Avenue.
The fact is, this defeat was in the cards from the beginning. At the start of the primaries, the Republicans had three leading candidates. Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. Among the base, McCain was the least favorite. He was older than the other two, and had a history of giving in to Democrats. Romney and Thompson were candidates with solid conservative chops. Democrats and the media fawned over McCain, even suggesting that he run as a Democrat. That should have been a huge red flag right there. The media coverage was massively one-sided, as outlets such as the Washington Post are now sheepishly admitting. The interrogation of McCain and Palin was brutal and intended more towards tripping up the candidates rather than the elicitation of information that might actually have been useful by voters. In contrast, Obama was never asked the tough questions. So soft-handed was the media's treatment that in the days following the election, after a campaign that lasted the better part of two years, Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose mused that they really did not know Obama's position on key foreign policy issues.
As the primaries got underway, stories from the front lines began to seep into the reportage. Throughout those early states, County Clerks and Voter Registrars were commenting how surprised they were at the large number of Democrats who were crossing over and voting Republican. It now appears that those voters may have manipulated the primary process, giving a boost to a candidate they felt could be defeated in November. In the context of modern political processes, primaries are no longer stand-alone events. The perception of momentum early defines the results of the later votes. By the time the primary season was half over, it was clear that McCain would be the eventual nominee.
--Thomas Campbell, The Battle of the Baltic; as quoted by President Kennedy
In every war, after every hard-fought battle there is that period of mourning, blame, and recrimination, or as the Japanese so eloquently put it, “biting one’s navel.” In contemporary terms, we call it “the morning after.” For American conservatives, the early hours of November 5th found them, for the first time in 16 years, in a position to be virtually shut out of the political process. So flushed with victory was Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that she was already promising to begin implementing the President-Elect’s policies as soon as congress returned in mid-November, two full months before his inauguration.
On the Republican side, the public recriminations were already starting. Sarah Palin became the target of John McCain’s handlers, blaming her for the defeat. For the Alaska Governor, it had been an uphill fight from day one. The systematic trashing of her and her family undertaken by the media and the blogosphere was both brutal and utterly unprecedented. Some may roll their eyes at that statement, but let’s face facts. If Geraldine Ferraro, the Democrat candidate for Vice President in 1984, had been subjected to this level of scorn and ridicule at the hands of the Fourth Estate, feminists would have had the heads of every guilty political pundit impaled on the point of a spear and paraded down 5th Avenue.
The fact is, this defeat was in the cards from the beginning. At the start of the primaries, the Republicans had three leading candidates. Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. Among the base, McCain was the least favorite. He was older than the other two, and had a history of giving in to Democrats. Romney and Thompson were candidates with solid conservative chops. Democrats and the media fawned over McCain, even suggesting that he run as a Democrat. That should have been a huge red flag right there. The media coverage was massively one-sided, as outlets such as the Washington Post are now sheepishly admitting. The interrogation of McCain and Palin was brutal and intended more towards tripping up the candidates rather than the elicitation of information that might actually have been useful by voters. In contrast, Obama was never asked the tough questions. So soft-handed was the media's treatment that in the days following the election, after a campaign that lasted the better part of two years, Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose mused that they really did not know Obama's position on key foreign policy issues.
As the primaries got underway, stories from the front lines began to seep into the reportage. Throughout those early states, County Clerks and Voter Registrars were commenting how surprised they were at the large number of Democrats who were crossing over and voting Republican. It now appears that those voters may have manipulated the primary process, giving a boost to a candidate they felt could be defeated in November. In the context of modern political processes, primaries are no longer stand-alone events. The perception of momentum early defines the results of the later votes. By the time the primary season was half over, it was clear that McCain would be the eventual nominee.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Oil Emergency: Hard Times, Hard Choices
Over the years, I’ve come to understand a fundamental truth. People’s political attitudes are formed in the events and experiences that make up the chronology of their lives. These days, the foundations of those attitudes are, more often than not, based on deeply held emotions rather than critically evaluated information. Thus, there is no longer a widely held consensus of right and wrong. Everything is filtered through the prism of each individual's personal experiences. What seems incontrovertible truth to one is complete nonsense to another. This reality is a big part of the reason why politics is a subject considered verboten in polite conversation.
