Readers have wondered why they have not received their almost daily serving of Capital Cloak news nourishment this week. O-Be-Wise wishes the answer were a simple explanation of a temporary impediment to writing, but alas, the impediments are neither simple nor temporary.
As we reported recently, O-Be-Wise moved on to another work assignment, and that change, combined with new responsibilities in other areas of life have made frequent posting to Capital Cloak an impossibility.
O-Be-Wise may contribute to Capital Cloak periodically in the future, but not on any set schedule or with predetermined frequency. Postings appear likely to decline from a daily to perhaps a monthly basis.
To loyal readers who are email or feed subscribers to Capital Cloak, you will of course automatically be alerted to any new postings. To those of you who are faithful IE/Netscape bookmark visitors to the Capital Cloak home page, you may consider subscribing to our feed or subscribing by email so you will automatically receive any new posts that O-Be-Wise may generate in the future rather than manually checking the site each day.
To each of you, we extend our thanks for your feedback, participation, and loyal support. If Capital Cloak has influenced you in any way or presented issues in a light you had not previously considered, then it has served an important purpose. If you would like to write and share something you particularly enjoyed on Capital Cloak (a post, a site feature, etc), please click on the "view my profile" link on the home page and email O-Be-Wise your comments. Johnny Behind the Deuces, as Dorothy told the scarecrow, "I think I'll miss you most of all." Your singular wit never failed to bring a smile.
All good things must come to an end, and for Capital Cloak, frequent posting is the good thing that has come to an end.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Alienating a Key Ally over an Apology
Apparently the Democratic controlled congress has too much free time on its hands. Instead of balancing budgets, cutting wasteful spending, or working together to improve national security, congress is busy rewriting history and passing judgment on historical events that occurred 90 years ago. Such frivolous behavior is problematic enough by itself, but in their ill-advised foray into historical revisionism, congressional Democrats are needlessly and recklessly jeopardizing diplomatic and military relations with a crucial ally in the War on Terror: Turkey.
A resolution regarding Turkey's alleged genocide of Armenians between 1915 and 1923 sponsored and shepherded through committee by Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff has angered Turkish President Abdullah Gul sufficiently that he wrote a letter to President Bush warning that passage of the resolution would cause “serious problems” between the U.S. and Turkey. As the future of Iraq hangs in the balance and Turkey is expected to have significant involvement in the political and territorial viability of Iraq, the timing of a resolution designed to do nothing more than prick an ally in a sensitive and presently irrelevant area could not be worse. The State Department is working overtime attempting to repair the damage House Democrats seem determined to continue inflicting on U.S.-Turkey relations and has condemned the Schiff resolution.
The Democratic resolution passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday in a 27-21
vote seeks to placate Armenian-Americans, who, in collaboration with Armenians throughout the world, have long insisted that the forced deportation of 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 was actually a “systematic” and “deliberate” genocide that killed 1.5 million Armenians. Ottoman Turks at the time and the current Turkish population disputed Armenian claims of an organized plan for genocide. Turkish and Armenian casualties from violence between the two peoples during that period are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands.
Congressman Schiff claimed that America has a “compelling historical and moral reason” to label the Armenian deaths officially as genocide. Conveniently, Schiff did not explain what will be accomplished in 2007 by re-labeling events that took place 90 years ago. Other than to give in to the demands of a special interest group and anger the current Turkish government and citizenry who had nothing to do with deportations or alleged genocide, there appears to be no purpose for the resolution.
Does the resolution demand that Turkey pay damage settlements to the victims’ families? No. Does it demand that the alleged perpetrators of genocide be turned over to an international court at The Hague for prosecution? No, of course, because everyone involved is long since deceased. Does it offer any recommendations for preventing future “genocide” between Turks and Armenians? No, because the demographics and political boundaries have altered so significantly since the World War I era that the factors that led to deportations or alleged genocide no longer exist. It is a vengeful document that cannot even provide its bitter supporters with their desired pound of Turkish flesh.
CNN coverage of the dispute included key paragraphs that put the issue in its present-day historical context:
The issue pressed by Armenians is similar to the debate over slave reparations in the United States. Some states have issued official apologies for the slave trade, but historically, what results from such official declarations, condemnations, or apologies? Are the descendants of slaves any less bitter or any more forgiving or placated by these official pronouncements? Other than a “Gotcha” moment and a fleeting feeling of satisfaction from getting one’s point across, nothing substantive or historically relevant occurs.
Holding modern day Turks responsible for alleged genocide 90 years in the past is just as unfair and pointless as demanding that Americans who never owned slaves and whose ancestors fought to free them in the Civil War pay slave reparations 150 years after slavery was abolished. The fact that it existed is horrible and was a stain upon our nation. Fortunately Abraham Lincoln and many others recognized that and much blood was spilled to cleanse the stain. Likewise, even if it were proven conclusively that the Ottoman Empire deliberately killed a large number of Armenians, it would be a stain on an empirical government that could not be cleansed because it disappeared into the annals of history.
Bitterness and ethnic vengeance are not healthy and create nothing productive. Rather than working as enablers of discord, animosity, and blame, congress should work to ensure that present day Armenia and Turkey have good relations and are not on a course destined for conflict, verbal or otherwise. The current Turkish government has offered to conduct a joint investigation of the genocide claims and establish basic diplomatic ties to Armenia. The offer is a gesture of goodwill and would develop diplomatic relations that presently do not exist between the two nations.
Congress should not engage itself in debates over historical events or pass resolutions accepting one people’s version of history simply because they immigrated to America in large numbers and have a louder voice than those they accuse. We reiterate that in the context of today’s Middle East, the question of whether an alleged genocide occurred during World War I is largely irrelevant because there is no conceivable action that can be taken to redress the grievances of those who claim to have been wronged.
We do not suggest that any nation be granted immunity from scrutiny simply because it is currently an ally in the War on Terror. If the modern Turkish government were accused of genocide, such a claim should be given our full attention and an international investigation should ensue. However, such is not the case. Turkey as it exists today is not accused of any such crimes, and is sensitive to any international effort to portray Turks as a genocidal nation. Alienating an ally because its government may have been involved in a serious crime 90 years ago is a high price to pay for providing Armenians with a few moments of international sympathy. Only those with some degree of familiarity with the logistics of the Iraq War and the War on Terror comprehend fully how important Turkey is to our efforts. Ultimately our relationship with Turkey far outweighs any need for historical condemnations, apologies, or labels.
Congress has far more pressing matters to attend to than rewriting the history of a disputed event that appears likely to be resolved through diplomatic and investigative efforts.
Technorati Tags:
Turkey, Armenia, Genocide, Ottoman Empire, Young Turks, Adam Schiff, House Resolution
A resolution regarding Turkey's alleged genocide of Armenians between 1915 and 1923 sponsored and shepherded through committee by Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff has angered Turkish President Abdullah Gul sufficiently that he wrote a letter to President Bush warning that passage of the resolution would cause “serious problems” between the U.S. and Turkey. As the future of Iraq hangs in the balance and Turkey is expected to have significant involvement in the political and territorial viability of Iraq, the timing of a resolution designed to do nothing more than prick an ally in a sensitive and presently irrelevant area could not be worse. The State Department is working overtime attempting to repair the damage House Democrats seem determined to continue inflicting on U.S.-Turkey relations and has condemned the Schiff resolution.
The Democratic resolution passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday in a 27-21
vote seeks to placate Armenian-Americans, who, in collaboration with Armenians throughout the world, have long insisted that the forced deportation of 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 was actually a “systematic” and “deliberate” genocide that killed 1.5 million Armenians. Ottoman Turks at the time and the current Turkish population disputed Armenian claims of an organized plan for genocide. Turkish and Armenian casualties from violence between the two peoples during that period are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands.Congressman Schiff claimed that America has a “compelling historical and moral reason” to label the Armenian deaths officially as genocide. Conveniently, Schiff did not explain what will be accomplished in 2007 by re-labeling events that took place 90 years ago. Other than to give in to the demands of a special interest group and anger the current Turkish government and citizenry who had nothing to do with deportations or alleged genocide, there appears to be no purpose for the resolution.
Does the resolution demand that Turkey pay damage settlements to the victims’ families? No. Does it demand that the alleged perpetrators of genocide be turned over to an international court at The Hague for prosecution? No, of course, because everyone involved is long since deceased. Does it offer any recommendations for preventing future “genocide” between Turks and Armenians? No, because the demographics and political boundaries have altered so significantly since the World War I era that the factors that led to deportations or alleged genocide no longer exist. It is a vengeful document that cannot even provide its bitter supporters with their desired pound of Turkish flesh.
CNN coverage of the dispute included key paragraphs that put the issue in its present-day historical context:
Meanwhile Turkey's ambassador to the U.S., Nabi Sensoy, said the resolution would be a "very injurious move to the psyche of the Turkish people," predicting that its passage would create a backlash in his country.
The vote was also strongly criticized by Turkish newspapers, The Associated Press reported. "Bill of hatred," said Hurriyet's front page, while Vatan's headline read "27 foolish Americans.
The U.S. embassy in Ankara warned Americans there to brace for possible anti-American demonstrations.
Turkish protests come with relations between Washington and Ankara already tense amid Turkish military and political preparations for a possible strike into northern Iraq in response to recent attacks by Kurdish militants.
…Last year France voted to make it a crime to deny that the killings constituted genocide, causing the Turkish government to cut its military ties with the country.
The issue pressed by Armenians is similar to the debate over slave reparations in the United States. Some states have issued official apologies for the slave trade, but historically, what results from such official declarations, condemnations, or apologies? Are the descendants of slaves any less bitter or any more forgiving or placated by these official pronouncements? Other than a “Gotcha” moment and a fleeting feeling of satisfaction from getting one’s point across, nothing substantive or historically relevant occurs.
Holding modern day Turks responsible for alleged genocide 90 years in the past is just as unfair and pointless as demanding that Americans who never owned slaves and whose ancestors fought to free them in the Civil War pay slave reparations 150 years after slavery was abolished. The fact that it existed is horrible and was a stain upon our nation. Fortunately Abraham Lincoln and many others recognized that and much blood was spilled to cleanse the stain. Likewise, even if it were proven conclusively that the Ottoman Empire deliberately killed a large number of Armenians, it would be a stain on an empirical government that could not be cleansed because it disappeared into the annals of history.
Bitterness and ethnic vengeance are not healthy and create nothing productive. Rather than working as enablers of discord, animosity, and blame, congress should work to ensure that present day Armenia and Turkey have good relations and are not on a course destined for conflict, verbal or otherwise. The current Turkish government has offered to conduct a joint investigation of the genocide claims and establish basic diplomatic ties to Armenia. The offer is a gesture of goodwill and would develop diplomatic relations that presently do not exist between the two nations.
Congress should not engage itself in debates over historical events or pass resolutions accepting one people’s version of history simply because they immigrated to America in large numbers and have a louder voice than those they accuse. We reiterate that in the context of today’s Middle East, the question of whether an alleged genocide occurred during World War I is largely irrelevant because there is no conceivable action that can be taken to redress the grievances of those who claim to have been wronged.
