Current proposals in Congress to create jobs and foster short-term and long-lasting economic growth for the nation have stalled. Various debates over the effectiveness of certain policies (unemployment benefits, payroll tax cuts, small business tax cuts infrastructure investment, and so on) continue to hamper policy proposals that would either grow our economy or answer other pressing issues the nation faces: environmental degradation, industrial and energy security, deficit and debt reduction, and other issues.
Many legislators, conservative and liberal alike, have pushed for opening our domestic reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas to extraction to promote growth in these industries, but if we are to seriously debate a long-term approach to energy that also addresses environmental concerns, and produces a more sustainable (from an environmental and economic basis) growth strategy, I believe we are overlooking a key component of our future: nuclear energy.
I believe we must engage in updating our aging and environmentally dangerous energy infrastructure to produce more energy from nuclear power plants while reducing the high externality costs of carbon-heavy energy generation techniques such as natural gas and coal. As the United States grows in population and economically, our energy costs will only rise, and nuclear offers a sustainable path to mitigating this sudden spike in costs.
Some opponents of nuclear energy point out that the environmental benefits of reducing carbon footprints of coal and natural gas could be offset by nuclear waste and the mining of nuclear material, and above all possible nuclear meltdowns. To this, the first point I make is that nuclear waste can be more safely disposed of than we currently provide, and that storage facilities for waste can and should be built in remote regions for the safe breaking down of remaining waste. Research is currently being conducted into the use of biological or other means of speeding up the process by which nuclear waste can be broken down and turned into more manageable material. Re-initiating funding for the Integral Fast Reactor project by the Dept. of Energy would be an enormous first step toward this goal of mitigating waste.
Furthermore, new research indicates that fission reactors can be built more efficiently and safely using thorium as the primary fuel. Due to unique properties, thorium is all but incapable of "melting down" as uranium is, is less usable as a covert or overt weapons-grade material, making proliferation and radiation poisoning extremely less likely than current designs utilizing uranium.
The benefits of a thorium-based expansion in nuclear energy do not stop there. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that of the world's thorium deposits, the United States holds approximately 15%, while American allies Australia, India, Norway, Denmark, and Canada hold an additional 40%, putting safely acquired reserves at 55% of the world total. This is in stark contrast to petroleum, where much of our imports come from less stable regions, less trustworthy nations, and often embroil us in regional conflicts to secure our economic interests where we otherwise might not be involved.
This is more important than a cursory glance would indicate. The fact that the United States and our allies hold so much Thorium means that instead of funneling American dollars to imports of foreign coal, natural gas, and other carbon energy, America's workers could be mining for thorium deposits relatively safely (though mining is never a risk-free industry) and producing for our economy while fueling a domestic energy economy. And should a need or cost-effective desire for importing thorium arise, our partners could be long-established stable nations with positive reputations, rather than unstable hot spots where our military needs to spend so much time securing our interests.
The approximate cost of a new nuclear reactor (not accounting for adjustments to using Thorium as a safer alternative fuel) are $2.5 billion per reactor. The United States currently operates 106 reactors at 65 sites for a total of 20% of power generation. Doubling our nuclear production with another 100 reactors would cost approximately $250 billion. For relative purposes, the cost of 100 new reactors can be compared to the following:
One-third the size of the federal stimulus($789 billion, FY2009-2011)
About the same as one year's interest payments on the national debt($230 billion FY2011)
About 2 years' occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan(FY2011 cost of $159 billion)
In some ways these comparisons are unfair, in particular because say, military spending or stimulus packages only truly produce short-term boosts to economic growth, if at all. Nuclear reactors have an estimated lifespan of 60 years, and produce a tangible resource for economic growth over that same period, largely paying for themselves. I propose spreading the cost of such construction through a decade, for a mitigated cost of $25 billion per year.
Of course, few proposals if any are taken seriously in government if they are not packaged in job creation numbers, so here's a few from a 2004 Dept. of Energy study into what economic effects would result from building 40 more reactors:
The new reactors would produce 50,000 MWe of electric energy capacity, approximately 50% more than in 2009
Move back 38,000 jobs in manufacturing
Add 79,000 new construction jobs simply building the sites
Add up to 250,000 new jobs in the nuclear power industry itself
Support 240,000 new jobs in the peripheral industries tied to supporting nuclear power
The total net job creation for producing 40 new reactors is approximately 610,000 jobs.
More accurately, my plan of $25 billion in spending per year on new nuclear power plants to build 100 new reactors would expand on these numbers, using the same rough projections:
Expand production by 125,000 MWe of electric capacity, nearly doubling current generation.
Move back 95,000 manufacturing jobs
Add 195,000 construction jobs
Add up to 625,000 new jobs in the nuclear power industry
Add up to 600,000 new jobs in the industries supporting nuclear power
Total net job creation over ten years: 1.5 million new jobs
Even accounting for a spread over 10 years' time, the jobs created account for about 1 total year's worth of new jobs in a decade, a 7% leap in per-month employment increases, at a per-job cost of $160,000. For comparison, the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act created or "saved"--being generous--2.4 million jobs at a cost of $288,000 per job. Given the higher efficiency of the program, not to mention its numerous environmental, security, and energy production benefits that aren't even counted in the jobs numbers, I believe this investment in the American economy, and our energy base's future, is well worth it. I hope members of Congress will eventually see the same.
During times of international crisis and activity, the media and public produce a flurry of commentary, opinion, and analysis----most of it complete bullshit. Abusing public events is the easiest way to get one's name in the open, and how best to do that but criticize or spread fantastic rumors?
I previously expressed my support and opinion on the situation in Libya and the UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone to secure the civilian population, supported by "all necessary measures" short of "foreign occupation force". In the immediate aftermath of the strikes launched---led by the United States, United Kingdom, and France---speculation arose about the scope and direction of the operations, whether we were "at war in a third [Muslim/Arab/Middle Eastern] country"; furthermore, "questions" (read: loud complaints) are being raised about the constitutionality of the UN-authorized strikes:
Critics say the merits of the operation and its legality under international law are matters separate from the domestic legal question of who — the president or Congress — has the authority to decide whether the United States will take part in combat. (NYT)
The President has already released his own response, a two-page letter defending his status as Commander-in-Chief, outlining the limited nature of the engagement that places the intervention as below that of declaration of war, and reminding the Congress that he met with and consulted its members prior to announcing and ordering the strikes. But the issue lingers in the public eye and vociferous debate rages. I would like to use this post to clear up this matter.
THE CONSTITUTION AND AMERICAN MILITARY INTERVENTION
The disagreement comes from a conflict in interpretations of two points in the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water [AND] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces...(Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 and 14)
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...(Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)
Thus, depending on one's interpretation, the President has the power to call the armed forces into action to defend the United States (and/or its interests), or he must receive direct authorization from Congress to do anything that could be called an act of war. The criticism of President Obama derives from the latter view, that armed attacks against Libya without a vote of authorization or stronger consultation of Congress violate the principles of the Constitution by committing acts of war without a war declaration, which would be Congress’ purview.
Furthermore, the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 in the wake of deep distrust of Presidential authority and military action, explicitly states that if the President authorizes armed attack against another nation that does not include a declaration of war, such action must be ended within 60 days, and Congress must be notified within 48 hours. In making the public announcement immediately after the resolution was passed, privately consulting the members of Congress prior, and insisting that the engagement will remain less than 60 days, President Obama has not (yet) violated the terms of this law. But even more so, the action is not unconstitutional for even broader reasons than this.
Allow me to explain why the President's authorization of strikes against Libya under the auspices of United Nations Resolution #1973 are fully within the President's power as laid out by the Constitution and under the authority of Congress.
THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
First, the United States is signed to the United Nations Charter and ratified its provisions; this is not a document of convenience, it is a fully obliging international treaty. This is backed up by American law: in 1945, the United States Congress passed the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA), which (1) ratified American participation in the UN, and (2) set the guidelines for that participation, including sanctions and actions of the President to follow the UN’s directives.
In order to ensure the smooth participation of the United States in the United Nations and the Security Council, Congress, as part of ratification of the UN Charter, provided certain powers to the President for an American role in enforcing the Charter. Specifically, Section 7 of the UNPA states:
SEC. 6.The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile [sic] President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.
The UNPA explicitly declares that the President does NOT have to seek special approval by the Congress to participate in actions undertaken and approved by the full Security Council “under Article 42 of said [UN] Charter”…well, that leads to the immediate question: what is Article 42?
To answer that, we need to look at Articles Forty-One and Forty-Two of the UN Charter. The following comes directly from the text of the Charter—
Chapter VII, ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
[…]
Article 41.The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42. Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for inArticle 41would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
In layman’s terms, Article 41 authorizes the Security Council to pass sanctions and other non-military methods of punishment when a country violates the Charter through acts of aggression or breaches of the peace. Article 42 states that if the Security Council determines that the nonmilitary actions taken from Article 41 are not enough to stop the aggression, then military force against the offending country can be authorized.
Remember, the UNPA said that under American law, the Congress wouldn’t need to be asked for permission if the President was offering resources to the UN Security Council pursuant to Article 42. Thus, the President was acting under the assumption that Article 42 was in effect, and felt he had consulted Congress sufficiently, therefore he was confident offering American military resources was legal and pursuant to American obligations to the UN.
CONCLUSION
Taken together, what does this mean? This means that the members of Congress criticizing the President for taking action against Libya under a UN Security Council resolution are kidding themselves. President Obama was and is fully within legal authority to use American armed forces against Libya, pure and simple.
The arguments surrounding the issue of a Libyan no-fly-zone and the general subject of intervention are serious, complex, and ambiguous. There are strong ideological, political, and logical reasons behind the pro- and anti- interventionist stances. The policy argument is important; indeed, we can find no clear answer on the “right” course of action regarding Libya. I happen to support the interventionist ethic, in the hopes of providing greater precedent for future action and decisiveness during future similar crises. Yet I also respect the opposition’s view and core question of what the American national interest is in Libya, and whether our actions are counterproductive rather than helpful. This is a discussion well worth having.
However, questioning the legality of the President’s actions is a cowardly method to try to win a policy debate. Anyone is entitled to question the wisdom of committing forces to Libya, and the Congress is justified and within its power to demand stringent oversight and accountability to ensure no long-term commitment similar to those in Afghanistan and Iraq; targeting the policy as “illegal” or “unconstitutional” is asinine at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. Let it be clear that the President is within legal rights to have committed limited US forces to a short engagement under the authority vested by the UN Security Council and ratified by the UN Participation Act of 1945, under the regulations outlined in the War Powers Resolution, pursuant to the ideals and limits laid in the Constitution of the United States.
Mine is an enormous surplus for rapid repayment of debts and/or expansion of discretionary spending on certain projects, but it has room for several adjustments, or much smaller surpluses. I invite you to use the clear-choices button and try your hand at it, at the very least this tool is good at illustrating the choices at hand, the sacrifices that might be necessary for budget reduction, and educating us about what we do or do not support among these options. Please try it, I would love to see the different results.
In fact, the resolution explicitly prohibits "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory" in the same sentence that authorizes "all necessary measures".
I understand the reservation of Americans to use force in yet another Muslim-majority developing country (many media sources are calling it a "Middle Eastern" country despite the fact that Libya is firmly an African continental state), indeed I share some of those reservations. Critics are also correct in pointing out that although we may idealistically want to support the interim rebel government "leading" the revolution from Benghazi, the council there may not be as democratic or ideal as we hope, and that the politics of these circumstances are not as simple as wild-eyed interventionists would love to think.
But there is something simple in all this: Muammar Gadhafi is a madman, a despot, and a murderer. He has made no attempts to hide the sheer scale of the violence he intends to unleash upon his people. He has said at different points that he would kill opponents "house by house", that the rebels were (in a haunting reference to the Rwandan genocide's language) "cockroaches" to be "crushed", and that "Libya will turn to hell" as he arms his people to slaughter the enemy and protesters who, for not loving him, "don't deserve to live".
This is not rhetoric to be easily misinterpreted. This is not simply parading for the domestic TV stations like North Korea's regular threats of "war"; this is a man who relished the opportunity to bomb civilian planes and support suicide attacks; this is a man whose iron grip has already slaughtered people in his nation; this is a man whose armies are as I write advancing on his opponents' positions, pillaging, raping, and murdering anyone who gets in the way of the great leader's will. Civilians supportive of the rebel uprising face harsh reprisal and slaughter if he is allowed to advance unchecked.
This is not an argument over if there are WMDs in Libya*
This is not a counterinsurgency against an invisible guerrilla enemy.
This is not a long-term occupation.
This is the United Nations authorizing the use of force and threat of force to get the madman's armies to pull back, or suffer debilitating consequences if he fails to observe the ceasefire order. The move will enforce an arms embargo to limit his armies' supplies and will shoot down his vital air attacks on rebel fortifications. It explicitly rules out the use of soldiers or armed troops to intervene directly anywhere in Libya, and places special emphasis on the participation of the Arab League, an organization comprising almost every country in North Africa and the Middle East.
The move has support by votes from European allies in NATO (Germany excepted), Arab League members (who formally suspended Libya from their organization and requested the resolution), as well as the African and Latin American representatives on the Security Council, with only abstentions from Russia (who has arms deals with the Libyan government), China (who has a long history of opposing foreign intervention of any kind), India, Brazil, and Germany (all three of whom are hesitant to approve international military force and who wished for more information before greater action). All of these nations' votes and arguments can be read in the UN report highlighted at the beginning of this post.
I support the actions authorized in the UN resolution because they entail limited measures against the Gadhafi regime. NATO members and the Arab League have agreed and are preparing to shoulder the burden of enforcing this resolution, meaning America's participation in enforcement will not be solo or unsupported. The President has already ruled out troops on the ground, but as the following NBC report shows, he is resolved to carry out the will of the international community, and with their support:
This time, the United States is a leader in global good, in rallying world leaders to support the protection of human rights and innocent lives, and is one among many nations participating in the sanctioning the deplorable acts of an insane dictator. The costs of inaction would have been morally reprehensible and on our hands, just as Rwanda and the Congo and Somalia are now, and this is a moment where America's might, is being used for the right.
The West is very self-assured of how right their way of life is. Democracy, rule of law, political freedoms including press and speech, are bywords we are raised by. These values form the backbone of what the nations of Europe, North America, and Australasia consider makes them unique (read: better) than the rest of the planet. Having been raised as a child to value these same ideas all but religiously, and the free choice of people to live as they see fit, I will die defending them. I have no qualms whatsoever stating that I buy into the Western belief that our democratic and liberty-enshrining ideals (when we actually care to follow them, of course) are superior to the other ideologies behind governments around the world and throughout history. I recognize I am biased; so be it.
What I do not buy, however, is the common wisdom among many Western ideologues who believe that it is but a matter of time before democracy comes to the rest of the world. These analysts insist that tyranny cannot reign forever and that eventually, like the Berlin Wall before them, the autocratic regimes still propped up around the planet will come crumbling down from the forces of Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, and blogs such as this that "spread freedom of information and the truth", so to speak. The idea is rooted in history: according to these theorists, Levi's and Coca-Cola conquered Eastern Europe; Apple and social networking will conquer Iran and North Korea.
