Earlier today, the Obama stimulus package passed the House 244-188, 11 of the dissenters being Democrats. While it remains to be seen what happens in congress, it seems to be a foregone conclusion it will pass. What is interesting are the numerous posts found, primarily written by Republicans, immediately after the vote was taken, that label this stimulus package as part of Obama’s “socialist” agenda. All of which begs the question: Do these people even know what socialism is? And if they did, would they react the same way?
It is interesting to note that there currently is only one openly socialist member of the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and he typically is lumped in with the Democrats for caucusing and a variety of assignments. What is even more interesting are those that have backed and endorsed him throughout his years in the House of Representatives, a list including Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and even Barack Obama. Seeing that some of the more popular politicians have campaigned for him, it is certainly worth an additional and closer look as to what this whole “socialism” thing really is.
The overriding foundation of socialism is that every member of a socialist society has an equal voice. The concept of the most attention going to the ones that can most afford it and/or give the most to a political campaign would be non-existent. Wages would be based on effort and hours, eliminating the drastic salary difference between, say, major league baseball players and 3rd grade teachers. While there are wide variations of ideas as to how this would be accomplished, it would include the state controlling major parts of industries that affect a large percentage of the population, such as power and water companies. Ideally, the government is elected democratically, thus serves as an extension of the people, giving the general population control of these industries.
Despite some obvious benefits, the general perception of a socialistic society is negative. Why? Seemingly because most seem to consider it a form of communism, which will always leave a bad taste in one’s mouth. The fact is, they are drastically different. Socialism says nothing of religion, and typically is not against the freedom of it (there are many socialist factions however, with varying views). Additionally, the end of a free market economic system is often perceived as an attack on human rights, a perception of which is debatable.
While it would have been political suicide for President Obama to admit this during the campaign, Senator McCain was correct with the accusation that Obama wanted to “spread the wealth around.” His timing was terrible, however, as the concept does not sound so bad in the current economic situation we now find ourselves in. But any plan to tax those making large incomes a greater amount than others, and then use that revenue in programs to assist the middle and lower class certainly has socialist aspects to it. Whether it is the right path or not would take a book to discuss, if not multiple volumes. It is time though, to reconsider the options that, in the past, we so quickly dismissed.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Lost in Gauntanamo....
Before we even took a breath following the inauguration of our new President, the photos of numerous well decorated generals surrounding Obama as he signed the order closing Guantanamo and eliminating secret CIA prisons were plastered on every newspaper and website, a drastic reminder of the sweeping change facing former President Bush’s controversial policies. The event gave clear indication to a hungry nation that the new commander-in-chief would stand by his campaign promises, at least in this area, and gave weight to the incessant fundraising emails we continually receive from the Democratic Party.
However, closing the location where torture was performed will do little to end its occurrence. Simply shipping the prisoners overseas avoids a nightmarish public relations issue, and allows the old interrogation methods to continue unabated without the watchful eye of the general public. Many countries we consider allies have little to no guidelines on the use of torture, and do not face enough political pressure for that to change. Simply sending our dirty work overseas may work well politically in the short term, but in actuality falls well short of eliminating the issue. Closing GitMo is nothing short of a public relations ploy unless accompanied with a drastic overhaul, and specific consequences to those nations that fail to abide by them.
And what of the information we already have, much of which has been garnered by the use of illegal torture? Can this information be used at trial? If not, what becomes of the prisoner that cannot be convicted that has obvious yet unsubmittable evidence against him? Is he now free to walk the streets, or simply shipped back to become 2nd in charge at a Yemen terrorist camp?
An issue facing the Obama administration is to develop an intricate balance needed between the desire for increased transparency and the need for ambiguity in laying out what will be considered both legal and illegal in the acquisition of intelligence from prisoners. A step-by-step how-to manual will allow the enemy to prepare its members for the tactics that would be used, making it highly unlikely that they would ever be truly effective. However, not disclosing this would be seen as a return to the bush secrecy of the last eight years, opening the administration to immense criticism from both sides of the issue.
Certainly, the hands of the President are full. The issue of Guantanamo Bay is far from over, the executive order signed last week just the tip of the iceberg. It was a strong gesture, not only here but abroad, but lacks any significant weight without a real policy to back it up.