We do not suggest that any nation be granted immunity from scrutiny simply because it is currently an ally in the War on Terror. If the modern Turkish government were accused of genocide, such a claim should be given our full attention and an international investigation should ensue. However, such is not the case. Turkey as it exists today is not accused of any such crimes, and is sensitive to any international effort to portray Turks as a genocidal nation. Alienating an ally because its government may have been involved in a serious crime 90 years ago is a high price to pay for providing Armenians with a few moments of international sympathy. Only those with some degree of familiarity with the logistics of the Iraq War and the War on Terror comprehend fully how important Turkey is to our efforts. Ultimately our relationship with Turkey far outweighs any need for historical condemnations, apologies, or labels.
Congress has far more pressing matters to attend to than rewriting the history of a disputed event that appears likely to be resolved through diplomatic and investigative efforts.
Technorati Tags:
Turkey, Armenia, Genocide, Ottoman Empire, Young Turks, Adam Schiff, House Resolution
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Rudy/Mitt Ticket Marginalizes Bystander Thompson
Rather than issue debate report cards for each candidate as we have done 
after each of the GOP candidate debates thus far, we can save ourselves and our readers from repetition by declaring that, despite the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, the candidates finished with precisely the same grades we assigned after the previous debate. Additionally, with few exceptions, they set forth the same clichéd sound bites on issues significant to conservatives and paid mandatory lip service to Ronald Reagan’s legacy.
Readers can review those previously assigned grades, insert Fred Thompson in a tie for third place, and draw the conclusion, accurately, that nothing substantive changed since the previous debate, in content, personalities, or format. The only difference was the addition of one principle actor, pun intended, to the distractingly large and unwieldy cast of GOP characters on stage. Thompson made no notable gaffes, was not challenged directly by any of his fellow candidates, and left an underwhelming impression after months of blogosphere hype about his potential role as savior of the GOP’s 2008 campaign hopes. While he did nothing to hurt his chances, he likewise did nothing to set himself apart from his competition or inspire mass defections of his opponents’ followers to his camp.
Thompson’s ho-hum debut should have been the major media story from this debate, but it was not. Consider today’s headlines: “Romney, Giuliani Spar on Taxes, Spending (AP),” “Romney, Giuliani Spar During Thompson’s Debate Debut (CNN),” and “Giuliani Clashes with Romney Over Taxes and Spending (New York Times),” among many others. Each of these news articles focused on the “quarreling,” “sparring,” “heated exchange,” and “increasingly fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani.
It seems appropriate at this point to make a few general observations of what happened on
stage and what appears to be going on behind the scenes.
We stand by our previous observation/prediction that despite any perceptions of rancor or “fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani, their body language and demeanor when they personally interact before and after such events indicate a familiar camaraderie and genuine respect for each other that belies any barbs exchanged on the debate stage.
They appear to be comfortable with each other and share a perception that together they would make a formidable team, with Giuliani’s strength as a mafia-busting, 9/11 crisis managing, national security candidate, and Romney’s remarkable record as a scandal-free financial manager, governor, and same-sex marriage obstructionist, who also happens to be a model family man, all traits which Giuliani lacks.
Giuliani and Romney are already de facto running mates, and last night’s debate was shared political strategy at its finest. By firing their best salvos at each other, they prevented Thompson or any other candidate from offering any memorable or substantive return volleys.
The post-debate headlines above illustrated just how effectively Romney and Giuliani stole Thompson’s debate debut momentum and shifted it squarely in their direction. Nearly every article describing the debate included statements similar to these: “It also left Thompson, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and the other contenders as something of bystanders for the several moments that Romney and Giuliani went at one another;” “Mr. Thompson often found himself a bystander as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney attacked one another;” or “Thompson was largely spared direct fire from the other candidates.”
Nothing is more deflating to a political candidate than thinking he will be the main attraction at an event only to realize that others have taken over the spot light and are receiving the coveted applause of the audience. Marginalizing one’s opponent is critical to successful politics, and the sparring between Giuliani and Romney achieved that goal.
We use the term sparring intentionally, because in boxing, one’s sparring partner fulfills the role
of presenting a target to punch for the mutual goal of improving the prize fighter’s skill and chance for success. Sparring partners take a few good blows but are adequately protected from any serious damage, and they likewise jab at the prize fighter sufficiently to expose his weaknesses so they may be addressed through better training preparation for his shot at the title.
Romney is Giuliani’s campaign sparring partner. They will take shots at each other throughout the primaries, but once the dust settles and Giuliani is left standing with the GOP nomination and marching orders to beat Hillary, this dynamic duo will save every KAPOW! for their Democratic rival.
Giuliani’s debate performance further solidified his position as the GOP front-runner, and by keeping the cameras and the audience focused on their exchanges Giuliani and Romney limited Thompson’s opportunities to impress potential voters. After months of speculation regarding his charisma, desire to campaign, and knowledge of the issues, Thompson needed a strong debate stage performance to propel him upward in the polls and differentiate himself from his already familiar opponents. He appeared to rely on the strategy of “Here I am, I’m new to the race and new automatically means better.”
Ultimately, as a result of his vanilla answers and more interesting exchanges between other candidates, Thompson did not make the grand entry into the race that his supporters practically guaranteed. He was not the conservative savior riding in on his white horse to rescue the party.
Instead, he hardly got a word in edgewise and Romney and Giuliani rode off together into the Michigan sunset, victorious partners in this GOP political shootout.
Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Running Mates Candidates Debate Michigan Campaign Strategy GOP Nomination Presidential Candidates 2008 Election
after each of the GOP candidate debates thus far, we can save ourselves and our readers from repetition by declaring that, despite the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, the candidates finished with precisely the same grades we assigned after the previous debate. Additionally, with few exceptions, they set forth the same clichéd sound bites on issues significant to conservatives and paid mandatory lip service to Ronald Reagan’s legacy.Readers can review those previously assigned grades, insert Fred Thompson in a tie for third place, and draw the conclusion, accurately, that nothing substantive changed since the previous debate, in content, personalities, or format. The only difference was the addition of one principle actor, pun intended, to the distractingly large and unwieldy cast of GOP characters on stage. Thompson made no notable gaffes, was not challenged directly by any of his fellow candidates, and left an underwhelming impression after months of blogosphere hype about his potential role as savior of the GOP’s 2008 campaign hopes. While he did nothing to hurt his chances, he likewise did nothing to set himself apart from his competition or inspire mass defections of his opponents’ followers to his camp.
Thompson’s ho-hum debut should have been the major media story from this debate, but it was not. Consider today’s headlines: “Romney, Giuliani Spar on Taxes, Spending (AP),” “Romney, Giuliani Spar During Thompson’s Debate Debut (CNN),” and “Giuliani Clashes with Romney Over Taxes and Spending (New York Times),” among many others. Each of these news articles focused on the “quarreling,” “sparring,” “heated exchange,” and “increasingly fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani.
It seems appropriate at this point to make a few general observations of what happened on
stage and what appears to be going on behind the scenes.We stand by our previous observation/prediction that despite any perceptions of rancor or “fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani, their body language and demeanor when they personally interact before and after such events indicate a familiar camaraderie and genuine respect for each other that belies any barbs exchanged on the debate stage.
They appear to be comfortable with each other and share a perception that together they would make a formidable team, with Giuliani’s strength as a mafia-busting, 9/11 crisis managing, national security candidate, and Romney’s remarkable record as a scandal-free financial manager, governor, and same-sex marriage obstructionist, who also happens to be a model family man, all traits which Giuliani lacks.
Giuliani and Romney are already de facto running mates, and last night’s debate was shared political strategy at its finest. By firing their best salvos at each other, they prevented Thompson or any other candidate from offering any memorable or substantive return volleys.
The post-debate headlines above illustrated just how effectively Romney and Giuliani stole Thompson’s debate debut momentum and shifted it squarely in their direction. Nearly every article describing the debate included statements similar to these: “It also left Thompson, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and the other contenders as something of bystanders for the several moments that Romney and Giuliani went at one another;” “Mr. Thompson often found himself a bystander as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney attacked one another;” or “Thompson was largely spared direct fire from the other candidates.”
Nothing is more deflating to a political candidate than thinking he will be the main attraction at an event only to realize that others have taken over the spot light and are receiving the coveted applause of the audience. Marginalizing one’s opponent is critical to successful politics, and the sparring between Giuliani and Romney achieved that goal.
We use the term sparring intentionally, because in boxing, one’s sparring partner fulfills the role
of presenting a target to punch for the mutual goal of improving the prize fighter’s skill and chance for success. Sparring partners take a few good blows but are adequately protected from any serious damage, and they likewise jab at the prize fighter sufficiently to expose his weaknesses so they may be addressed through better training preparation for his shot at the title.Romney is Giuliani’s campaign sparring partner. They will take shots at each other throughout the primaries, but once the dust settles and Giuliani is left standing with the GOP nomination and marching orders to beat Hillary, this dynamic duo will save every KAPOW! for their Democratic rival.
Giuliani’s debate performance further solidified his position as the GOP front-runner, and by keeping the cameras and the audience focused on their exchanges Giuliani and Romney limited Thompson’s opportunities to impress potential voters. After months of speculation regarding his charisma, desire to campaign, and knowledge of the issues, Thompson needed a strong debate stage performance to propel him upward in the polls and differentiate himself from his already familiar opponents. He appeared to rely on the strategy of “Here I am, I’m new to the race and new automatically means better.”
Ultimately, as a result of his vanilla answers and more interesting exchanges between other candidates, Thompson did not make the grand entry into the race that his supporters practically guaranteed. He was not the conservative savior riding in on his white horse to rescue the party.
Instead, he hardly got a word in edgewise and Romney and Giuliani rode off together into the Michigan sunset, victorious partners in this GOP political shootout.
Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Running Mates Candidates Debate Michigan Campaign Strategy GOP Nomination Presidential Candidates 2008 Election
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
My Love, Sorry I Hurled You Out the Window!
Relationships, particularly marital interactions, often receive undue criticism and are blamed for a host of personal and societal ills. Stressful marriages are allegedly contributing to obesity, insomnia, depression, and now a new linkage has been identified: “Bad Marriages, Relationships Affect Heart Health.” Since nearly everyone is involved in a difficult relationship of one sort or another through marriage, dating, family, or work, the news that a stressful relationship may make you 34 percent more likely to develop heart disease seems rather alarming. However, there is always another side to every story, even one that quite literally threatens to break our hearts long before their time.
As is often the case, we look for stories in the media that tend to explain, provide context to, or refute other stories that are related topically. Such was the case Monday with two seemingly unrelated news reports. The first we have already noted above, containing distressing evidence that difficult relationships place us at greater risk for various forms of heart disease. The conducted study established that the term “You’re breaking my heart” is more literal than figurative.
Relationships, particularly bad marriages and family interactions, were identified as the primary culprits. Like all scientific studies, however, this one did not account for other variables that may have contributed more to the development of heart disease in the control group than marital strife. One variable not accounted for was identified in a separate and unrelated survey conducted for a computer software firm earlier this year.
At first glance, a consumer survey about personal computers would appear unrelated to a scientific research study linking relationships with heart disease. Yet that is why first glances often require a second, more careful examination, because the computer survey provided supplemental data that may help place the connection between heart disease and relationships in proper context.
If strained relationships have been conclusively determined to contribute to heart disease, then stop blaming your spouse, your family members, your oppressive boss, or anyone else with whom you interact negatively. They are not the culprits, since you spend less time with them than you do with the real cause of anxiety and stress in your life: your personal computer.