Now, I admit that the majority of the serious international studies/relations establishment do not subscribe to this very, very liberal (in international relations, "liberal" means something else, relax) theory of democratization by exposure to our products and freedom. Serious students of the modern era will tell you Soviet communism collapsed because its centralized economic management choked both innovation and competitiveness and, once coupled with the end of the propaganda train that lied through its teeth about who was ahead between West and East, these forces brought down the last crumbling centers of political power in that nation.
But that's not the narrative being told to the average American.
If you were to read the headlines of mainstream publications or watch cable news broadcasts, you would be convinced that if only the Chinese would let their people Google anything, democracy would come running out of the computers like poltergeists from televisions (No? Too vague a reference?), and that if Twitter weren't interfered with, protests could be organized on a grand scale to topple the Iranian dictatorship. Even our policymakers in front of cameras focus on vague terms like "human rights" and "freedom of information" in the same breath, implying that wi-fi access will suddenly open the doors to Chinese prisons everywhere. Who are we kidding?
For one thing, the Chinese and Iranians and Koreans and African warlords are not that stupid (at least, most of them). The PRC is not telling its people that they are richer and better than America. They are (correctly) telling them that America is 250% richer than China despite China having almost 4 times the people of the US. They are using the truth to increase the impetus for Chinese entrepreneurship and growth. The Iranians are not afraid of Twitter letting people protest---their brutal crackdowns were equally effective at putting down demonstrations whether they were organized via "Tweet" or by megaphone. Guns are still more lethal than fiberoptic cables.
Information is indeed important in a free society, and the internet is admittedly the largest, most open, and broadest wealth of information in human history. It is also the most sordid collection of lies, myths, legends, errors, and unfounded opinions (some of which are written by this author) in human history. If I may, "you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." It is no easy tool to utilize. Think, for a moment, of our own democratic society and how we use the internet for ourselves. (I mean besides Farmville and porn.) Did you get that email about how Obama planned on giving a new award to the Vietnam sympathizer Jane Fonda? How about that one where a Republican candidate for Congress was caught in a neo-Nazi uniform? Complete with pictures as proof! What about the irrefutable evidence that the President was born in Kenya? Oh, oh! And the Lindsay Lohan sextape, and the proof of Chupacabras being real, and the pills that grow that "special something" (funny how half of them never say "penis") inches in just WEEKS?
You see my point. The internet may be a great place to get access to treasure troves of information---I recommend the BBC and Meet the Press podcasts on iTunes, the Economist online, and the TED Talks, for starters---but you must know where to look, and how to discern what is real from what is not. We barely have a handle on it, and we were the first ones to use the internet at all. What makes you think that suddenly-liberated or net-access peoples will know immediately? Right now, many of these people live in societies with strict controls on access to information. Effectively, dis-information is the key tool to keep people in line. But in the democratic world, mis-information is just as effective a tool, and you can bet your iPad/netbook/eReader/laptop/desktop the dictators of the world are working on that too.
Don't get me wrong: I am not saying the oppressed peoples of the world would be worse off with open internet access than without. I am not saying that it would not benefit them to have access to information critical of their governments, and the ability to discuss and use this information to demand improvements to their societies. But don't forget: for every report on human rights abuses in China, there are Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib op-eds. For every story of Western charity, there are 10 videos of "2 girls, 1 cup" reactions. For every tweet link they follow to coordinate protests, there are a hundred rickrolls waiting. This is not a negative; this is reality. This is not pessimism; it is the truth. For any peoples freed from electronic suppression, the transition will be a long road of learning how broad, fascinating, and sometimes disturbing the uses of the unlimited internet can be. Ultimately, the internet is one of our greatest achievements as a species and should be valued as such.
The bottom line is this: the internet is no catch-all source of liberation and civilization to the rest of the world, just as the radio and the television and the phone were not. They are in fact powerful tools, and we can hardly disregard them; yet when I see pundits and policymakers alike relying on them as the last best hope of democratizing unfree peoples I cannot help but think, to borrow a line from a Transformer, "this is bad comedy". The internet will not be the conquerer of the unfree, but it will be a powerful tool if and when these societies join the ranks of the free world: to coordinate, to manipulate, to unite, to divide, to empower, to condemn. It will be as powerful and various as it is here in America and the rest of the West. And we should be damn proud of that when the day comes.
After any major gun-related tragedy, such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, and even now with the Tucson shooting, it's vogue for pro-gun control advocates to use the event as support for their policy objectives. And it is vogue for media and policymakers to eventually dismiss these calls as a ploy. They say that in the view of insane people committing atrocities, gun control misses the point. The weapon used matters less than the intent of someone disturbed to do harm to others. I disagree.
First of all, let's be clear: Yes, Loughner is clearly a disturbed individual, as are the majority of perpetrators of such rampages. The most effective method of preventing such individuals from committing heinous acts is to identify and treat their illness before these types of events are triggered. That colleges, and the military, and law enforcement suffer such a disconnect as to be unable to share the information that could have had him, and several others like him, seeing physicians instead of gunstore owners, is a sign that systemic changes must be made to make diagnosis and treatment much more rapidly and easily available to those who are ill.
However, the argument that "he, and other madmen, will commit these acts regardless of the laws that exist" is invalid. It has been used by the NRA, by media commentators, and numerous people each time these events happen. It speaks to a level of cynicism that I cannot abide; it assumes that society itself is powerless to stop the assaults of dangerous and sometimes evil people. It assumes that laws are no safeguard against those who would seek to break those laws. This is a mentality that is brought on by sustained ineptitude of government: because we failed in the past, we cannot succeed. I find this view unacceptable, and here is why.
It is true that if Jared Loughner wished to kill the Congresswoman, he could have bought a normal, unmodified handgun and done the same basic crime; hell, he could have bought a switchblade or other non-firearm and still threatened her life. It is true that if cartels and drug kingpins in Mexico wanted to slaughter people and soldiers in the thousands, handguns are capable of doing this. These are simply facts: in the modern world, there are too many tools of murder to pretend we have an airtight defense, or that we ever will.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is also true that if a child wants to put a fork in a power outlet, it may find a way. It is equally true that if someone at my work wanted to poison me, household cleaners would work. It is also true that if a burglar wants my possessions, a simple window lock will not suffice to stop him if he tried enough (as my family found out personally several years ago).
Yet we buy baby-proofers for outlets, we ban arsenic, and we lock our doors and windows. Why? If in fact, as the phrase goes, the inmates are running the asylum, why do we care?
Because we, as beings capable of rational thought, have reasonable preventive measures we take against things which would do us harm. The reason we can say that gun control laws need another look, is that a madman was able to acquire a modified semiautomatic weapon capable of destruction on a scale most of us should not have access to. And let's be clear about the facts:
1: Loughner purchased a Glock 9mm semiautomatic gun which, unmodified, carries 15 rounds in its cartridge. 2: Loughner then proceeded to purchase a modified cartridge for the gun which could hold up to 30 rounds. These "extended cartridges" are intended to make reloading less common and thus save time and effort for the shooter. Please note that in virtually all law enforcement jurisdictions in this country, extended cartridges are not issued even to police officers or agents, with only necessary exceptions. 3: On Saturday, Loughner fired 31 shots (1 round in the barrel, 30 in the cartridge) into the crowd at Congresswoman Giffords' event, before having to reload. It was during this period of reloading that an older woman seized the second cartridge he intended to load, and the crowd overpowered him, ending his rampage. 4: Of the 31 shots, 20 hit victims. Of those victims, 6 were killed and 12 wounded. Note that the number of HITS alone is 5 higher than would have been possible without reloading if he had not had the extended magazine. 5: Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the extended magazines would have been unavailable for Mr. Loughner to purchase, much less fill with ammunition and fire into a crowd. Instead, he was able to walk into a store and acquire something which elevated his capacity for slaughter higher than was otherwise possible.