Our political attitudes have become tightly interwoven with our sense of self-identity and esteem. Consequently, when someone disagrees with us, we feel defensive, which then triggers emotional responses. And when emotion, by its nature an irrational state, enters into a debate, all hope of a calm, rational discussion is lost. My high school debate teacher once said, “You can debate conclusions; you can debate positions; you can debate policy. But you cannot debate emotion. Emotion listens only to its own version of truth, and refuses to entertain anything else.”
For that reason, I’ve mostly avoided hot-button issues in my columns, knowing that no matter what the indisputable facts are, they will make no headway with those who are emotionally wedded to opposing views. But the debate on energy in general and gasoline in particular has become so fraught with irrationality, I decided, at no small risk, to wade in.
Our political attitudes have become tightly interwoven with our sense of self-identity and esteem. Consequently, when someone disagrees with us, we feel defensive, which then triggers emotional responses. And when emotion, by its nature an irrational state, enters into a debate, all hope of a calm, rational discussion is lost. My high school debate teacher once said, “You can debate conclusions; you can debate positions; you can debate policy. But you cannot debate emotion. Emotion listens only to its own version of truth, and refuses to entertain anything else.”
For that reason, I’ve mostly avoided hot-button issues in my columns, knowing that no matter what the indisputable facts are, they will make no headway with those who are emotionally wedded to opposing views. But the debate on energy in general and gasoline in particular has become so fraught with irrationality, I decided, at no small risk, to wade in.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Public Schools: Drastic Action for Critical Times
Picture from the Discovery Education website
Everybody seems to agree that there are major elements of our Public Schools that are largely broken. Many learned and experienced people have put forth their plans for repairing the system. With the hustle and bustle of the holidays behind us, and with time hanging heavily on my hands, I thought I’d chime in.
Time: When I look at research regarding unlawful behavior of children and adolescents, including drug abuse, the most common reason given for those self-destructive behaviors is boredom. Most public schools in the U.S. dismiss between 2:20 and 3:30 in the afternoon, a time driven historically by the need to have those kids available for farm chores. However,the time when children were required to toil on the farm or the family business after school are just about gone. The Census for Agriculture undertaken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture every five years has demonstrated a steady decline in the number of Americans who identify farming as their primary or secondary occupation. The 2002 report, the latest data available, reported that only 1.7% of the U.S. population was so engaged. Since most juvenile offenses occur between the end of school hours and bedtime, it would seem that American kids find themselves with empty hours and no constructive activities to fill them. In light of this, it would seem useful to extend the school hours to perhaps 5 p.m. and using that time for elective classes that kids would find fun, or at least interesting. Students who are struggling would probably benefit from extra tutoring during this time. Or, since childhood obesity has become such a hot-button issue, perhaps those extra hours would be better used in physical activity, such as intramural sports or classes in dance, anything to get them off the couch and away from the junk food. After sitting in class all day, they'd probably enjoy the exercise.
Classes with a point: Humans are individually unique. Everyone has their own strengths and interests which, if healthy, should be encouraged. In our society, we have people who want and need college, and others who can function just fine without it. Computer scientists and brain surgeons need university degrees. Automotive technicians and carpenters don’t. Yet all four professions are absolutely crucial to keep our economy functioning. People with mechanical skills who love working on mechanical things, shouldn’t be forced into a college-bound track if they don’t want it. What used to be called vocational education needs rejuvenation. It’s relevant and honorable, and needs to be taught in that spirit.