However, closing the location where torture was performed will do little to end its occurrence. Simply shipping the prisoners overseas avoids a nightmarish public relations issue, and allows the old interrogation methods to continue unabated without the watchful eye of the general public. Many countries we consider allies have little to no guidelines on the use of torture, and do not face enough political pressure for that to change. Simply sending our dirty work overseas may work well politically in the short term, but in actuality falls well short of eliminating the issue. Closing GitMo is nothing short of a public relations ploy unless accompanied with a drastic overhaul, and specific consequences to those nations that fail to abide by them.
And what of the information we already have, much of which has been garnered by the use of illegal torture? Can this information be used at trial? If not, what becomes of the prisoner that cannot be convicted that has obvious yet unsubmittable evidence against him? Is he now free to walk the streets, or simply shipped back to become 2nd in charge at a Yemen terrorist camp?
An issue facing the Obama administration is to develop an intricate balance needed between the desire for increased transparency and the need for ambiguity in laying out what will be considered both legal and illegal in the acquisition of intelligence from prisoners. A step-by-step how-to manual will allow the enemy to prepare its members for the tactics that would be used, making it highly unlikely that they would ever be truly effective. However, not disclosing this would be seen as a return to the bush secrecy of the last eight years, opening the administration to immense criticism from both sides of the issue.
Certainly, the hands of the President are full. The issue of Guantanamo Bay is far from over, the executive order signed last week just the tip of the iceberg. It was a strong gesture, not only here but abroad, but lacks any significant weight without a real policy to back it up.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Can I pray to God from hell?
Recently, while speaking in a class on the topic of the authenticity of the biblical account of Jesus, a class member, an older, African American woman, stood up and left the room. I continued on discussing the similarities between the Christian leader and the ancient Egyptian god Horus, and answering questions after. The woman then returned, and during the discussion, interrupted, announced that she could not, in good conscience, keep quiet, and proceeded to give her account of God speaking to her in a dream and whatnot, and concluded by, in no uncertain terms, announcing I was, in fact, going to hell. My reply was an explanation that while she walked out on my speech, I had in turn listened intently to every word she had spoken (including the much appreciated fortune telling sequence). From that point she remained silent, and class resumed.
Following the class, she approached and actually apologized for her condemnation of me, and explained why she had actually left the room. It seems that her religion orders her to leave when the topic turns to religion, and she willingly obliged. She was very kind in this discussion, and I give her credit for her ability to calm down and actually approach me.
But a question must be asked. Why would any human subject themselves to a rule that did not allow them to think for themselves? Is ones’ self respect so low that they no longer have this ability? And if it is believed, as it is in every major Christian religion, that God has given us free will, why would one disrespect God by refusing to use it? Does free will end after one selects a denomination?
No amount of logic could convince a reasonable person that there was a talking snake, or a man walked on water, or any human came to life after being dead for three days. If, however, at some moment of weakness or need, when ones’ ability to think logically were somehow altered, they were convinced of these things, to then submit to an inane rule that you must not speak with or listen to an opposing opinion, or anything that may cause you to question your faith in such beliefs, is nothing short of a shocking level of naiveté.
And how could any religion, working in the name of God, enforce this? It must be an extraordinary experience for a pastor, looking out every Sunday to a sea of drones, lacking the ability and even desire to think for themselves, as they spew idiotic, illogical babble to the starving masses. If it were just one man, alone, telling us of these supposed miracles, these fanciful stories, and he led his life by them, we would lock him away in a padded room. A few million believing the same insanities however, and we give them a city in Italy.
Following the class, she approached and actually apologized for her condemnation of me, and explained why she had actually left the room. It seems that her religion orders her to leave when the topic turns to religion, and she willingly obliged. She was very kind in this discussion, and I give her credit for her ability to calm down and actually approach me.
But a question must be asked. Why would any human subject themselves to a rule that did not allow them to think for themselves? Is ones’ self respect so low that they no longer have this ability? And if it is believed, as it is in every major Christian religion, that God has given us free will, why would one disrespect God by refusing to use it? Does free will end after one selects a denomination?