But this incident is only a sideshow compared to a larger problem: the United States is the most-armed nation on Earth, with 90 firearms per 100 in the population. National intelligence service estimates say about 90% of the guns used by cartels in their war against the government and police in Mexico come from stores in the United States purchased easily and then smuggled easily across the border. The guns have empowered cartels to counterattack and threaten all stability in the country, and slaughter thousands easily and with only token defense by average citizens. Their sheer firepower and strength intimidates entire communities, and the United States' gun market is all but financing their private armies.
The violence in Mexico spreads closer to, and already partially across the border. American citizens have been kidnapped and held for ransom, or simply murdered, sometimes in broad daylight, by this criminal empires supported by our gun manufacturers.
In Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont, there are no permit restrictions whatsoever on the purchase and concealed carry of firearms for any person above the age of 18. Concealed-carry laws are not enough, however, because they do stand as an example of a law that has no effective method of enforcement, and therefore no effective prevention of illegally concealed weapons. Hence, urban areas have tried to do wholesale gun bans, but again these prove ineffective in the face of being able to transport guns into the area from easier-purchase states. And so the encroachment of criminal activity and violent acts using guns so easily acquired continues.
Thus, the initial response, even from me, is to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban that might have helped prevent some of this, but not all of it. In writing this I have realized, however, that the AWB is not the gun control policy I would agree with because it is simultaneously ineffective and not enough. I recognize that the Assault Weapons Ban was not comprehensive and indeed was mostly cosmetic in nature, not entirely banning all weapons capable of the same level of destruction.
I also recognize that outright bans on categories of firearm are unacceptable to supporters of Second Amendment rights, but the fact remains that weapons are too easy to acquire by the people who want them most: people who would do us harm.
Thus, as rational people, we are encouraged to form policy which protects our rights but also protects our lives, that meets some kind of compromise between knowing that not all tragedies can be prevented but that we can also resist simply letting the criminals and madmen have open access to tools of slaughter.
I propose the following solution as a starting point:
Set up a national gun registration service;
The service will issue uniform permit registrations, which would include mandatory drug test, mandatory number of hours of firearms training, and mandatory background checks that would be flagged for any prior criminal behavior or mental illness which the doctor believed made the person unfit for deadly weapons ownership.
All guns manufactured would require identification numbers that would identify the guns in the event of use or seizure in a crime scene;
Each permit-holder would have a yearly limit on the number of guns he or she may purchase;
All guns purchased would have to be registered to the name of a registered permit-holder. These guns would then have to be registered every 6 to 12 months to ensure that they are still in the possession of the permit-holder.
Any gun sales must be reported to the national registry for a paper trail to exist; failure to do so results in revocation of license and further penalties as prescribed by law.
The system would be paid for very easily: increase the gun tax so that purchases of guns fund the system that ensures they are used safely and properly and can hunt down criminals who would misuse them.
Most importantly however, I wish to start a debate: a debate on the merits of gun control and how we can strike the balance between what we accept as the reasonable extension of the right to bear arms, and the reasonable expectation of our own safety in public. Please comment as you will and seek to find where you stand as well, and contribute to a national discussion on this issue which has so horrifically been brought to light.
This morning, the Representative of the 8th District of my state, Arizona, in the House of Representatives, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot outside a Tucson supermarket, along with at least 5 other victims--including 5 dead as of writing: a District Judge, an aide to the Congresswoman, and a 9-year old child. I mourn each of them, and hope their families know that today, the nation is with them in this tragedy.
Representative Giffords was prematurely reported as being fatally shot, but she had undergone surgery and doctors report they are 'optimistic' for her recovery. For that, I am thankful. As more and more of her colleagues express admiration and praise for her work, it is clear that Ms. Giffords, as with the other victims of the shooting, would be a terrible loss for this nation to take.
What I was driven to write about however, pertains more than just the solemnity of the moment. More than the grief which casts another pall over this afflicted state, and nation.
Often, these events are used as good moments for heartfelt photo opportunities, but as details come to light about the man responsible for this senseless attack, something becomes clear: this is a warning shot, ladies and gentlemen.
We have operated at the brink, so to speak, for too long. Both sides are guilty of this game--liberals and conservatives each have their loudspeakers who proclaim with gusto that the other side is all but a dictatorship. That their plans will lead to financial ruin. That their tactics are dastardly and flout the very spirit of the nation's freedoms and values. And that following the other side will mean nothing short but future oblivion.
Congressman Giffords is clearly a woman who stayed above that rancor for many years. A Democrat, she managed to hold her seat in a previous Republican stronghold, and even more impressively in an election year which saw a wave of incumbent losses. She was only able to manage this by remaining centrist, appealing to the needs of all the constituents in her district. Of course she would clash with opponents---this is politics, not a Peace Pipe meeting---but she did so in a manner that, if her colleagues' comments are any indicator, put her a cut above the rest.
What that means is this: a shot against her is a warning that the years of fear and stark division in our politics, without progress, are coming back to haunt us. That a congresswoman this capable of balancing between Right and Left and serving her people can be struck down by a gunman--that should worry every citizen of this nation, regardless of ideology.
So today, I ask not only for a moment of silence across the nation to mourn the victims of this tragedy, but a moment of clarity, to wake up from the conditions that produced the heinous event in the first place.
Do not let this opportunity slip. I am not so blind as to assume disagreements will stop or that the heated arguments will subside. But I do expect that we can learn. Let us not be so heavy-handed. Let us not deceive ourselves and one another. Let us not create a climate of fear when we must create a climate of national revival. In the name of Congressman Giffords, and each victim of today's shooting, and in the name of the nation they belong to, let us---average citizen and policymaker alike--learn to have our disagreements without producing casualties.
Let us move forward and renew the cause of the nation, starting with the creed of Lincoln in his first Inaugural, vowing: "In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none".
The showdown of the first quarter of 2011 has been framed, ladies and gentlemen, tickets are available at the box office. Save your money though, you might not have much more coming: Republicans threaten to NOT raise the debt ceiling when we will hit it in March. Now, for those not savvy on the driest of dry political subjects, here's a quick lesson on what the hell the debt "ceiling" is:
The easiest metaphor for the debt ceiling is a credit card limit. Like your MasterCard, the United States has a cap on how much money it can have borrowed. Also like you, if it hits that limit, it cannot go over---it can't borrow anymore. The main difference between you and the US government is this: you can't tell MasterCard "but I need more money, so there." The government can. As long as a majority of Congress votes in favor of raising the debt ceiling, America can continue to borrow. If it does not, borrowing stops.
Now, at first glance, this seems unfair. "Why can the government just raise that? Doesn't that mean there's really no debt ceiling as long as the government wants to borrow?" Yes, that's true, and that's the logic behind refusing to raise the ceiling: if we couldn't borrow anymore, we would have to balance the money and only spend the money we have. Wouldn't that be great?
Let me explain why it would not be great. Simple math problem:
If Susie has $2,000 and the overpriced computer she wants is $3,000, how much does she still need before she can buy it?
If you don't have the answer, I have to ask: how'd you get this far?
Anyway, obviously, Susie (our metaphorical America) is short $1000 to buy her computer, but she needs it now (everyone else uses Skype and her webcam sucks). So she charges it to her credit card of course! Otherwise, she'd end up either having to work to the bone to make the extra money fast, or spend on nothing else, like food or water. Like anyone needs those.