In the 12 years of my public school education, never once did we have successful people from the community come in to teach us the tools of successfully running a small business. Small businesses provide the lion’s share of jobs in our national economy and are the backbone and lifeblood of communities. That hard-won knowledge and expertise should be passed along with the hope of awakening the entreprenurial spirit, and also encouraging them to seek their own solutions. Make it fun, make it hands-on, make it relevant, and students will come in droves.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
The Separation of Church and State
The birth of the United States was due, in large part, to the efforts of people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. Eventually, as the collection of settlements formed a government and became a nation, those early participants ensured, through the first amendment, that succeeding generations would be able to worship without the influence or intrusion of government. However, the increasingly diverse nature of the U.S. population has broadened the national religious perspective from the early European Protestantism to an array of some 1,200 recognized religious bodies ranging from the Judeo-Christian God to Egyptian cats. Today, we are confronted by the question of how much religion do we allow in government, and how much government do we allow in religion.
To Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and Mormons, the concept of "God" as a supreme spiritual being of immense power and infinite love is universally recognized. Indeed, this is the "God" that is usually referred to on our coinage and in our Pledge of Allegiance. This concept might have been viewed as proper and widely accepted 200 years ago. But today the question must be must be considered whether that particular devine being has any deistic precedence over the Islamic Allah, the Shinto ancestors, or the earth-based gods of Wiccans, Native Americans, or Native Hawaiians. While the remote possiblity exists that all these divine icons could be one in the same, humanity, trapped within the limited prespective of 3-dimensional mortality, is nevertheless incapable of defining a broadly acceptable definition of God.
For many years, a universal feature of public school life was the morning prayer, led by a teacher or principal. Since this prayer was directed to the universally accepted and understood "God," there seemed to be littel objection to this daily rite. beginning in the 1960's there was a growing attitude which rejected traditional standards of discipline and ethics, which included not only societal norms and mores, but religion as well. On into the 1970's religion began a steady recession from the cultural mainstream. People turned to other forms of expression in their desire to seek spiritual fulfillment. Also feeding this movement was a kind of simple-minded rationalization that if there was in fact a God, then why was there so much suffering and misery? In the 1980's the pendulum began a swing back to the right, as religious conservatives fought to regain lost ground. The societal battles which erupted then continue today, alhtough more for political than theological reasons.
Those who resist religion do so no longer on the basis of a lifestyle choice, but out of a growing contention that Judeo-Christianity was not the sole arbiter of human salvation.
To Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and Mormons, the concept of "God" as a supreme spiritual being of immense power and infinite love is universally recognized. Indeed, this is the "God" that is usually referred to on our coinage and in our Pledge of Allegiance. This concept might have been viewed as proper and widely accepted 200 years ago. But today the question must be must be considered whether that particular devine being has any deistic precedence over the Islamic Allah, the Shinto ancestors, or the earth-based gods of Wiccans, Native Americans, or Native Hawaiians. While the remote possiblity exists that all these divine icons could be one in the same, humanity, trapped within the limited prespective of 3-dimensional mortality, is nevertheless incapable of defining a broadly acceptable definition of God.
For many years, a universal feature of public school life was the morning prayer, led by a teacher or principal. Since this prayer was directed to the universally accepted and understood "God," there seemed to be littel objection to this daily rite. beginning in the 1960's there was a growing attitude which rejected traditional standards of discipline and ethics, which included not only societal norms and mores, but religion as well. On into the 1970's religion began a steady recession from the cultural mainstream. People turned to other forms of expression in their desire to seek spiritual fulfillment. Also feeding this movement was a kind of simple-minded rationalization that if there was in fact a God, then why was there so much suffering and misery? In the 1980's the pendulum began a swing back to the right, as religious conservatives fought to regain lost ground. The societal battles which erupted then continue today, alhtough more for political than theological reasons.
Those who resist religion do so no longer on the basis of a lifestyle choice, but out of a growing contention that Judeo-Christianity was not the sole arbiter of human salvation.
How Ideal was the "Ideal State?"
Throughout human history, philosophers witnessed the worst parts of man's inhumanity to man. In response, they strove to construct, at least in a theoretical sense, an outline for what was perceived at "the ideal state." One of the first of these efforts is embodied in Plato's epic work "The Republic."