No amount of logic could convince a reasonable person that there was a talking snake, or a man walked on water, or any human came to life after being dead for three days. If, however, at some moment of weakness or need, when ones’ ability to think logically were somehow altered, they were convinced of these things, to then submit to an inane rule that you must not speak with or listen to an opposing opinion, or anything that may cause you to question your faith in such beliefs, is nothing short of a shocking level of naiveté.
And how could any religion, working in the name of God, enforce this? It must be an extraordinary experience for a pastor, looking out every Sunday to a sea of drones, lacking the ability and even desire to think for themselves, as they spew idiotic, illogical babble to the starving masses. If it were just one man, alone, telling us of these supposed miracles, these fanciful stories, and he led his life by them, we would lock him away in a padded room. A few million believing the same insanities however, and we give them a city in Italy.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
How to get your name in the paper (or How much publicity does a politician really need?)
Since her selection by the Obama team months ago, it has been a foregone conclusion Hillary Clinton would have no real issue assuming her position as Secretary of State come inauguration day. All seemed well last week, when the nomination was backed with a 16-1 vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seemingly easing the way through the Senate. With the overwhelming popularity of the new President, and a nation currently on an Obama-high, there exists not a single figure in Washington that would question the inevitability of the appointment.
Hold on just a minute. Just when we thought this “bi-partisan” concept might actually work, enter John Cornyn to pull us back to reality. Cornyn, the republican senator from Texas, is demanding a “full and open debate” to examine the source of funds donated to Bill Clinton’s foundation. Never mind that the Clinton Global Initiative brings together political and business leaders to develop poverty-relief solutions and raise money for education, health care and environmental projects, and let’s forget that the Clintons have already made huge concessions to the Obama team before she was selected for the post. What really matters is that now, being the lone dissenter, Senator Cornyn get his name mentioned in every article and news broadcast for the next two weeks fighting for a cause that no one has deemed worth fighting, no one wants to fight, and no one really cares about. In fact, fellow Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah echoed this sentiment particularly well. “I don’t think we should hold things up,” said Hatch. “Look, she’s going to be secretary of state, and I think we should support her.”
Mr. Cronyn, we appreciate your need to be seen and heard, and it is completely expected from our politicians. We would be shocked if it didn’t happen. But in a floundering economy, with a million worthwhile causes worth fighting for begging for attention, fighting a foregone conclusion is insanity. The cost of an additional Senate session allowing you more time to pander to the camera while rambling on about desperately needed donations going to a worthwhile cause that only you, in your infinite wisdom, have deemed “questionable” is not only regrettable but a complete misuse of the trust of those you represent. Save us, please, the time and money. We will be glad to give you attention, Mr. Senator, once you do something worthwhile.
Hold on just a minute. Just when we thought this “bi-partisan” concept might actually work, enter John Cornyn to pull us back to reality. Cornyn, the republican senator from Texas, is demanding a “full and open debate” to examine the source of funds donated to Bill Clinton’s foundation. Never mind that the Clinton Global Initiative brings together political and business leaders to develop poverty-relief solutions and raise money for education, health care and environmental projects, and let’s forget that the Clintons have already made huge concessions to the Obama team before she was selected for the post. What really matters is that now, being the lone dissenter, Senator Cornyn get his name mentioned in every article and news broadcast for the next two weeks fighting for a cause that no one has deemed worth fighting, no one wants to fight, and no one really cares about. In fact, fellow Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah echoed this sentiment particularly well. “I don’t think we should hold things up,” said Hatch. “Look, she’s going to be secretary of state, and I think we should support her.”
Mr. Cronyn, we appreciate your need to be seen and heard, and it is completely expected from our politicians. We would be shocked if it didn’t happen. But in a floundering economy, with a million worthwhile causes worth fighting for begging for attention, fighting a foregone conclusion is insanity. The cost of an additional Senate session allowing you more time to pander to the camera while rambling on about desperately needed donations going to a worthwhile cause that only you, in your infinite wisdom, have deemed “questionable” is not only regrettable but a complete misuse of the trust of those you represent. Save us, please, the time and money. We will be glad to give you attention, Mr. Senator, once you do something worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