Look at him, with all that luxury. GET A JOB!
Imagine if Susie had a $500 limit on her card though. And instead of declining, if she goes over that limit, the bank comes and asks her for all the money back that she owes. Now. Oh, and until then she can't have another penny, from any of her accounts. That's America's situation:
We take in $2.2 trillion in taxes (as of 2010). We SPEND $3.5 trillion. 3.7 - 2.2 = $1.5 trillion in deficit.
Basically, anything in the deficit MUST BE BORROWED. There is no other way to spend that money. The alternative is printing money, which can cause hyperinflation (meaning next year your money is worth half of what it is this year. Yeah, hence we don't do that printing-money much).
If we do not raise the debt ceiling, we cannot continue to borrow, which means we would not be able to afford $1.5 trillion in our budget. And we would also almost certainly have a downgraded credit rating, which would increase the interest we pay on current debt and destabilize our currency and economy.
"So?" You might ask. "We spend too much! Cut the budget!"
"Chill the fuck out guys, I got this."
Ok, let's do that then. Should be easy. Hm...how about a 50% cut in the military? No more supercarriers, no more Special Forces to take out terrorists before they can attack...that'll reduce the deficit by...oh. 15%. Ok, 85% left to go!
What about all those awful Congressional earmarks everyone seems to complain about? They waste SO MUCH MONEY! Ok, get rid of all of the wasteful earmarks. That brings us down a whopping...1% of the deficit. Only 84% left!
Ok, well let's say we're willing to REALLY sacrifice here: No more NASA, no more FBI (which includes a loss of a majority of missing persons investigations) no more assistance to police departments, no more environmental protection, no more assistance to poor people to find housing, no more aid to poor nations, no more researching cancer or AIDS or diabetes or genetics, no more building/repairing highways, bridges, ports, airports, trains, no more federal school funding or increased funds to poor districts, no more grants to university students, no more National Weather Service, no more Coast Guard, no more building flood levees and power stations, no more aid to hospitals to cover ERs, no more aid to small business.
Eliminate ALL major government services except entitlement programs, the other half of the military we let survive, and paying off interest on the debt...and our deficit does get cut.
By another 35%.
Leaving us 49% more of the deficit to cut.
Yep. That's the first of the two big lies being propagated by the people currently in government, mainly Republicans: all we need to do is cut wasteful spending, and there goes the deficit.
Well, if you consider every single thing government does as waste (which some of my Libertarian friends might), then that's fine. But if you believe government spending has the ability to do some good (read the list above), then you must know that the math doesn't add up: spending cuts alone cannot save the current fiscal scenario.
The second lie is also equally false, and this one is the Democrats': Republican-driven tax cuts for the wealthy in the 2000s killed the budget, we just have to let those expire and the deficit will come down!
This one is simply untrue. In order for taxes to make up the deficits, tax revenue would have to rise----by about half their current value. This means that taxes on the wealthy can't go up just from 30% to 35%, but rather to 45 % or 50. And the average American's taxes would not remain at 25, but would probably have to rise to 36%. Taxes were already disturbingly low at the end of the 1990s, the Bush Tax Cuts certainly did not help, but the situation would be similarly dire either way.
Third lie: Social Security and Medicare are too important to cut. They can pay for themselves. Also, simply not true. For one thing, 2010 marked the first year that payments from Social Security out-paced the money meant to pay for the program from the FICA tax, a separate tax on income designed for it. This means that from every year from 2011 on, we can expect the Social Security Administration to need more tax assistance, and soak up more of the budget.
Even if you believe the SSA is the most important program on the budget, its outlays already exceed all money spent on discretionary spending. Combined with Medicare and Medicaid, they make up 40% of the federal budget, or 99% of the deficit.
I'll say that one more time: our mandatory spending programs, that lawmakers claim should be invulnerable to cuts, make up 99% of the deficit. Cutting all other discretionary spending combined does not add up to the same amount.
The point?
WE HAVE TO CUT OUR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.
WE HAVE TO RAISE TAXES.
WE MUST REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.
ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU OTHERWISE IS LYING TO YOU AND HARMING OUR FUTURE IN THE PROCESS.
CONGRESS IS LYING TO YOU, AND SO HAVE THE LAST TWO PRESIDENTS. BOTH PARTY PLATFORMS CONTAIN LIES DESIGNED TO KEEP THIS USELESS DEBATE GOING. DEMAND BETTER.
Quick: are you an optimistic person? You might have been able to find an answer quickly, but what exactly does that mean? For many people, optimism is expressed as at least one of the following:
"I expect things to turn out well" "I hope for the best" "Things will go how they are meant to be"
The problem is these statements are dissociative from one another and are not necessarily mutually inclusive. For instance, I take issue, even offense, with being placed in either camp because it makes certain assumptions about your behavior, assumptions which can be disproved in either category.
This is vital in whatever you do, but particularly relevant to the field of policy---and therefore why I reject both camps. If we are really only capable of being pessimistic or optimistic people, then how does that affect how we view, respond to, and shape society? Do optimists not respond to poverty, only relying on sheer hope and higher power to raise the destitute from their awful conditions? What about pessimists? Since we'll probably all be nuked someday anyway, why don't we just press the button and fire missiles at all our enemies now?
These are dramatic examples, but they illustrate the sheer poor logic of trying to explain or pigeonhole individuals in this manner, and why I tend to come into conflict with either camp. The pessimists I've come across accuse me of being too liberal, too hopeful: I have too much faith in the future and the ability of well thought-out solutions to have positive impact on negative situations. For instance, I support welfare programs that assist poor families buy necessities. "WHY?" claim my more negative counterparts. "They'll just live off the system!"
Meanwhile, the optimists I interact with will accuse me consistently of pessimism---sometime to their own delight. The strongest instance of this is when I have pointed out the sheer number of issues which I believe we're performing poorly--economics, taxes, health care, environment, immigration, foreign policy--I am accused of focusing too much on the negative. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
This is why I fundamentally disapprove of either label. As someone who believes in policymaking, I believe it is irrational to hold to either ideology---I eschew ideology in general, in fact. Tending and responding to the needs of society requires a degree of impartiality and an as-close-as-possible to objective analysis of the conditions as possible. Furthermore, while a leader has to believe in his own ability to improve the state of his people, he must also be prepared for his own failures or worsening of the situation---or risk being crushed by the consequences if he is caught unawares. It would be irresponsible to be given the reins to a society and act in any other way. If you disagree with me, feel free to comment but I happen to believe this is the proper manner to carry oneself when you are in the field of policymaking.
I was asked to provide a "cheat sheet" for the ballot measures, both short summaries for the props and my own opinion on how to vote for them. Please know that the votes are my own and if you need more info, I invite you to visit here for more depth and links to bipartisan information on the ballot. Here goes:
Prop 106: Will outlaw any law forcing citizens of AZ to buy health insurance (called a mandate, as in the one in the Obama health care bill). My vote: No.
Prop 107: Will outlaw affirmative action (a.k.a. equal opportunity) programs for state employment, meaning it is now illegal to favor any race, including minorities, in employment programs. My vote: Yes.
Prop 108: Would cause all formal voting in the state--elections and union votes, primarily--to be "secret ballot" (as opposed to "public ballot" where people know what each other voted for). My vote: Yes.
Prop 109: Re-guarantees the right to hunt (and associated right to guns) in AZ. My vote: Yes.
Prop 110: Outlaws land sales/use that impede existing military institutions. My vote: Yes.
Prop 111: Changes "Secretary of State" to "Lieutenant Governor", and states that in future elections, Governor and Lieutenant Governor must be of the same party, like the President and Vice President. My vote: No.