This exercise, interestingly enough, grew out of a discussion centering on the nature of justice. Socrates and the elders quickly reached the realization that in order to properly define justice as it relates to the individual it was necessary to consider the larger question of the nature of the state's view of justice. The attitudes of the state shape the attitudes of its citizens, so in order to nail down what constitutes a just man, one must account for the state's definition of justice.
In our modern world, punishment for crime is meted out in accordance with the way the state's laws have been molded by culture. In Singapore, for example, theft is punished by caning; in Somalia, by the amputation of a hand; in America, by a stern lecture from an overburdened Judge and perhaps a few weeks in a climate-controlled corrections facility with satellite TV and three squares per day. In each of the above examples, the punishments reflect the respective culture's highly subjective view of justice.
Today, of course, we can take advantage of the long view not only of history, but through the images and impressions of other contemporary cultures through electronic eyes in order to properly contextualize these very basic questions. In contrast, the view of Classical Civilization was necessarily myopic, there being no GNN (Grecian News Network) to expand their limited view beyond the eastern Mediterranean.
This exercise, interestingly enough, grew out of a discussion centering on the nature of justice. Socrates and the elders quickly reached the realization that in order to properly define justice as it relates to the individual it was necessary to consider the larger question of the nature of the state's view of justice. The attitudes of the state shape the attitudes of its citizens, so in order to nail down what constitutes a just man, one must account for the state's definition of justice.
In our modern world, punishment for crime is meted out in accordance with the way the state's laws have been molded by culture. In Singapore, for example, theft is punished by caning; in Somalia, by the amputation of a hand; in America, by a stern lecture from an overburdened Judge and perhaps a few weeks in a climate-controlled corrections facility with satellite TV and three squares per day. In each of the above examples, the punishments reflect the respective culture's highly subjective view of justice.
Today, of course, we can take advantage of the long view not only of history, but through the images and impressions of other contemporary cultures through electronic eyes in order to properly contextualize these very basic questions. In contrast, the view of Classical Civilization was necessarily myopic, there being no GNN (Grecian News Network) to expand their limited view beyond the eastern Mediterranean.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Fairness Is As Fairness Does
Recently, the rumblings of support for the so-called “fairness doctrine” have begun to surface. The goal, according to the proponents, is to somehow legislate into existence some kind of counter to the 900-pound gorilla known as conservative talk radio. Air America was intended to be that agent of balance, but despite the infusion of millions of George Soros money and the Star Power of Al Franken, Air America has been unable to gain nationwide traction with listeners or advertisers. AAR has lost several stations and last October filed for bankruptcy.
Faced with this failure and the continuing strong growth of conservative talkers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Savage, progressives seem intent on legislating what the free market failed to deliver.
The Fairness Doctrine was adopted by the FCC in 1949 in a time when frequencies were limited and the Commission was being flooded by license requests for new stations. In 1949, media outlets were considered “public trustees,” instead of private businesses. As the Museum of Broadcast Communications explains, “…broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.” (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm)
The doctrine was swept away in the flood of federal deregulation instituted by President Ronald Reagan. Within a few years, it became apparent that the cries of conservatives who felt their point of view wasn’t fairly represented by what they termed “The Main Stream Media” were legitimate. Conservative talkers began cropping up, most notably Rush Limbaugh, and saw their market share and popularity explode. Now progressives want their slice of that lucrative pie.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
"Killing Rage"
The late Eamon Collins“KILLING RAGE” By Eamon Collins
“Killing Rage” vividly recounts the compelling personal journey of Eamon Collins through the violent morass of Northern Ireland politics; the evolution from committed Republican, to terrorist, to an activist for peace.