Lest you chuckle in amusement at the assigning of such blame to an electronic device, consider the following story from Fox News titled, “Survey: Many People Have Unhealthy Relationships with Computers”:
The survey was conducted for SupportSoft Inc., a company that produces help desk software. We all have utilized a help desk at one point or another, what SupportSoft discovered through the survey was that people experiencing computer problems need the same thing that people suffering relationship problems may require: therapy. In fact, the similarities were quite evident in the physical and verbal reactions displayed by those suffering psychological stress stemming from relationships and frustrated computer users who cannot solve their technical issues.
SupportSoft realized that customers were seeking “comfort and empathy” along with technical troubleshooting. Continuing from the Fox News story:
Nineteen percent in the survey indicated that they just wanted to hurl the computer out of the window. If we continue down the road of full automation for all aspects of our lives, computers will start making our laws for us and this last resort will be removed as an available option for our personal expression. Regardless, that solution is never recommended for the other stressful, but more human, relationships in our lives.
If 64 percent of us spend more time with our computers than with our spouses or significant others, as the survey revealed, then this story certainly provides important context to the research findings linking struggling relationships with heart disease. In today’s automated world, perhaps we rely more on our electronic conveniences than we do on each other. This trend away from personal interaction contributes to feelings of isolation and often depression. As a result, we suggest relying on your spouse or significant other for more tasks and interactions that are currently performed by your computer.
For example, rather than paying your bills automatically online each month, leave stacks of unpaid bills, a checkbook, and a pile of envelopes and stamps on your spouse’s bedside table. That will cut down on the time you spend on the computer and allow your significant other to be a more active part of your relationship and finances.
Instead of hiding behind your computer and sending thousands of emails into cyberspace to communicate with everyone you know, you could provide your significant other with a notepad and a pen, along with the aforementioned pile of envelopes and stamps, and request dictation service. Not only will this get you out from behind that computer desk, it will give your spouse a glimpse into your inner-most thoughts as he or she puts them to paper.
The next time you need to create an important office presentation with detailed graphics, close your laptop and forget MS PowerPoint or Presentations. Instead, compliment your significant other’s artistic skills and ask him or her to create all your charts and graphs by hand, as it will be clear to your colleagues that a lot more time and personal effort was expended on them than if you had merely pointed and clicked your way to legible graphics. When was the last time you enjoyed a pie chart made from scratch?
Of course, these suggestions are in jest, but the sobering reality is that relying on electronic conveniences has resulted in 64 percent of us having closer relationships with our computers than with our spouses or family members. One can only shudder at how high that figure might be if cell phones, PDAs, or iPods were included in the survey.
We are not suggesting that heart disease should be taken lightly. On the contrary, stress is a known culprit in the development of all forms of heart disease, and bad relationships of all types, whether with spouses or computers, generate stress. The appearance of these two media stories on the same day, however, served as an important reminder that people are not always to blame when we experience stress or frustration.
We rely on computers much like we rely on significant others, to be there for us when we need help, to be available always when needed, functioning properly and holding all the answers to our problems. When a computer malfunctions or demands our attention to fix it, our reaction is no different than when a significant other comes to us with a personal problem at an inconvenient moment, like during a long-anticipated sporting event or late at night when we would rather sleep than start a lengthy emotional discussion. Yet most of us have spent many hours, even into the wee hours of the morning working feverishly to salvage our relationship with a troubled computer. Our significant others deserve similar or deeper attentiveness on our part.
After all, they chose to be with us didn't they? Unlike ordering a computer online, our spouses were not permitted to select each and every desirable trait and capability in us and leave out those they did not need or want. We came as pre-packaged bundles, full of hardware glitches and programming bugs. It is no wonder that there are now relationship and computer therapists. As the lines between our personal and virtual relationships have blurred, it has become difficult to distinguish where one begins and the other ends.
For the sake of our imperiled hearts and those of our loved ones, perhaps we should reboot and reevaluate which relationships in our lives are receiving the most serious attention from us. If our computers are winning, then our hearts are losing.
Technorati Tags: Heart Disease Marriage Computer Therapist Stress Help Desk Marital Relationships Computer Dependence SupportSoft Personal Computers
As is often the case, we look for stories in the media that tend to explain, provide context to, or refute other stories that are related topically. Such was the case Monday with two seemingly unrelated news reports. The first we have already noted above, containing distressing evidence that difficult relationships place us at greater risk for various forms of heart disease. The conducted study established that the term “You’re breaking my heart” is more literal than figurative.
Relationships, particularly bad marriages and family interactions, were identified as the primary culprits. Like all scientific studies, however, this one did not account for other variables that may have contributed more to the development of heart disease in the control group than marital strife. One variable not accounted for was identified in a separate and unrelated survey conducted for a computer software firm earlier this year.
At first glance, a consumer survey about personal computers would appear unrelated to a scientific research study linking relationships with heart disease. Yet that is why first glances often require a second, more careful examination, because the computer survey provided supplemental data that may help place the connection between heart disease and relationships in proper context.
If strained relationships have been conclusively determined to contribute to heart disease, then stop blaming your spouse, your family members, your oppressive boss, or anyone else with whom you interact negatively. They are not the culprits, since you spend less time with them than you do with the real cause of anxiety and stress in your life: your personal computer.
Lest you chuckle in amusement at the assigning of such blame to an electronic device, consider the following story from Fox News titled, “Survey: Many People Have Unhealthy Relationships with Computers”:
It's the relationship you spend more time on than any other. It has deepened even during the past few years.
When things go wrong, you become enraged and tearful and attack inanimate objects — but you're willing to spend hours making things right.
Obviously, we're talking about your relationship with your personal computer.
Consider this: In a survey earlier this year, 64 percent of Americans say they spend more time with their computer than with their significant other.
Meanwhile, 84 percent said they were more dependent on their computer than they were three years ago.
The survey was conducted for SupportSoft Inc., a company that produces help desk software. We all have utilized a help desk at one point or another, what SupportSoft discovered through the survey was that people experiencing computer problems need the same thing that people suffering relationship problems may require: therapy. In fact, the similarities were quite evident in the physical and verbal reactions displayed by those suffering psychological stress stemming from relationships and frustrated computer users who cannot solve their technical issues.
SupportSoft realized that customers were seeking “comfort and empathy” along with technical troubleshooting. Continuing from the Fox News story:
They were surprised, Rodio said, to find that computer problems could unleash such powerful emotions.
When confronted with a dead computer, 19 percent admitted to wanting to hurl it out the nearest window, 9 percent felt stranded and alone, 11 percent used language normally reserved for special occasions, 7 percent did so loudly, 3 percent did so tearfully and 3 percent additionally vented their wrath on inanimate objects. (They were not asked about animate targets — it was a survey, not a police blotter.)
On the other hand, a healthy 32 percent said that they basically shrugged.
The respondents (who were all over 18, owned a PC and enjoyed broadband Internet access) estimated they spent an average of 12 hours a month wrestling with computer problems.
Unsurprisingly, 48 percent said they would rather help a friend move than deal with a computer problem. Thirty percent said they currently felt more frustration with their computer than they felt three years ago.
Nineteen percent in the survey indicated that they just wanted to hurl the computer out of the window. If we continue down the road of full automation for all aspects of our lives, computers will start making our laws for us and this last resort will be removed as an available option for our personal expression. Regardless, that solution is never recommended for the other stressful, but more human, relationships in our lives.
If 64 percent of us spend more time with our computers than with our spouses or significant others, as the survey revealed, then this story certainly provides important context to the research findings linking struggling relationships with heart disease. In today’s automated world, perhaps we rely more on our electronic conveniences than we do on each other. This trend away from personal interaction contributes to feelings of isolation and often depression. As a result, we suggest relying on your spouse or significant other for more tasks and interactions that are currently performed by your computer.
For example, rather than paying your bills automatically online each month, leave stacks of unpaid bills, a checkbook, and a pile of envelopes and stamps on your spouse’s bedside table. That will cut down on the time you spend on the computer and allow your significant other to be a more active part of your relationship and finances.
Instead of hiding behind your computer and sending thousands of emails into cyberspace to communicate with everyone you know, you could provide your significant other with a notepad and a pen, along with the aforementioned pile of envelopes and stamps, and request dictation service. Not only will this get you out from behind that computer desk, it will give your spouse a glimpse into your inner-most thoughts as he or she puts them to paper.
The next time you need to create an important office presentation with detailed graphics, close your laptop and forget MS PowerPoint or Presentations. Instead, compliment your significant other’s artistic skills and ask him or her to create all your charts and graphs by hand, as it will be clear to your colleagues that a lot more time and personal effort was expended on them than if you had merely pointed and clicked your way to legible graphics. When was the last time you enjoyed a pie chart made from scratch?
Of course, these suggestions are in jest, but the sobering reality is that relying on electronic conveniences has resulted in 64 percent of us having closer relationships with our computers than with our spouses or family members. One can only shudder at how high that figure might be if cell phones, PDAs, or iPods were included in the survey.
We are not suggesting that heart disease should be taken lightly. On the contrary, stress is a known culprit in the development of all forms of heart disease, and bad relationships of all types, whether with spouses or computers, generate stress. The appearance of these two media stories on the same day, however, served as an important reminder that people are not always to blame when we experience stress or frustration.
We rely on computers much like we rely on significant others, to be there for us when we need help, to be available always when needed, functioning properly and holding all the answers to our problems. When a computer malfunctions or demands our attention to fix it, our reaction is no different than when a significant other comes to us with a personal problem at an inconvenient moment, like during a long-anticipated sporting event or late at night when we would rather sleep than start a lengthy emotional discussion. Yet most of us have spent many hours, even into the wee hours of the morning working feverishly to salvage our relationship with a troubled computer. Our significant others deserve similar or deeper attentiveness on our part.
After all, they chose to be with us didn't they? Unlike ordering a computer online, our spouses were not permitted to select each and every desirable trait and capability in us and leave out those they did not need or want. We came as pre-packaged bundles, full of hardware glitches and programming bugs. It is no wonder that there are now relationship and computer therapists. As the lines between our personal and virtual relationships have blurred, it has become difficult to distinguish where one begins and the other ends.
For the sake of our imperiled hearts and those of our loved ones, perhaps we should reboot and reevaluate which relationships in our lives are receiving the most serious attention from us. If our computers are winning, then our hearts are losing.
Technorati Tags: Heart Disease Marriage Computer Therapist Stress Help Desk Marital Relationships Computer Dependence SupportSoft Personal Computers
Friday, October 5, 2007
Conservative Anti-Mormon Bias is Self-Defeating
If the adage is true that "statistics don't lie," then there is deeper bias in America against Mormons than there is against African-Americans or Jews. According to a Newsweek poll cited by Robert Novak in his latest Washington Post Column, "A Mormon in the White House?":
What do these poll results really mean? Is it the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that causes such prejudice? Is it the behavior of individual members of the LDS Church that convinces 28 percent of Americans that a member of that church should never be president? Considering that the poll question apparently did not single out Mitt Romney for scrutiny, the root cause of the bias runs deeper than personal or political dislike of Romney himself. 28 percent would not vote for "any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."
You probably have a friend or neighbor who is a member of the LDS Church. From what you
know of him or his family, would you withhold your vote from him if he were politically viable and urged to run for the presidency? If the answer is no, and you are a political conservative, what is the criteria on which you based your decision?