Prop 112: Shortens the time allotted for petitions to get the number of signatures they need to be on the ballot. My vote: No.
Prop 203: Legalizes medical marijuana. My vote: Yes.
Prop 301: Moves ~$120 million from a conservation account (where they can't be used for anything but conservation, and currently sit idle) to the General Fund (where the legislature can move it anywhere to make up the current deficits in other departments---education, law enforcement, etc). My vote: Yes.
Prop 302: Moves ~$300 million from a pre-K education fund to the General Fund (similar principles to prop 301). My vote: Yes.
This post is going to be particularly short. I'm very much sick of the media trying to make up various narratives about the reason behind Obama's sliding approval rating and the likelihood of a Democratic loss of Congress. Generally, the artificial story seems to revolve around voters either being dissatisfied with (1) the "high spending and deficits" of the Obama Administration, or (2) unemployment remaining at 9-10% despite recovery efforts.
Question for Fox/MSNBC/CNN: isn't it a bit insulting to assume that unemployment IN GENERAL is enough to simply throw an entire government-in-power out the door? Surely the American voting population deserves a bit more credit than that. The unemployment rate isn't at 53%, guys, so the 48% approval rating can't exactly be explained away as "people who don't have jobs disapprove", and "deficit spending"? We've deficit spent for half a century, and NOW people make it the number-one issue? Come on.
While democratic voting can be a fickle beast, it also demonstrates larger trends than mere issues and opinions--I think the sliding approval for Democrats is systemic of a larger American dissatisfaction with the US government in general, and although the party-in-power will always stand more to lose under such circumstances, it can hardly be called a victory for Republicans. The Tea Party movement, despite its faults, is the first real symptom that the American patience for the see-sawing of parties without any real progress in policy success is wearing thin. The gains Republicans make this coming November will be enormous relative to their current minority in Congress, and they will get a majority. But watch the margins. The fact is, the seesaw will tip some in favor of the GOP, but the overall attitude of American voters isn't "get me a job" or "fix the budget", it's "do something good for the country, damnit!" The anger isn't exclusive to conservatives, just as it wasn't exclusive to liberals in 06 and 08. It's time to drop the act, media: stop pretending like it's the same-old change of the guard and start reporting what Americans are really riled about.
This week, always-controversial President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmoud Ahmedinejad gave a speech at the United Nations in which he effectively claimed the U.S. government was conspiratorially involved in the Sept 11 attacks on its own people. Specifically, Mr. Ahmedinejad claimed that among the prevailing "theories" about responsibility for the attacks, was:
In response, the United States (which hosts the United Nations headquarters in downtown NYC), all 27 members of the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Costa Rica, immediately walked out of the General Assembly in open protest (a common diplomatic move to express displeasure).
In response to the remarks, American President Barack Obama said in a speech, that the suggestion of American involvement in 9/11 was "offensive" and "hateful":
Now, call me crazy: but I think we should do as Ahmedinejad says. Hear me out:
First of all, the man gets away with saying what can only be called crazy bullshit very often, yet receives a considerable degree of respect in the non-Western world because he manages to make these claims without being effectively countered or shamed by his opponents in the US, EU, and elsewhere. So, it's time to end his reign of crazy in the international community.
Here's what I say, Mahmoud: I'll consent to the creation of an independent commission to study whether the US government (or "certain segments") were active co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. On one condition: if the commission's finding's do not support your stated "widely supported" theory, then you will come to Washington D.C. and deliver a formal letter of apology to the people of New York and the United States of America in general, and be barred from speaking at the United Nations General Assembly for the remainder of your term.
It's time you were muzzled, and this time, I want to see your own words do it. Let's go Ahmedinejad, back up what you say you analyze to be the truth. If, of course, you're man enough, and not some shadow of a real leader making empty gestures to make up for your lack of real power with rhetorical attacks on this country and our integrity. Go ahead and decide.
Watching the coverage of the "Ground Zero Mosque" has made me progressively angrier, primarily because the entire debate is based off of misconceptions and false logic. The argument over the building of this mosque/community center has become a microcosm for Muslims' place in American society, and as such it bears thoughtful, thorough analysis---and is being given none on the airwaves. In an effort to defend Muslims' equality in this nation, here's some of the most popular myths, misconceptions, and downright lies about Islam and its followers, and why they need to go away. 1: "Islam is a political religion! They want to take over! The Koran says their duty is to spread their religion over the whole world!"
This one's popular among Islamophobes because, at its core, this statement is true. Islam was founded by the Prophet Muhammad in roughly 610 AD, but his followers in Mecca were persecuted by the existing authorities, so they fled to Medina to start a kingdom there, with Muhammad as leader. He and his successors were incredibly efficient in conversion and conquest, eventually coming to rule vast swathes of what is now called the Middle East and North Africa. This rule spread the Islamic faith across continents, until it dominated more than a billion (almost 20%) of the world's people.
If you're wondering, Mohammed was REALLY GOOD at Risk.
Muslims, believing that their faith is the true religion of Allah (who would adhere to a religion they didn't believe was true?), feel it is their duty to spread this truth to every corner of the Earth, to the benefit of mankind. Those who violently oppose this spread are subject to war with Islam.
It's that last bit that has Christians, but many others, worried about the intentions of Muslims, particularly Muslim immigrants in the West. And it's true, look how worrisome this text is. God tells the reader that the people of a different religion in their land must be destroyed:
Frightening, eh? But wait, that's the Bible, commanding the Jews to commit what can only be described as genocide: the text doesn't make exceptions for women, children, animals, unarmed bystanders, it just says kill everything. How horrifying! Should we be worried that our Christian neighbors going to church on Sundays are secretly plotting our murder? "No," you say, "because they're rational people who live righteous lives without having to follow the murderous commands of every verse in the bible." Right...and so, what's the difference between that, and the Muslims who abide all our laws, live well, and choose not to follow the more violent parts of the Koran?
See folks, there's just one problem with accusing Islam of being a political religion: virtually every other religion is political as well.
Ever wonder why the largest Christian denomination on Earth is called the ROMAN Catholic Church? Because it was decreed into existence by the Roman Emperor Constantine, in the Edict of Milan. Long story short, it was the Emperor who not only legalized Christianity, but formed one church from it, and organized the Bible's contents. The Catholic Church would become the main source of political law in not only Rome, but the Medieval kingdoms to follow, and for more than one thousand years dominated politics of the European continent.
That's just one huge example, and the Catholic Church takes a lot of heat. "But Eric," you might argue, "that's just one Christian religion. You can't say Catholics represent all Christianity!" And to that I would say "how are you talking to me in an article? But anyway, you're right, I'm being unfair." So, let's see: there's religious conservatives, self-proclaimed activists who point to their religious doctrines, mainly the Bible, for influence in politics. They range from the Catholic to the Evangelical to the Presbyterian and Methodist, and everything in between. These very same people who are arguing against the mosque being built because of Islam's political nature, happen to also claim that America's politics should be dominated by Christianity (note--only watch up to 1:40, the rest is the host's opinons):
Here's my other problem with that claim: if Muslims want to take over the country, where are they? (Besides Obama, of course...) I mean, if Islam is so dominant a political powerhouse, then why are there no major Islamic political movements? Why is the Tea Party winning some elections but no Muslim party is registering on the radar? Maybe the Secret Muslims are taking seats in Secret Congress so they can pass Secret Laws to Secretly Rule Behind The Scenes America...or maybe the idea that there's an active attempt by Muslims to dominate American politics is bullshit and fearmongering. Moreover, given the fact that these Christians want to dominate politics to establish their own theological laws, the accusation that "Islam is a political religion" reads more like thinly-veiled attempt to drown out their competition than a real warning to fellow Americans.