For most Americans, the dominant impression of the war in Northern Ireland would be a confused mélange of news video images, reports of exploded bombs, and dead women and children. With little exception, the violent tactics of the Irish Republican Army have met with universal condemnation. Even a basic understanding of the roots of the conflict and the reasons for its perpetuation would prove quite beyond the ability of most to recount. For the first time, however, the words and passion of Eamon Collins provide an honest, if chilling account of his involvement in the conflict as a member in various capacities of the Provisional Wing of the Irish Republican Army between 1978 and 1987.
The book opens abruptly and brutally with a detailed description of Collins’ first operation in December 1978, the killing of Major Ivan Toombs of the Ulster Defense Regiment (UDR). As Collins works to gather intelligence on his target he takes us through the process of dealing with a very human conflict:
“For me, the more I found out about him, the more admirable I found him. I liked him and felt that in other circumstances we might have been friends.” (Page 20)“...to strike at Toombs was to strike at an ancient colonial system of elites. Killing Toombs would also be a symbol of our dogged resistance to inequality and injustice...” (Page 23)“He was an idea, a force, not a person with a face. He had no humanity for me.” (Page 17)
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Pearl Harbor: Conspiracy or Complacency?
"Yesterday, December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy,
the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately
attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan”
the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately
attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan”
With those evocative words, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt committed a deeply shocked and angry America to war with Japan. The surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, coupled with other assaults throughout the western Pacific united a bitterly divided government and galvanized the citizenry. Even with the newfound unity, many pointed questions were raised, not the least of which was “how could this happen?”
Today, over 65 years later it is even more difficult for present generations to comprehend how a military, a government, and a nation of free people could have been the victim of such a terrible surprise attack. It is that still pointed question that leaves some unsure whether the attack was facilitated by a numbing complacency on the part of America towards blatant Japanese aggression, or the result of a dark conspiracy originating within the highest levels of government to involve the United States in global war.
As with any disaster, the inevitable witch hunt to locate the person or persons responsible ensued with nine official investigations by the executive branch, the congress, and the military. In addition, historians have delved deeply into this subject publishing countless books, articles, and essays. It is safe to say that no other event in American history has been subjected to the level of scrutiny as the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet even after six and a half decades, the search for the smoking gun - and the hand that held it - remains alive.
Economic Sanctions: Predicting Utility
ECONOMIC SANCTIONS:
PREDICTING
UTILITY
PREDICTING
UTILITY
The Challenge of Effective Foreign Policy
in a Monopolar World
By Ralph F. Couey
ABSTRACT
Can game theory be married with real-world cases to provide a predictive framework for economic sanctions? In this study, the theoretical work of Jonathan Eaton and Maxim Engers is applied to selected case studies from the data base of Gary Hufbauer, Jeffrey Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott. This application will demonstrate the utility of game theory in the real world and also provide the ability to predict the appropriateness and effectiveness of economic sanctions.
INTRODUCTION
Throughout human history governments have sought at various times to influence, or coerce, the policy directions of friends and foes alike. In cases where this diplomatic interaction has become hostile, states have resorted to force to settle disputes. In other cases, governments have used a superior economic position as a basis for imposing economic sanctions against other nations as an alternative to open warfare. With the improvements in the technology of warfare the ability of states to inflict increasing amounts of damage upon each other motivated governments to seek less destructive methods to settle disputes.
For most of the 20th century economic sanctions have been used as a leverage tool in disputes. Success in those cases has been mixed, at best. In recent years, as relative prosperity has become more widespread, and due to the fundamental shift from bipolar to monopolar global politics, the effectiveness of economic sanctions has declined. Despite their less than successful track record governments, particularly the United States and the United Nations, continue to resort to this ineffective tool in attempting to solve interstate disputes. To most governments, the resort to armed conflict is an anathema. Novelist John Ball wrote, “Nobody wants war; it’s an unmitigated horror. The only reason a sane nation involves itself in one is because the alternative is even less acceptable.” (Ball, 206) The imposition of economic sanctions has become the alternative of choice in international politics, one that requires a careful examination of costs versus benefits.
Hypothesis: Governments should weigh the cost of imposing economic sanctions against the gain realized by coercing a policy change in a target government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