Was it the specter of polygamy, a topic favored by the media for its potential for stories of prurient interest? After all, in their recent titillating coverage of the capture of polygamist fugitive Warren Jeffs or conviction of a polygamist for "marrying" and raping his teenage cousin, very few news organizations bothered to explain to viewers or readers that neither of those men were in any way affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as Mormon or LDS. The church officially outlawed the practice of polygamy in 1890, and had stopped preaching or encouraging the practice of it long before that date in accordance with the federal law prohibiting polygamy in U.S. Territories. The church excommunicates anyone who defies the national law and church doctrine by engaging in the practice of it.
The fugitive and convicted polygamists belong to what is known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which broke off of the original faith and established itself in sparse, rural areas of Southern Utah and parts of Arizona. These Fundamentalists are the only polygamists in Utah for nearly 120 years, but the news media never quite mention that fact in their stories. Even though there are no Mormon polygamists in Utah, the state is synonymous in the minds of many voters with polygamy.
Lumping together members of the LDS Church with the separate Fundamentalists is the equivalent of arguing that all scientists must be Scientologists simply because they share the same root word, science.
Perhaps your hesitation stemmed from skepticism about stories of gold plates containing writings of ancient prophets, or visions of angels and heavenly beings. It is interesting that anyone who believes in the bible would find such claims outrageous. I have never seen or touched any of the scrolls that biblical prophets and apostles wrote upon, but that does not invalidate for me the bible as a holy book of scripture. There are ample Biblical accounts of visions and appearances of heavenly beings, yet I do not believe them contrived or fictional.
Deepening voter bias against Mormons may actually represent something flattering about the LDS Church and its members. While family values and parental responsibility in American society steadily decline, the LDS Church emphasizes core conservative values clearly and concisely. While various religions adopt acceptance of open homosexuality and civil unions or gay marriages, the LDS Church encouraged its members to support amending the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. While society becomes permissive of and celebrates promiscuity before and throughout marriage, the LDS Church teaches its youth to maintain their virtue and cherish chastity. Saving oneself for marriage is not a quaint, unrealistic, or old-fashioned notion to Mormons. While abortion has become an accepted method of birth control in society, the LDS Church operates LDS Family Services and advocates adoption and the sanctity of life.
Did you recognize genuine conservative ideology in these teachings? How about dedicating one evening each week exclusively for family activities? Encouraging members to donate charitable funds to temporarily care for the financial needs of struggling fellow members to keep them off of government welfare rolls? If conservatism is synonymous with self-reliance rather than government handouts, then Mormonism is synonymous with conservatism when it comes to finances and rugged individualism.
Conservatives like big ideas. Newt Gingrich was wildly successful leading the Republican revolution in 1994 because of the Contract with America, a document that clearly spelled out what conservatism stands for and what the Republican Congress would achieve if elected. Churches also at times set forth their teachings in clear public documents. In 1995, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." In this document, the LDS Church clearly stated its positions on the divine nature of mankind, gay marriage, gender, abortion, chastity, preservation of the nuclear family, and the importance encouraging world governments to preserve the family as the central unit of society. If you are conservative, consider whether you would vote for a candidate with the following beliefs:
If bias in America is deepening against members of a church that unashamedly proclaims these decidedly conservative values, then we should be asking ourselves why. If conservatives would not vote for any LDS candidate for the presidency, then perhaps they are conservative in name only. Society is morally adrift and floating further out to sea at a faster pace than ever before. As the gulf between itself and the above teachings of the LDS Church grows ever wider, its animosity toward Mormons increases in equal proportions because society does not like to be told it is morally corrupt regardless of the messenger.
Thus, deepening bias against the LDS Church, in a sadly ironic way, may actually be a moral badge of honor for maligned Mormons. After all, African-Americans and Jews used to be the groups voters indicated they would not vote for, and yet both made marvelous contributions to and became integral parts of both political parties once bigotry took a back seat to shared ideology.
Technorati Tags:
LDS, Mormon, Mitt Romney, Religious Bias, Prejudice, Newsweek Polls, Robert Novak, Conservatism, Family Values
28 percent of Americans would not vote for any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- demonstrating much greater hostility than to a Jewish or African-American candidate. Mormonism is the only minority category toward which bias in America has deepened.
What do these poll results really mean? Is it the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that causes such prejudice? Is it the behavior of individual members of the LDS Church that convinces 28 percent of Americans that a member of that church should never be president? Considering that the poll question apparently did not single out Mitt Romney for scrutiny, the root cause of the bias runs deeper than personal or political dislike of Romney himself. 28 percent would not vote for "any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."
You probably have a friend or neighbor who is a member of the LDS Church. From what you
know of him or his family, would you withhold your vote from him if he were politically viable and urged to run for the presidency? If the answer is no, and you are a political conservative, what is the criteria on which you based your decision?Was it the specter of polygamy, a topic favored by the media for its potential for stories of prurient interest? After all, in their recent titillating coverage of the capture of polygamist fugitive Warren Jeffs or conviction of a polygamist for "marrying" and raping his teenage cousin, very few news organizations bothered to explain to viewers or readers that neither of those men were in any way affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as Mormon or LDS. The church officially outlawed the practice of polygamy in 1890, and had stopped preaching or encouraging the practice of it long before that date in accordance with the federal law prohibiting polygamy in U.S. Territories. The church excommunicates anyone who defies the national law and church doctrine by engaging in the practice of it.
The fugitive and convicted polygamists belong to what is known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which broke off of the original faith and established itself in sparse, rural areas of Southern Utah and parts of Arizona. These Fundamentalists are the only polygamists in Utah for nearly 120 years, but the news media never quite mention that fact in their stories. Even though there are no Mormon polygamists in Utah, the state is synonymous in the minds of many voters with polygamy.
Lumping together members of the LDS Church with the separate Fundamentalists is the equivalent of arguing that all scientists must be Scientologists simply because they share the same root word, science.
Perhaps your hesitation stemmed from skepticism about stories of gold plates containing writings of ancient prophets, or visions of angels and heavenly beings. It is interesting that anyone who believes in the bible would find such claims outrageous. I have never seen or touched any of the scrolls that biblical prophets and apostles wrote upon, but that does not invalidate for me the bible as a holy book of scripture. There are ample Biblical accounts of visions and appearances of heavenly beings, yet I do not believe them contrived or fictional.
Deepening voter bias against Mormons may actually represent something flattering about the LDS Church and its members. While family values and parental responsibility in American society steadily decline, the LDS Church emphasizes core conservative values clearly and concisely. While various religions adopt acceptance of open homosexuality and civil unions or gay marriages, the LDS Church encouraged its members to support amending the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. While society becomes permissive of and celebrates promiscuity before and throughout marriage, the LDS Church teaches its youth to maintain their virtue and cherish chastity. Saving oneself for marriage is not a quaint, unrealistic, or old-fashioned notion to Mormons. While abortion has become an accepted method of birth control in society, the LDS Church operates LDS Family Services and advocates adoption and the sanctity of life.
Did you recognize genuine conservative ideology in these teachings? How about dedicating one evening each week exclusively for family activities? Encouraging members to donate charitable funds to temporarily care for the financial needs of struggling fellow members to keep them off of government welfare rolls? If conservatism is synonymous with self-reliance rather than government handouts, then Mormonism is synonymous with conservatism when it comes to finances and rugged individualism.
Conservatives like big ideas. Newt Gingrich was wildly successful leading the Republican revolution in 1994 because of the Contract with America, a document that clearly spelled out what conservatism stands for and what the Republican Congress would achieve if elected. Churches also at times set forth their teachings in clear public documents. In 1995, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." In this document, the LDS Church clearly stated its positions on the divine nature of mankind, gay marriage, gender, abortion, chastity, preservation of the nuclear family, and the importance encouraging world governments to preserve the family as the central unit of society. If you are conservative, consider whether you would vote for a candidate with the following beliefs:
...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
...We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
...We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.
...Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.
...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
If bias in America is deepening against members of a church that unashamedly proclaims these decidedly conservative values, then we should be asking ourselves why. If conservatives would not vote for any LDS candidate for the presidency, then perhaps they are conservative in name only. Society is morally adrift and floating further out to sea at a faster pace than ever before. As the gulf between itself and the above teachings of the LDS Church grows ever wider, its animosity toward Mormons increases in equal proportions because society does not like to be told it is morally corrupt regardless of the messenger.
Thus, deepening bias against the LDS Church, in a sadly ironic way, may actually be a moral badge of honor for maligned Mormons. After all, African-Americans and Jews used to be the groups voters indicated they would not vote for, and yet both made marvelous contributions to and became integral parts of both political parties once bigotry took a back seat to shared ideology.
Technorati Tags:
LDS, Mormon, Mitt Romney, Religious Bias, Prejudice, Newsweek Polls, Robert Novak, Conservatism, Family Values
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Taxing Our Way to Victory in Iraq
Congressman David Obey, D-WI, may have been right in theory about instituting 
a war tax without even knowing the reasons why. Had he cited history in support of his proposal, there might have been less of a scrap over it. When Obey recently floated the idea of charging taxpayers a surcharge to fund the Iraq War, his idea was pilloried by conservatives and shunned by fellow liberals. Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed her opposition to the war surcharge proposal, but couched it in her overall opposition to the war. She did not clarify whether if this were a war championed by Democrats she would be in favor of a war surcharge or similar vehicle to fund a war. Conservative critiques of Obey’s war tax focused on standard opposition to additional or raised taxes of any kind. Conservatives also denounced Obey’s plan for tying the funding of our troops in the field to tax increases, which they consider a form of political extortion. Soldiers would be unfortunate pawns whose very safety would hinge on a forced surcharge of between two and fifteen percent of taxpayer incomes to support the war.
Rejecting Obey’s proposal outright may be the politically savvy course of action for lawmakers, but does the concept of a war tax, in a different form than Obey's idea, have merit? Readers may think us delirious, but we would support a war tax, albeit not in the form or function that Obey envisions. Later in this post we will explain two forms of this tax that would be sensible and acceptable to fiscal conservatives, if there are any remaining, in both parties.
War surcharges and other special government programs to fund wars are not new and have
been used in virtually every war in our nation’s history. Surcharges, bond drives, and tax increases have all been implemented with varying degrees of success to offset the high costs of wars.
Asking Americans to tighten their fiscal belts to sacrifice for war efforts has been the clarion call throughout our history. Government mandated rationing of scrap metals, rubber, and other materials needed for war production were common and accepted. Previous generations understood that war demands sacrifice by the individual for the common good. Of course, taxes are not exactly a sacrifice, since sacrifice implies a voluntary act and each individual may or may not be in favor of a particular tax. Yet in a democratic republic, each taxpayer is at least represented and has a voice in the decision to levy a tax or not.
Wars are inherently the top priority of a nation, and only in an economically spoiled society would citizens expect their quality of life and financial stability to remain stable and comfortable in war time.
Obey’s war surcharge proposal is flawed, not necessarily in what it is intended to achieve, funding the war, but in its premise that funding the war should place an additional drain on taxpayers’ incomes. It is classic liberal ideology to propose an entirely new and separate tax to pay for something rather than identifying programs that could be eliminated and taxes that we already pay that are not being used for their intended purposes.
For example, our Constitution identifies “provide for the common defense” as a fundamental responsibility of the national government, with ample powers granted therein to raise and maintain armed services to accomplish that mandate. Thus taxpayers should assume that the national government would use their tax money to support this basic provision before siphoning off funds for other purposes.