"Warning! There's only 130 of us to every 1 Muslim! RUN FOR THE HILLS!"
Let's look at reality here people: every religion in existence, by the simple reality of possessing rules for how you should live and conduct your affairs, is a political religion. A community made up entirely of Christians will live according to Christian rules. A community made up entirely of Muslims will live according to Muslim rules. A community, such as ours, made up of a huge amalgamation of every people, race, tongue, and religion known to mankind, must find common ground to live on, not attempt to dominate and castigate one another.
"Islam is a violent religion, just look at the Koran!"
Obviously, this claim begs us to actually look at the Koran to tell whether it's true. So, let me get my trusty copy out, and look...oh, here we go, violence:
"[If a man tells you to follow another God,] thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from...thy God"
"Honey, those Mormons are back at the door!"
Aw Islam, you and brutally stoning people for proselytizing their faith to you, it's like peanut butter and---oh, wait, whoopsie folks, I'm afraid this is a quote from the Bible (Deuteronomy 13:9). Let's try that again. Ok, here we are, one that demonstrates Islam's desire to conquer in the name of God and glorify it:
"[Our proud kingdom] smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them."
Wow, God gives you free reign to attack and murder those who hate you? How can any religion under a peace-loving God believe tha-- oh wait, that's the Jews. That's the Jews killing all of their enemies, proclaimed with the help of God, in Esther 9:5.
Then there's the genocidal reference from the previous section. You see my point? Just because a text says something violent, and even if some adherents of the religion have acted on that text (David and Solomon, Pope Urban II, etc), does not and should not condemn all the adherents of a religion. Most religions have embarrassing textual issues, that's just the reality of trying to believe in something written for the harsh times and rules of the Iron Age. But, then, that's a problem of....
Guilt by association We all know the burnouts from our schools: the kids who never cared, who didn't want to be told what to do, and will end up serving you a McFlurry one day, provided they stay out of prison. Every single school has them. Now imagine for a second, if you applied for college, and they pulled up that kid's record from your school. And evaluated YOU based on HIS record.
That's what judging regular Muslims against the record of terrorists is---that's the logic involved. Terrorists are burnout, monstrous idiots who also happen to have guns and bombs. And we lump in every other person because we don't know much about the religion to make the distinction.
Imagine, for instance, that Americans were judged by the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, that somewhere in the world there are people who believe that, by association, you must also be a skinhead, anti-Semitic racist maniac. That's insane, nobody's done that, right? Wrong:
This is a poster from the Soviet Union during the Cold War, enlarged so you can see details. The caption reads "FREEDOM...AMERICAN STYLE." The Soviets pointed out that the freedom and tolerance-loving American people also had the KKK and lynchings, along with the armed breaking up of protests shown in the bottom right. Now, think about it: technically, the poster isn't even lying. The United States HAS had these people and events take place: KKK lynchings, Kansas State protests that resulted in deaths. But tell me this: is it fair that the USSR, or anyone else, judge the entire country and all its people based on these things? Do you like the idea of being spoken for by the KKK? Of course not.
Well then why do we justify doing the same thing to Muslims? The counter-argument is often that Muslims all believe in the same religion, thus they must reach the same conclusion. Really? Because the KKK and the Unabomber and the Olympic Park bombers of 1996 were all Christians. So, using the Bible as inspiration, should all we Christians reach the same conclusion about sending bombs through the mail, hanging blacks and Jews and Catholics, and loading up pipe bombs with shrapnel in the middle of crowded places? I think not. Similar to what Christians would say of the Bible, the Koran is a document heavily open to interpretation, and many Muslims have divergent opinions on exactly how and what to emphasize certain aspects of the writing. Judging them all on the views of minorities is very simply wrong. But that brings me to my last idea to counter:
"Violent Muslims aren't a minority of Muslims! Many of them see violence as ok and will kill Americans here!"
Now this one is probably the single most insulting of those covered in this post because you are legitimately calling an entire group of people murderers or would-be murderers. Let's back this up, shall we?
However, those who look at the numbers realize that Muslim Americans are solidly American citizens, with the greatest rates of accepting their society and functioning well there, as well as providing some of the smallest amounts of danger of any Muslim or general minority population anywhere.
Now, America's always been a highly successful immigration-oriented state, so this makes sense. Americans can be xenophobic, but generally our society and institutions are built to accept a large number of immigrants and build them into our society. The fact is, the system is working with Muslims just as well as it did with my Italian and Hispanic ancestors, and the Irish, German, Chinese, and African immigration waves before: hiccups and struggles with discrimination yes, but otherwise contributing well to the migrants and the Americans "already here".
So, why do we think Muslims will just start shooting at us at random? Well, paranoia and fearmongering. The American media and state have been very effective at making terrorism, particularly Islamic-based terrorism, seem like a real and ever-present threat to every American. And while this threat should be taken seriously, it has been significantly played up. There isn't a terrorist ready to blow you up in every major city. But, the true threat of terror is a topic I'll cover in the future---just know that the perception that Muslim=terrorist and terrorist=EVERYWHERE is pretty wrong.
Conclusion If you have gotten to this point, let me begin by thanking you for sticking it out. I understand this was a long, verbose document and reaching the end is no small feat, as I think even I might have abandoned such a long post by now. However, I have a few words in closing.
First, let me emphasize that I am proud to count among my friends several believers in the Islamic faith. I have benefited both from their personal contributions to my life as well as the perspectives their faith has offered at different times. Their value is not tied to their faith, but it is also certainly not a detractor.
Furthermore, I have never once believed myself to be in danger around these friends. They are good friends of mine who I do not think of as Muslims first, so why would I feel any more insecure than I would with Christian, Atheist, or any other friend of mine. So, when people begin to discuss "Muslims" as one, monolithic institution, they are choosing to lump my friends into the discussion---and when they then insult that proud religion through lies, misinterpretation, and challenge their freedom to exercise their faith, they are launching an attack directly on my friends. Because of the way I view friendship, by extension they are launching an attack on me. I do not take this lightly.
As such, I feel strongly on this issue. I refuse to lie down and ignore the hateful, deceitful rhetoric coming not simply from ignorant backwaters, but from self-proclaimed educated and trustworthy sources like Fox News. These people regularly insist on their own rights to exercise religion and influence society with it. Yet when they turn around and insist that these rights either be denied or self-limited by Muslim-Americans, they are acting counter to the entire purpose of the American system. Commonly, conservatives and other groups so fearful of Muslim influence call upon the Founding Fathers for answers in their debates (which is a fallacy-style argument I'll cover in a future post). But, let's see about the Founders' feelings then, shall we? Washington himself claimed that he had no discrimination against Muslims, and would welcome some to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen", the requirement he used for any worker. Jefferson was proud that the Virginia legislature did not issue any limitations on religious freedoms for anyone, including Muslims, a topic which had been raised. The Founders saw religion as only one factor in judging a person, not the principal means.
I'll close with the support of the first generation of Americans, signing a petition no fewer than 225 years ago:
"Let Jews, Mehometans [Muslims] and Christians of every denomination enjoy religious liberty…thrust them not out now by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys" .... "It is men's labour in our Manufactories, their services by sea and land that aggrandize our Country and not their creeds [emphasis mine].
Even the founding generation of this nation, with less information about Islam, less interaction with Muslims, and less reason to tolerate them, viewed them with the same eyes that the Reverend King would have, insisting on the "content of their character" and their ability to contribute to society, not their religion, which is no indicator of them as a person. From 1785, to 1963, to today, this has been a unifying value of American democracy. Let us not, after so much progress, give this value up because of madmen. Stand in the face of fear and, like millions of Americans before you, show that it has no bearing on the greatness this country has to offer.