We can find no provision in the Constitution that mentions using taxpayer money to fund public television (PBS), quasi-obscene “art” exhibits and grants (National Endowment for the Arts), federal oversight of local and state education (National Education Association or Department of Education), or AIDS and birth control education including condom distribution (same educational entities as previous). Yet each year Americans pay between fifteen and thirty percent of their incomes to support burgeoning federal spending on these and other programs that venture far beyond the scope and intent of the Constitutional mandate of limited government and the moral beliefs of many taxpayers.
If given a choice, we would rather know that our fifteen to thirty percent taxation is funding an ongoing war than “artistic” displays of upside-down urinals and other questionable “art” funded by government grants. We would rather know that our taxes are providing body armor or a Humvee for soldiers in Iraq than to give rabid liberal journalists like Bill Moyers, but no conservatives, free air time and a national audience on PBS, a government funded television network that reaches every home in America.
Thus a specific tax of two to fifteen percent depending on income levels to support a war (not a surcharge) is not an unreasonable solution as long as congress agrees to fund all other government operations within the existing tax brackets. Thus no citizen's taxes would rise above the thirty percent bracket where most already find themselves mired.
A better proposal would be to establish a specific war tax of two to fifteen percent levied only in war time working in tandem with a ten percent flat tax. In that scenario, the wealthiest citizens would pay no more than twenty-five percent even in war time, and the congress would be forced to do what we all do when money is tight: prioritize and spend only for absolute necessities.
A specific war tax, in combination with the elimination of non-essential government programs, would serve several fundamentally important purposes:
1. Provide a vehicle for funding war needs without increasing taxes.
2. Establish national ownership of a war. If congress levied a war tax, there would be no talk of “Bush’s war,” or “Rumsfeld’s war,” or any specific executive’s war. It would be OUR war and all levels of government and citizenry would have a vested interest in its success.
3. Ensure that war funds cannot be used for non-military expenditures or held hostage by earmarks and pork-barrel projects currently attached to war spending bills.
4. Allow Americans to see precisely what a certain percentage of their income tax is used for. Currently, government coffers are a catch-all followed by a spending free-for-all. No one in the federal government can sit down with a taxpayer and demonstrate what his or her taxes actually paid for. Even Social Security taxes are hijacked and spent for a host of projects unrelated to Social Security. A war tax could be the only tax fund that cannot be used for anything other than its intended purpose. At the conclusion of a war, the specific tax established to fund it would expire and tax refunds could be issued. That is, after all, what should happen when taxpayers loan their money to the government for a specific purpose and the purpose is achieved. Congress would not be allowed to keep that money for a future war, as that form of preparation would already be included in established defense budgets.
5. Teach congress how to make do with the money it receives rather than spending future funds based on projected revenue, even for wars.
Obey’s proposal, if altered to remove its liberal fixation on creating new taxes, appears to have merit and is worthy of serious discussion. While Obey himself may have floated the idea simply to make a point or take a political swipe at President Bush and even some Democratic colleagues who have backed away from cutting off funding for the Iraq War, the concept of a war tax is neither new nor trivial.
Rather than narrowly attacking the allegedly exorbitant costs of the Iraq War and suggesting new taxes to pay for it, Obey and his colleagues should broaden their attack to include wasteful and unconstitutional programs and departments that could be eliminated. That is, if they are as genuinely interested in fiscal responsibility as they claim to be.
Their concern for the finacial burdens placed on taxpayers by the Iraq War would seem much more sincere if it were coupled with a consistent effort to relieve taxpayer burdens by reducing the size and scope of federal government programs and their insatiable budgetary demands.
Technorati Tags:
David Obey, War Tax, Flat Tax, Iraq War Funding, Government Budgets, Income Tax, Raising Taxes
a war tax without even knowing the reasons why. Had he cited history in support of his proposal, there might have been less of a scrap over it. When Obey recently floated the idea of charging taxpayers a surcharge to fund the Iraq War, his idea was pilloried by conservatives and shunned by fellow liberals. Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed her opposition to the war surcharge proposal, but couched it in her overall opposition to the war. She did not clarify whether if this were a war championed by Democrats she would be in favor of a war surcharge or similar vehicle to fund a war. Conservative critiques of Obey’s war tax focused on standard opposition to additional or raised taxes of any kind. Conservatives also denounced Obey’s plan for tying the funding of our troops in the field to tax increases, which they consider a form of political extortion. Soldiers would be unfortunate pawns whose very safety would hinge on a forced surcharge of between two and fifteen percent of taxpayer incomes to support the war.Rejecting Obey’s proposal outright may be the politically savvy course of action for lawmakers, but does the concept of a war tax, in a different form than Obey's idea, have merit? Readers may think us delirious, but we would support a war tax, albeit not in the form or function that Obey envisions. Later in this post we will explain two forms of this tax that would be sensible and acceptable to fiscal conservatives, if there are any remaining, in both parties.
War surcharges and other special government programs to fund wars are not new and have
been used in virtually every war in our nation’s history. Surcharges, bond drives, and tax increases have all been implemented with varying degrees of success to offset the high costs of wars.Asking Americans to tighten their fiscal belts to sacrifice for war efforts has been the clarion call throughout our history. Government mandated rationing of scrap metals, rubber, and other materials needed for war production were common and accepted. Previous generations understood that war demands sacrifice by the individual for the common good. Of course, taxes are not exactly a sacrifice, since sacrifice implies a voluntary act and each individual may or may not be in favor of a particular tax. Yet in a democratic republic, each taxpayer is at least represented and has a voice in the decision to levy a tax or not.
Wars are inherently the top priority of a nation, and only in an economically spoiled society would citizens expect their quality of life and financial stability to remain stable and comfortable in war time.
Obey’s war surcharge proposal is flawed, not necessarily in what it is intended to achieve, funding the war, but in its premise that funding the war should place an additional drain on taxpayers’ incomes. It is classic liberal ideology to propose an entirely new and separate tax to pay for something rather than identifying programs that could be eliminated and taxes that we already pay that are not being used for their intended purposes.
For example, our Constitution identifies “provide for the common defense” as a fundamental responsibility of the national government, with ample powers granted therein to raise and maintain armed services to accomplish that mandate. Thus taxpayers should assume that the national government would use their tax money to support this basic provision before siphoning off funds for other purposes.
We can find no provision in the Constitution that mentions using taxpayer money to fund public television (PBS), quasi-obscene “art” exhibits and grants (National Endowment for the Arts), federal oversight of local and state education (National Education Association or Department of Education), or AIDS and birth control education including condom distribution (same educational entities as previous). Yet each year Americans pay between fifteen and thirty percent of their incomes to support burgeoning federal spending on these and other programs that venture far beyond the scope and intent of the Constitutional mandate of limited government and the moral beliefs of many taxpayers.
If given a choice, we would rather know that our fifteen to thirty percent taxation is funding an ongoing war than “artistic” displays of upside-down urinals and other questionable “art” funded by government grants. We would rather know that our taxes are providing body armor or a Humvee for soldiers in Iraq than to give rabid liberal journalists like Bill Moyers, but no conservatives, free air time and a national audience on PBS, a government funded television network that reaches every home in America.
Thus a specific tax of two to fifteen percent depending on income levels to support a war (not a surcharge) is not an unreasonable solution as long as congress agrees to fund all other government operations within the existing tax brackets. Thus no citizen's taxes would rise above the thirty percent bracket where most already find themselves mired.
A better proposal would be to establish a specific war tax of two to fifteen percent levied only in war time working in tandem with a ten percent flat tax. In that scenario, the wealthiest citizens would pay no more than twenty-five percent even in war time, and the congress would be forced to do what we all do when money is tight: prioritize and spend only for absolute necessities.
A specific war tax, in combination with the elimination of non-essential government programs, would serve several fundamentally important purposes:
1. Provide a vehicle for funding war needs without increasing taxes.
2. Establish national ownership of a war. If congress levied a war tax, there would be no talk of “Bush’s war,” or “Rumsfeld’s war,” or any specific executive’s war. It would be OUR war and all levels of government and citizenry would have a vested interest in its success.
3. Ensure that war funds cannot be used for non-military expenditures or held hostage by earmarks and pork-barrel projects currently attached to war spending bills.
4. Allow Americans to see precisely what a certain percentage of their income tax is used for. Currently, government coffers are a catch-all followed by a spending free-for-all. No one in the federal government can sit down with a taxpayer and demonstrate what his or her taxes actually paid for. Even Social Security taxes are hijacked and spent for a host of projects unrelated to Social Security. A war tax could be the only tax fund that cannot be used for anything other than its intended purpose. At the conclusion of a war, the specific tax established to fund it would expire and tax refunds could be issued. That is, after all, what should happen when taxpayers loan their money to the government for a specific purpose and the purpose is achieved. Congress would not be allowed to keep that money for a future war, as that form of preparation would already be included in established defense budgets.
5. Teach congress how to make do with the money it receives rather than spending future funds based on projected revenue, even for wars.
Obey’s proposal, if altered to remove its liberal fixation on creating new taxes, appears to have merit and is worthy of serious discussion. While Obey himself may have floated the idea simply to make a point or take a political swipe at President Bush and even some Democratic colleagues who have backed away from cutting off funding for the Iraq War, the concept of a war tax is neither new nor trivial.
Rather than narrowly attacking the allegedly exorbitant costs of the Iraq War and suggesting new taxes to pay for it, Obey and his colleagues should broaden their attack to include wasteful and unconstitutional programs and departments that could be eliminated. That is, if they are as genuinely interested in fiscal responsibility as they claim to be.
Their concern for the finacial burdens placed on taxpayers by the Iraq War would seem much more sincere if it were coupled with a consistent effort to relieve taxpayer burdens by reducing the size and scope of federal government programs and their insatiable budgetary demands.
Technorati Tags:
David Obey, War Tax, Flat Tax, Iraq War Funding, Government Budgets, Income Tax, Raising Taxes
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Obama’s Ship of State Sinks in Shallow Waters
Today, Barack Obama makes it official: his overall strategy for achieving 
world peace is to travel the globe and beg dictators, tyrants, and democracies alike, “Can’t we all just get along?” As a potential a captain of our ship of state, perhaps we should expect more from Obama, but he continues to demonstrate that he is anything but a seasoned foreign policy sailor.
That anyone would take Obama seriously when he speaks on foreign policy issues is disturbing enough, but more troubling is that Obama appears to take himself seriously and may actually believe the views he espouses. In a speech at DePaul University today, Obama will make an outrageous claim for which voters, liberal or conservative, should demand clarification or retraction.
Obama’s speech, as reported by the New York Times, sets forth his alleged goal to eliminate all of the world’s nuclear weapons. While such a goal in itself merely places Obama in the pantheon of liberal pie-in-the-sky dreamers, it was one of his stated reasons for why the United States should take the lead in eliminating its own weapons that caught our attention.
According to a preview of the speech provided to the Times by Obama’s aides, Obama will tell DePaul students and faculty that “the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism." This statement is problematic for Obama regardless of how one interprets it. Either Obama believes that the world is somehow threatened by a possibility of America using its nuclear weapons to carry out terrorist attacks, or he believes that terrorists are more likely to seek nuclear weapons to use against America simply because we possess such weapons.
That's a pretty ominous iceberg in your foreign policy waters, Captain Obama.
The obvious extension of that lamentable logic is that if America would purge itself of nuclear weapons, radical Islamic terrorists would stop seeking the most powerful weapon they can find to destroy America. If Obama truly believes this, then one must also assume by his logic that if Israel were to publicly acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and likewise publicly destroy it, then radical Islamic terrorists across the globe would halt their quest to acquire nuclear weapons and cease preaching the destruction of the Jewish state.
Obama’s foreign policy as it applies to nuclear weapons is simple and easily recognizable: as with all world conflict, somehow, in some way, America is to blame: the world is stockpiling nuclear weapons because we invented them; the world must arm itself to the teeth with nuclear weapons because we have a large number of them and, gasp, we used them twice to end a war; the world’s terrorists would not be seeking nuclear weapons to further their goals if we would just disavow such weapons as dangerous and stop making them; if we are ever victimized by a terrorist nuclear detonation, it will be our own fault for fueling the world’s need for the ultimate weapon to defend itself from America’s dangerous stockpiles.
The “blame America first” theme is rampant among the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Every world crisis or the response to it is America’s fault. We intervened when we should have restrained ourselves, or we failed to intervene when we should have, or we failed to intervene quickly enough, or when we intervened we did too little or too much. The candidates, Obama in particular, fail to recognize that as powerful as America is, it is not and cannot be directly or indirectly responsible for every facet of international politics or conflict, including nuclear weapons development and arms races between nations.
Certainly we should seek to assure that nations with nuclear weapons are accounting for them, storing them safely, and understand the consequences for attempting to use them for offensive purposes. One does not negotiate such arrangements from a position of weakness or worse, disarmament.
The world is not in more danger of nuclear terrorism because America has large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. To make such a statement was irresponsible and naïve. To conclude that terrorists will stop seeking nuclear devices of their own to use against America was naïve and dangerous. Nation states we have competed with in this arena will not be talked out of their best technologies. Stubborn and sly world leaders such as Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pervez Musharraf, and a host of others must be salivating at the prospect of potentially competing in the international policy arena with the transparent Obama, who appears to think that if he can just sit down and use his charm and charisma on world leaders, they will agree to disarm themselves of the ultimate deterrent from attack. He may as well ask them to give up radar and satellites as well since they should have no fear of any incoming attacks in his Utopian fantasy world.
The portion of Obama’s DePaul speech that best illustrated how unlikely he will be to sail the
ship of state through his foreign policy shallowness was his description of how he would deal with Iran:
The last sentence sums it up nicely. Obama’s entire foreign policy strategy is to talk and keep talking, because he appears unable or unwilling to reassure the American people that he would act to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of any radical Islamic government, not merely Iran’s. Perhaps Obama and his aides have overlooked the fact that our approach to Iran has already utilized “a combination of diplomacy and pressure,” including UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, divestment of terror funds, frozen assets, carrier groups repositioned to the region, and overt statements from President Bush and other officials that we will act if Iran does not change course and renounce its uranium enrichment program.
That Obama plans to “call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure” on Iran is no plan at all. Only a first term Democratic senator with no foreign policy experience would call for America to do what it is already doing and try to pass that off as a plan worthy of entrusting him with the title of Commander in Chief.
Is the advocate for a nuclear-free world willing to enforce the removal or prevention of nuclear weapons by military action? Is he willing to wage war for peace? If not, he learned nothing from the Cold War, where one nation could not reduce arms unless the other did so simultaneously. Likewise, even in Obama’s anti-nuclear utopia one nation will never dismantle its nuclear arsenal unless all other nations do so.
Rather than referring to Republican candidates as “warmongers” for their hard line stances on Iran, Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates should come to a decision and share with voters what they will do when Iran or any other nation refuses to comply with UN sanctions and resolutions already in place and is on the verge of a viable nuclear weapon. That is a question the next president will undoubtedly be forced to deal with decisively, but decisiveness requires a decision and it is clear that Obama has not made his yet.
America is not the problem. America's arsenal is not fanning any terrorist flames. Terrorists seek the most efficient and formidable means for killing mass quantities of those they hate. Obama will likely still be shaking their hands and smiling warmly at them in negotiations when a Western city disappears in a flash and a cloud.
As waders at beaches in Florida or Australia can attest, danger can lurk even in the shallowest
waters. The same is true in politics. The shallowest policy positions usually portend grave danger if followed to their conclusions. Rather than arrogantly believing he can seal missile silos with his dripping charisma, Obama should demonstrate leadership by making a commitment to take all necessary actions to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those nations that already possess them. A broad smile, sanctions, and political pressure will not deter governments or terrorist organizations determined to become world powers by building fearsome weaponry.
If Obama wants to pilot the ship of state, he should develop a more substantive foreign policy and spend more time navigating in deeper waters than he has attempted to explore thus far in his campaign.
Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Presidential Candidates, 2008 Presidential Campaign, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Disarmament, Terrorism, Iran, Nuclear Weapons
world peace is to travel the globe and beg dictators, tyrants, and democracies alike, “Can’t we all just get along?” As a potential a captain of our ship of state, perhaps we should expect more from Obama, but he continues to demonstrate that he is anything but a seasoned foreign policy sailor.That anyone would take Obama seriously when he speaks on foreign policy issues is disturbing enough, but more troubling is that Obama appears to take himself seriously and may actually believe the views he espouses. In a speech at DePaul University today, Obama will make an outrageous claim for which voters, liberal or conservative, should demand clarification or retraction.
Obama’s speech, as reported by the New York Times, sets forth his alleged goal to eliminate all of the world’s nuclear weapons. While such a goal in itself merely places Obama in the pantheon of liberal pie-in-the-sky dreamers, it was one of his stated reasons for why the United States should take the lead in eliminating its own weapons that caught our attention.
According to a preview of the speech provided to the Times by Obama’s aides, Obama will tell DePaul students and faculty that “the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism." This statement is problematic for Obama regardless of how one interprets it. Either Obama believes that the world is somehow threatened by a possibility of America using its nuclear weapons to carry out terrorist attacks, or he believes that terrorists are more likely to seek nuclear weapons to use against America simply because we possess such weapons.
That's a pretty ominous iceberg in your foreign policy waters, Captain Obama.
The obvious extension of that lamentable logic is that if America would purge itself of nuclear weapons, radical Islamic terrorists would stop seeking the most powerful weapon they can find to destroy America. If Obama truly believes this, then one must also assume by his logic that if Israel were to publicly acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and likewise publicly destroy it, then radical Islamic terrorists across the globe would halt their quest to acquire nuclear weapons and cease preaching the destruction of the Jewish state.
Obama’s foreign policy as it applies to nuclear weapons is simple and easily recognizable: as with all world conflict, somehow, in some way, America is to blame: the world is stockpiling nuclear weapons because we invented them; the world must arm itself to the teeth with nuclear weapons because we have a large number of them and, gasp, we used them twice to end a war; the world’s terrorists would not be seeking nuclear weapons to further their goals if we would just disavow such weapons as dangerous and stop making them; if we are ever victimized by a terrorist nuclear detonation, it will be our own fault for fueling the world’s need for the ultimate weapon to defend itself from America’s dangerous stockpiles.
The “blame America first” theme is rampant among the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Every world crisis or the response to it is America’s fault. We intervened when we should have restrained ourselves, or we failed to intervene when we should have, or we failed to intervene quickly enough, or when we intervened we did too little or too much. The candidates, Obama in particular, fail to recognize that as powerful as America is, it is not and cannot be directly or indirectly responsible for every facet of international politics or conflict, including nuclear weapons development and arms races between nations.
Certainly we should seek to assure that nations with nuclear weapons are accounting for them, storing them safely, and understand the consequences for attempting to use them for offensive purposes. One does not negotiate such arrangements from a position of weakness or worse, disarmament.
The world is not in more danger of nuclear terrorism because America has large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. To make such a statement was irresponsible and naïve. To conclude that terrorists will stop seeking nuclear devices of their own to use against America was naïve and dangerous. Nation states we have competed with in this arena will not be talked out of their best technologies. Stubborn and sly world leaders such as Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pervez Musharraf, and a host of others must be salivating at the prospect of potentially competing in the international policy arena with the transparent Obama, who appears to think that if he can just sit down and use his charm and charisma on world leaders, they will agree to disarm themselves of the ultimate deterrent from attack. He may as well ask them to give up radar and satellites as well since they should have no fear of any incoming attacks in his Utopian fantasy world.
The portion of Obama’s DePaul speech that best illustrated how unlikely he will be to sail the
ship of state through his foreign policy shallowness was his description of how he would deal with Iran:In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed.
The last sentence sums it up nicely. Obama’s entire foreign policy strategy is to talk and keep talking, because he appears unable or unwilling to reassure the American people that he would act to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of any radical Islamic government, not merely Iran’s. Perhaps Obama and his aides have overlooked the fact that our approach to Iran has already utilized “a combination of diplomacy and pressure,” including UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, divestment of terror funds, frozen assets, carrier groups repositioned to the region, and overt statements from President Bush and other officials that we will act if Iran does not change course and renounce its uranium enrichment program.
That Obama plans to “call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure” on Iran is no plan at all. Only a first term Democratic senator with no foreign policy experience would call for America to do what it is already doing and try to pass that off as a plan worthy of entrusting him with the title of Commander in Chief.
Is the advocate for a nuclear-free world willing to enforce the removal or prevention of nuclear weapons by military action? Is he willing to wage war for peace? If not, he learned nothing from the Cold War, where one nation could not reduce arms unless the other did so simultaneously. Likewise, even in Obama’s anti-nuclear utopia one nation will never dismantle its nuclear arsenal unless all other nations do so.
Rather than referring to Republican candidates as “warmongers” for their hard line stances on Iran, Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates should come to a decision and share with voters what they will do when Iran or any other nation refuses to comply with UN sanctions and resolutions already in place and is on the verge of a viable nuclear weapon. That is a question the next president will undoubtedly be forced to deal with decisively, but decisiveness requires a decision and it is clear that Obama has not made his yet.
America is not the problem. America's arsenal is not fanning any terrorist flames. Terrorists seek the most efficient and formidable means for killing mass quantities of those they hate. Obama will likely still be shaking their hands and smiling warmly at them in negotiations when a Western city disappears in a flash and a cloud.
As waders at beaches in Florida or Australia can attest, danger can lurk even in the shallowest
waters. The same is true in politics. The shallowest policy positions usually portend grave danger if followed to their conclusions. Rather than arrogantly believing he can seal missile silos with his dripping charisma, Obama should demonstrate leadership by making a commitment to take all necessary actions to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those nations that already possess them. A broad smile, sanctions, and political pressure will not deter governments or terrorist organizations determined to become world powers by building fearsome weaponry.If Obama wants to pilot the ship of state, he should develop a more substantive foreign policy and spend more time navigating in deeper waters than he has attempted to explore thus far in his campaign.
Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Presidential Candidates, 2008 Presidential Campaign, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Disarmament, Terrorism, Iran, Nuclear Weapons
Monday, October 1, 2007
Elderly and Homeless and Poor, Oh My!
October is upon us, and as is the case each October, the month promises to provide an 
assortment of ghouls, goblins, and ghastly specters that incite dread and fear in young and old alike. October brings with it not only ghosts and Jack-O-Lanterns, but also a new session of the Supreme Court. This Halloween season, politicians and liberal lawyers are making it a point to frighten three groups in particular: the elderly, the homeless, and the poor, into thinking they are in danger of losing their right to vote. Such notions are as fictional as the Headless Horseman, but that fact is easily obscured through scare tactics worthy of the most chilling spook alley.