Today is Primary Day in Arizona, the state in which most of my readers (and I) live. Some readers may be shocked to know I will not be participating in voting today, primarily because I am an independent voter and thus I do not care for the internal squabbles of the party candidates. However, seeing as we're only a short few months from actual state election day, I felt it was timely to provide a short synopsis of what is happening this November's election. Seeing as I can't weigh in on the general election until final primary results are in, I am covering the state legislative elections and the ballot measures (bills) on this section. Hopefully you find this useful, otherwise I fail at my job :). Seek enlightenment below.
STATE LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS A guide to finding what AZ legislative district you live in (and therefore should vote for) can be found here. Scroll down to the bottom left and input your address to find out your legislative district.
At that point you'll be able to read this candidate statements guide and find the candidates for your district and read what they have to say about what they'll do for your district. By having their names, you could also Google their candidate websites to find out more specifics.
With your voting research done, you can go here to find your voting locations based on two different options of input. You'd be surprised how much is decided at the state level, so vote, for your own sake.
BALLOT MEASURES Ballot measures are bills put on the ballot for approval or disapproval directly by the voters. The following ballot measures are slated for placement on the November 2010 ballot(links and information thanks to the good people at Ballotpedia), as well as my opinion for each one (clearly marked in capitals in case you don't want to be influenced) and my prediction for the electoral result. Enjoy!
Proposition 106: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution to protect Arizona citizens from being forced to purchase health insurance by government action, while simultaneously guaranteeing the right of citizens to purchase private health insurance. MY OPINION: The supremacy (or lack thereof) of the Obama health care mandate will be decided in court either way, so amending the state constitution is fairly useless gesture for Arizona to pretend it doesn't have to participate. I will vote for, however, because a state defending it's citizen's freedoms from federal dominance is not distasteful to me. PREDICTION: The measure will pass by overwhelming majority due to Arizona's strong conservative opposition to "Obamacare".
Proposition 107: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution by adding the following to Article 2:
This state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.
In essence, the state constitution would be banning affirmative action programs by banning "discrimination" and "preferential treatment" in employment by the state (teachers, police, construction, etc). MY OPINION: I am an opponent of most affirmative action programs, I believe 21st-century America is sufficiently prepared to punish continuing discrimination without having to favor any one group. I consider affirmative action today essentially reverse discrimination, so I will vote in favor of the measure. PREDICTION: Arizona has never voted on affirmative action before. However, given the heavy white majority, I expect this measure to succeed, though probably by a close margin.
Proposition 108: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution to make voting by secret ballot in elections, ballot measures, and other voting procedures a "fundamental right" in the state. The amendment to the constitution would read as follows:
To preserve and protect the fundamental right of individuals to vote by secret ballot, where local, state or federal law requires elections for public offices or for ballot measures, or requires elections for public offices or for ballot measures, or requires designations or authorizations for employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed.
MY OPINION: I agree that voting by secret ballot, including for unionization, is a fundamental right of citizens of any democracy. As such, I support the measure. PREDICTION: Passage.
Proposition 109: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution to make hunting in the state (regulated by the legislature and the Game and Fish Commission) a constitutionally-protected right. The amendment to the constitution would read as follows:
A. The citizens of this State have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife lawfully. Wildlife belongs to this State and is held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of this state. B. Exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate the manner, methods or seasons for hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife is vested in the Legislature, which may delegate rule making authority to a game and fish commission. No law shall be enacted and no rule shall be adopted that unreasonably restricts hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods. Laws and rules authorized under this section shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing. C. Lawful public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. D. this section shall not be CONSTRUED to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass or property rights.
MY OPINION: I don't even know why this was added to the ballot. I thought hunting was already pretty well-protected in Arizona, but I suppose this goes with the trend: recently states have been passing a multitude of pro-Second Amendment and gun/hunting related bills to show solidarity against any Democratic attempt at stricter gun control. But this measure doesn't even do anything; it prettymuch says "hey everyone? You know how you could hunt before? You still can." Since this does not really offend me in any way, I will vote in its favor. PREDICTION: Hunting. In Arizona. What do you think? Passage.
Proposition 110: The measure, as I understand it, would essentially make it illegal to sell state trust lands for purposes that would harm or impede military bases, and permit sales that aid the bases' protection and other purposes. MY OPINION: Seems fine and straightforward, I'll vote in favor. PREDICTION: Passage, though an apathetic electorate could leave enough ballots blank to make the margin closer.
Proposition 111: The current position of "Secretary of State" would be renamed "Lieutenant Governor" (Arizona currently has no Lieutenant Governor). Furthermore, like a President/Vice President ballot, any candidate for Lieutenant Governor would have to run on a ticket with the same party MY OPINION: Requiring the two highest offices of the state to come from the same party circumvents public elections, if you ask me. Yes, the disagreements between the Governor and Secretary of State of different parties can be cumbersome, but that's a function of government. I'm a bit torn on this one, but I'm leaning against. PREDICTION: Passage. I don't think people will get that it's more than a title change.
Proposition 112: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution's petition processes. Currently, a certain number of signatures on a ballot petition (a petition to put a bill on the ballot to be voted on) need to be submitted by July 1 in order to be put on the ballot. Proposition 112 would move the deadline up to May 1, two months sooner. MY OPINION: I tend to believe shorter petition deadlines favor the weak at the expense of those with more resources. A petition supported by businesses and lobbyists already has the resources to get signatures quickly; a petition created by students and spread by word of mouth deserves time to pick up speed. I am against shortening the time---I vote no. PREDICTION: I'm pretty sure this will be passed because it SEEMS ok on the surface.
Proposition 203:The measure would legalize the use of medical marijuana in the borders of the state of Arizona. MY OPINION: Generally a legalization of medical use is seen as a first step toward full legalization. I support legalization on libertarian principles, and reject the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug" in itself. I will vote in favor of the measure. PREDICTION: Tossup. There is vehement support for both sides of this argument.
Proposition 301: The measure would permit the transfer of $123 million in funds from a land conservation account into the general fund. In layman's terms, the government would be able to use that large amount of money for what it wanted and not keep it locked up in a different account.
The measure is intended to help counter the state's budget deficit and maintain government services elsewhere. Combined with Proposition 100 (1 cent sales tax increase) and Proposition 302 (see below), the Arizona deficit is expected to close. MY OPINION: I wish there were another way, but this state's budget emergency calls for this measure. I happen to be pro-environment, but not at the cost of the rest of government, and these funds are needed. Thus, we detract from some of our conservation, but keep our state solvent. Because this measure is what I view as a necessity, I support its passage. PREDICTION: Passage, the environment lobby won't defeat the deficit-tackling electorate.
Proposition 302: This measure would eliminate the "First Things First" program, a young children's and impoverished young children's education program, and use the funds for the rest of state government. MY OPINION: Where the hell is this money going? I have a younger brother who never received program benefits, and I don't know anyone who did. It's difficult for me to justify $300+million in funds to a program I don't see any impact from...I mean, $300 million is a third of our deficit. Just as 301 is a necessity in my view, I support this measure as well. PREDICTION: Tossup. The "children's education" aspect could become a heated issue, provided many people pay attention.
SUMMARY The state has several measures that are clear responses to federal controversies. Most of the measures on here will, in my opinion, probably pass, but obviously every vote counts. The budget-balancing measures are some of the most controversial and important on the ballot, so make your decisions and vote. I hope this guide has given some insight, and I leave the rest to you.
PS: Part II, on the General Election candidates for Congress and State Executive positions, is coming soon! Thanks to all my readers.