One of the cases the court will review involves the constitutionality of Indiana's state law requiring voters to present a form of photo identification to prove their identities at local polling stations. The law was challenged by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party immediately after its passage in 2005. Both
moved quickly to stir up fear by declaring that the law would limit the right to vote among the elderly, the homeless or disabled, and of course the poor. The tactics used by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party were simple and stolen directly from the Democratic playbook for fighting Social Security reform: scare the elderly into believing their benefits will disappear at the hands of nasty conservatives and then sit back and watch them flood Congress and newsrooms with angry letters and voice mail. The "right" to Social Security is perhaps the most cherished American "right," second only to the right to vote. Most of the time the two are related, as elections that promise to have the most impact on Social Security are also the elections with the greatest voter turnout.
The irony is that the ACLU and Democrats who oppose the voter identification laws are remarkably ignorant of the host of government services that already require that the elderly, homeless, and poor possess a form of government-issued identification before they can obtain them. A visit to a Social Security Office for any kind of service, even for registering a newborn baby for a Social Security number, requires government-issued photo identification, and in some cases multiple forms of identification.
As for the homeless, a group that one would expect not to consistently carry any form of identification, most cities issue benefit cards that require at least some identifying information. For example, Santa Monica, California, an affluent and intensely liberal city with miles of
beautiful beachfront properties, is a Mecca for the homeless. Mild coastal weather and generous available services have swelled the ranks of the homeless in Santa Monica, resulting in large gatherings and lines at city buildings. Yet even liberal Santa Monica issues public service identification cards to its homeless population. This identification serves three purposes: one, it allows workers at shelters to distinguish between those who have registered with the city as homeless and those who have not; second, it allows Santa Monica's Police Department to have a means for identifying homeless residents in the event they violate laws or if they are victimized by crime themselves; third, it allows homeless residents to obtain other city services, such as libraries.
In exchange for city services, the homeless agree to register for free for a Santa Monica identification card. Those who do not wish to do so simply move on to a city without such a requirement. Yet most stay and enjoy the benefits offered to them. As Santa Monica is their official place of "residence" established by their city-issued card, they can obtain a Post Office box or similar service which further establishes that they have a local mailing address and reside in the city. At California polling locations, that combination is usually already sufficient to allow them to vote. What then is the hardship for the homeless in making the city-issued card they already willingly obtain at no cost into a free photo identification they can take to the polls?
Opponents argue that requiring the elderly, homeless, and poor to obtain government-issued photo identification presents a hardship because people in these voter classifications have difficulty navigating bureaucracy. These groups should be insulted by such a claim. The Social Security bureaucracy is considerably challenging, yet millions of elderly Americans somehow obtain the services they need despite the daunting bureaucracy. State and federal welfare programs surely contain the most complex requirement and eligibility rules known to man and endless bureaucracies to administer them, yet millions of needy families have applied for and obtained public assistance services far more challenging than filling out one form and getting a picture taken for a free voter identification card.
The low opinion liberals have of the elderly, homeless, and poor is as evident in this fight as it is in affirmative action and other liberal entitlement programs. They consistently underestimate the abilities and intellectual capacities of entire segments of the population while claiming their actions are for the "good" of these groups.
The key factor is that if something is sufficiently important to someone, he or she will find a way to navigate endless layers of bureaucracy to obtain it.
Opponents of Indiana's voter identification law would have us believe that the elderly, homeless, and poor are incapable of filling out a form for a free card, sitting for a picture, and taking the card home with them for use at their polling stations. The Indiana law even includes provisions that would exempt the disabled or those living in rest homes or assisted care facilities from the photo identification requirement. Let's be clear then that the ACLU and Indiana Democrats do not consider mobile, self-sufficient elderly residents, homeless people, or poor people smart enough to obtain a free identification card.
These opponents also set forth the claim that requiring photo identification places an undue financial burden on poor voters, because driver's licenses and state identification cards involve fees ranging in some states from $10 to $30. They raise the racial specter of the old Southern poll taxes and accuse conservatives who support the identification law of attempting to "disenfranchise" minority voters. To refute such a claim, most of the 26 states requiring photo identification at polling stations offer free voter identification cards. Where then is the financial hardship on the poor in obtaining a free card to take to the polls?
It is impossible to honestly identify any classification of legal voters who would be "disenfranchised" by being required to show photo identification. Certainly the elderly, homeless, and poor have already obtained far more complex services, all of which required some form of government-issued identification. Yet the media continues to portray voter identification as "a move that can limit participation of the elderly and poor in elections." The NAACP refers to identification requirements as "undue burdens" on voters, but offers no convincing evidence of that claim. States requiring voter identification have already made accommodations for the disabled, have made the cards available at no cost, and have made it no more difficult to obtain than any of the other public services these "disenfranchised" groups already have applied for successfully.
To claim otherwise is a political scare tactic in this season of sinister spooks.
Technorati Tags:
Indiana, Voter Photo Identification, Disenfranchisement, Supreme Court, Voter Registration Laws, Constitutionality, Entitlement Programs, Liberals
assortment of ghouls, goblins, and ghastly specters that incite dread and fear in young and old alike. October brings with it not only ghosts and Jack-O-Lanterns, but also a new session of the Supreme Court. This Halloween season, politicians and liberal lawyers are making it a point to frighten three groups in particular: the elderly, the homeless, and the poor, into thinking they are in danger of losing their right to vote. Such notions are as fictional as the Headless Horseman, but that fact is easily obscured through scare tactics worthy of the most chilling spook alley. One of the cases the court will review involves the constitutionality of Indiana's state law requiring voters to present a form of photo identification to prove their identities at local polling stations. The law was challenged by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party immediately after its passage in 2005. Both
moved quickly to stir up fear by declaring that the law would limit the right to vote among the elderly, the homeless or disabled, and of course the poor. The tactics used by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party were simple and stolen directly from the Democratic playbook for fighting Social Security reform: scare the elderly into believing their benefits will disappear at the hands of nasty conservatives and then sit back and watch them flood Congress and newsrooms with angry letters and voice mail. The "right" to Social Security is perhaps the most cherished American "right," second only to the right to vote. Most of the time the two are related, as elections that promise to have the most impact on Social Security are also the elections with the greatest voter turnout.
The irony is that the ACLU and Democrats who oppose the voter identification laws are remarkably ignorant of the host of government services that already require that the elderly, homeless, and poor possess a form of government-issued identification before they can obtain them. A visit to a Social Security Office for any kind of service, even for registering a newborn baby for a Social Security number, requires government-issued photo identification, and in some cases multiple forms of identification.
As for the homeless, a group that one would expect not to consistently carry any form of identification, most cities issue benefit cards that require at least some identifying information. For example, Santa Monica, California, an affluent and intensely liberal city with miles of
beautiful beachfront properties, is a Mecca for the homeless. Mild coastal weather and generous available services have swelled the ranks of the homeless in Santa Monica, resulting in large gatherings and lines at city buildings. Yet even liberal Santa Monica issues public service identification cards to its homeless population. This identification serves three purposes: one, it allows workers at shelters to distinguish between those who have registered with the city as homeless and those who have not; second, it allows Santa Monica's Police Department to have a means for identifying homeless residents in the event they violate laws or if they are victimized by crime themselves; third, it allows homeless residents to obtain other city services, such as libraries.In exchange for city services, the homeless agree to register for free for a Santa Monica identification card. Those who do not wish to do so simply move on to a city without such a requirement. Yet most stay and enjoy the benefits offered to them. As Santa Monica is their official place of "residence" established by their city-issued card, they can obtain a Post Office box or similar service which further establishes that they have a local mailing address and reside in the city. At California polling locations, that combination is usually already sufficient to allow them to vote. What then is the hardship for the homeless in making the city-issued card they already willingly obtain at no cost into a free photo identification they can take to the polls?
Opponents argue that requiring the elderly, homeless, and poor to obtain government-issued photo identification presents a hardship because people in these voter classifications have difficulty navigating bureaucracy. These groups should be insulted by such a claim. The Social Security bureaucracy is considerably challenging, yet millions of elderly Americans somehow obtain the services they need despite the daunting bureaucracy. State and federal welfare programs surely contain the most complex requirement and eligibility rules known to man and endless bureaucracies to administer them, yet millions of needy families have applied for and obtained public assistance services far more challenging than filling out one form and getting a picture taken for a free voter identification card.
The low opinion liberals have of the elderly, homeless, and poor is as evident in this fight as it is in affirmative action and other liberal entitlement programs. They consistently underestimate the abilities and intellectual capacities of entire segments of the population while claiming their actions are for the "good" of these groups.
The key factor is that if something is sufficiently important to someone, he or she will find a way to navigate endless layers of bureaucracy to obtain it.
Opponents of Indiana's voter identification law would have us believe that the elderly, homeless, and poor are incapable of filling out a form for a free card, sitting for a picture, and taking the card home with them for use at their polling stations. The Indiana law even includes provisions that would exempt the disabled or those living in rest homes or assisted care facilities from the photo identification requirement. Let's be clear then that the ACLU and Indiana Democrats do not consider mobile, self-sufficient elderly residents, homeless people, or poor people smart enough to obtain a free identification card.
These opponents also set forth the claim that requiring photo identification places an undue financial burden on poor voters, because driver's licenses and state identification cards involve fees ranging in some states from $10 to $30. They raise the racial specter of the old Southern poll taxes and accuse conservatives who support the identification law of attempting to "disenfranchise" minority voters. To refute such a claim, most of the 26 states requiring photo identification at polling stations offer free voter identification cards. Where then is the financial hardship on the poor in obtaining a free card to take to the polls?
It is impossible to honestly identify any classification of legal voters who would be "disenfranchised" by being required to show photo identification. Certainly the elderly, homeless, and poor have already obtained far more complex services, all of which required some form of government-issued identification. Yet the media continues to portray voter identification as "a move that can limit participation of the elderly and poor in elections." The NAACP refers to identification requirements as "undue burdens" on voters, but offers no convincing evidence of that claim. States requiring voter identification have already made accommodations for the disabled, have made the cards available at no cost, and have made it no more difficult to obtain than any of the other public services these "disenfranchised" groups already have applied for successfully.
To claim otherwise is a political scare tactic in this season of sinister spooks.
Technorati Tags:
Indiana, Voter Photo Identification, Disenfranchisement, Supreme Court, Voter Registration Laws, Constitutionality, Entitlement Programs, Liberals
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Judge Ignores Probable Cause in Patriot Act Scolding
U.S. District Courts on the west coast 
are notorious for their liberal rulings and anti-government bias. We speak from experience in making that statement, having attempted in years past, usually fruitlessly, to meet their wildly erratic standards for probable cause even for investigations of terrorism or what are termed “terroristic threats” in many jurisdictions. Courts similar in ideology to the one that refused to protect the Pledge of Allegiance’s “one nation under God” wording routinely bend over backward to protect criminal and terrorism suspects from the dreaded Patriot Act. Federal law enforcement agencies in California, Oregon, and Washington find it increasingly difficult to find U.S. Attorneys willing to prosecute their cases regardless of the available evidence because the district judges are loathe to issuing search or arrest warrants, regardless of the severity of the crime or a suspect’s likelihood to flee once he has discovered he is under surveillance or his home or vehicle have been searched.
The political bias of the west’s federal district courts have made them overtly hostile to virtually all provisions of the Patriot Act, and cases brought before them that were investigated under expanded law enforcement authority provided by the Patriot Act are viewed by these judges as golden opportunities to strike at the hated act and more importantly, the president responsible for it, whom they almost unanimously despise.
It was with that underlying opportunistic mentality that U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken heard Brandon Mayfield’s lawsuit against the U.S. Government for violating Mayfield’s constitutional
guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. Mayfield was the Oregon lawyer and converted Muslim whom the FBI mistakenly identified as one of the terrorists responsible for the Madrid rail bombing in 2004. That terrorist attack killed nearly two hundred and was the highest priority investigation for international law enforcement, including the FBI, which was tasked with running latent fingerprints found on a detonator at the scene of the bombing through its print matching database known as AFIS. The AFIS system is not exclusive to the FBI, as most federal agencies now use electronic fingerprint scanners when processing suspects, and all prints are transmitted to the central AFIS database.
Unfortunately for all parties involved in the Madrid investigation, AFIS identified a number of
possible matches to the fingerprint found on the detonator. Through human error by FBI forensic specialists Mayfield’s prints, which were in the system due to his prior U.S. military service, were identified as a positive match. Nineteen days elapsed between Mayfield’s identification as a suspect in the bombing and the FBI’s discovery and announcement of its fingerprint error. Mayfield was the top media story after his arrest and according to his lawsuit his reputation and legal practice suffered irreparable damage due to the government’s mistake. The government settled a portion of the lawsuit and apologized to Mayfield.
Not satisfied with the punitive damages paid by the government in its settlement, Mayfield demanded as part of the settlement to retain the right to challenge provisions of the Patriot Act that he felt had been abused during the FBI’s investigation that mistakenly implicated him. Judge Ann Aiken clearly relished this opportunity to rule in favor of this sympathetic figure and wrote a scathing chastisement of President Bush (referred to as the anonymous Executive Branch) and the reviled Patriot Act and the equally despised Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows for warrantless wiretaps in terrorism investigations under certain circumstances but was not a creation of the Bush administration. FISA has been with us since the 1970s and was legislatively approved by a Democrat controlled Congress at the time. Despite this clear distinction, Aiken ruled that two provisions of the Patriot Act violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
There is no question that the FBI made a mistake in its matching of Mayfield’s fingerprint with those found in Madrid. Yet, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), a decidedly liberal organization, if the FBI used warrantless wiretapping, electronic surveillance, or searches during its investigation of Mayfield, it did so under the authority of FISA, not the Patriot Act. Judge Aiken took it upon herself to strike at the Patriot Act in a case where the powers granted by the Patriot Act do not appear to have been abused. The NACDL reported:
The NACDL recognized that although the government refused to acknowledge the use/non-use of FISA authority in this case, it also obtained traditional search warrants from District Court Judge Jones, who clearly determined that based on the fingerprint match the FBI had probable cause to believe Mayfield had handled the Madrid detonator and thus searches of his home, vehicles, and law practice were reasonable.
Judge Aiken, however, chose to ignore these facts and relied on emotional anti-Patriot Act fervor so abundant in her district. According to the AP story:
These AP excerpts are critical, because none of the court documents established that Mayfield was subjected to warrantless searches or eavesdropping. On the other hand, the court documents reviewed by Judge Aiken included traditional search and arrest warrants and affidavits presented to and approved by a fellow District Court Judge. The Justice Department admitted that the fingerprint mishap was “sloppy” and there were some inaccuracies in the affidavits the warrants were based upon, but the key here is that warrants were issued through routine judicial action in addition to or instead of FISA or the Patriot Act. Thus
while Judge Aiken preaches from her political pulpit about the evil Patriot Act and its “extra-Constitutional” powers given to the executive branch (i.e. President Bush), in this case there is only tangible evidence that the FBI obtained probable cause warrants from the federal judiciary, not from anyone in the executive branch. Apparently she was so eager to inject her political views into the national debate over the Patriot Act that she could not restrain herself to wait for a case where FISA or Patriot Act provisions clearly had been violated.
The NACDL and the AP versions were in agreement that the FBI conducted searches of Mayfield’s home, law practice, and vehicles, all with traditional probable cause warrants. Likewise, the arrest warrant for Mayfield was supported by a probable cause finding by Judge Jones. Rather than condemn the Patriot Act or FISA, Judge Aiken should have limited her criticism to judicial colleague Judge Jones if she genuinely believed there was no basis for probable cause and explained to the nation why Jones was wrong to issue probable cause warrants. Alas, it is easier to assault a controversial legislative act and an unpopular president than it is to look your colleague in the eye after ignoring his good faith issuance of warrants. Judge Aiken’s written decision provided a political lecture instead of legal justification, and FISA falsehoods rather than facts.
Technorati Tags: Patriot Act Brandon Mayfield Judge Ann Aiken FISA FBI Madrid Bombing Search and Seizure Unconstitutional
are notorious for their liberal rulings and anti-government bias. We speak from experience in making that statement, having attempted in years past, usually fruitlessly, to meet their wildly erratic standards for probable cause even for investigations of terrorism or what are termed “terroristic threats” in many jurisdictions. Courts similar in ideology to the one that refused to protect the Pledge of Allegiance’s “one nation under God” wording routinely bend over backward to protect criminal and terrorism suspects from the dreaded Patriot Act. Federal law enforcement agencies in California, Oregon, and Washington find it increasingly difficult to find U.S. Attorneys willing to prosecute their cases regardless of the available evidence because the district judges are loathe to issuing search or arrest warrants, regardless of the severity of the crime or a suspect’s likelihood to flee once he has discovered he is under surveillance or his home or vehicle have been searched.The political bias of the west’s federal district courts have made them overtly hostile to virtually all provisions of the Patriot Act, and cases brought before them that were investigated under expanded law enforcement authority provided by the Patriot Act are viewed by these judges as golden opportunities to strike at the hated act and more importantly, the president responsible for it, whom they almost unanimously despise.
It was with that underlying opportunistic mentality that U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken heard Brandon Mayfield’s lawsuit against the U.S. Government for violating Mayfield’s constitutional
guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. Mayfield was the Oregon lawyer and converted Muslim whom the FBI mistakenly identified as one of the terrorists responsible for the Madrid rail bombing in 2004. That terrorist attack killed nearly two hundred and was the highest priority investigation for international law enforcement, including the FBI, which was tasked with running latent fingerprints found on a detonator at the scene of the bombing through its print matching database known as AFIS. The AFIS system is not exclusive to the FBI, as most federal agencies now use electronic fingerprint scanners when processing suspects, and all prints are transmitted to the central AFIS database.Unfortunately for all parties involved in the Madrid investigation, AFIS identified a number of
possible matches to the fingerprint found on the detonator. Through human error by FBI forensic specialists Mayfield’s prints, which were in the system due to his prior U.S. military service, were identified as a positive match. Nineteen days elapsed between Mayfield’s identification as a suspect in the bombing and the FBI’s discovery and announcement of its fingerprint error. Mayfield was the top media story after his arrest and according to his lawsuit his reputation and legal practice suffered irreparable damage due to the government’s mistake. The government settled a portion of the lawsuit and apologized to Mayfield.Not satisfied with the punitive damages paid by the government in its settlement, Mayfield demanded as part of the settlement to retain the right to challenge provisions of the Patriot Act that he felt had been abused during the FBI’s investigation that mistakenly implicated him. Judge Ann Aiken clearly relished this opportunity to rule in favor of this sympathetic figure and wrote a scathing chastisement of President Bush (referred to as the anonymous Executive Branch) and the reviled Patriot Act and the equally despised Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows for warrantless wiretaps in terrorism investigations under certain circumstances but was not a creation of the Bush administration. FISA has been with us since the 1970s and was legislatively approved by a Democrat controlled Congress at the time. Despite this clear distinction, Aiken ruled that two provisions of the Patriot Act violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
There is no question that the FBI made a mistake in its matching of Mayfield’s fingerprint with those found in Madrid. Yet, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), a decidedly liberal organization, if the FBI used warrantless wiretapping, electronic surveillance, or searches during its investigation of Mayfield, it did so under the authority of FISA, not the Patriot Act. Judge Aiken took it upon herself to strike at the Patriot Act in a case where the powers granted by the Patriot Act do not appear to have been abused. The NACDL reported:
All of the trains involved in the March 11 bombings left from or had traveled through the Acala de Henares train station, in Madrid. Shortly after the bombings, in a van parked in the vicinity of the station, Spanish National Police discovered a blue plastic bag containing detonation materials similar to the devices used in the bombings. On this bag, a number of latent fingerprints were observed.
On March 17, the digital image of at least one of these latent fingerprints, Latent Fingerprint No. 17, was electronically transmitted to the FBI crime lab in Quantico, Virginia. After receiving the digital image of Latent Fingerprint No. 17, the FBI’s Latent Print Unit conducted an examination of the latent print by running it through its AFIS database. The AFIS database search produced 20 possible matches. FBI Senior Fingerprint Examiner Terry Green manually compared the potential matches with the digital image of Latent Fingerprint No. 17 and found a “100 percent” match with the fourth ranked print on the list. The source of the matching print was identified as being an American citizen and former Army lieutenant, Brandon Mayfield. Green’s match was purportedly confirmed by two other FBI fingerprint examiners.
It is not presently known how many of the twenty potential AFIS candidates were examined and whether there were any dissenters within the FBI’s Latent Print Unit. Nor is it known whether the identification process was influenced by information pertaining to Mayfield’s religious adherence to Islam or activities as a lawyer prior to the match being officially declared.
On or about March 20, the FBI reported its findings to the United States Attorney’s Office in Portland, which then commenced an investigation. On April 2, the FBI sent a letter to the Spanish authorities informing them of the identification of Mayfield. However, in a memo dated April 13, the Forensic Science Division of the Spanish National Police responded to the FBI that the purported match was “conclusively negative.”
On April 14, “rumors that Spanish authorities were questioning whether the print matched Mayfield” became known to the prosecutors in Portland. On April 16, the prosecutors became aware that the Spanish authorities “couldn’t confirm the FBI’s match.” On April 21, a representative from the FBI Latent Print Unit flew to Madrid and met with ten members of the Forensic Science Division of the Spanish National Police (SNP). At this meeting, the FBI representative presented the Spanish police officials “with a three-page document detailing their position that the prints from the bag belonged to Mr. Mayfield....”
...At some point in March or April, the FBI began surveillance of Mayfield. Based on a number of extraordinary events at his home and certain redactions in the district court search warrant affidavits, it strongly appears that he was subjected to “sneak and peek” and electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The government has declined to confirm or deny the use of FISA warrantless surveillance procedures.
In its submissions to the district court, on May 6, in addition to a material witness arrest warrant, the government sought issuance of broadly drafted search warrants for Mayfield’s law office, home, and personal vehicles.... Relying principally on the FBI’s identification of the digital image of Latent Fingerprint No. 17 as being Mayfield’s fingerprint, United States District Judge Robert E. Jones issued the requested material witness arrest warrant and search warrants.
The NACDL recognized that although the government refused to acknowledge the use/non-use of FISA authority in this case, it also obtained traditional search warrants from District Court Judge Jones, who clearly determined that based on the fingerprint match the FBI had probable cause to believe Mayfield had handled the Madrid detonator and thus searches of his home, vehicles, and law practice were reasonable.
Judge Aiken, however, chose to ignore these facts and relied on emotional anti-Patriot Act fervor so abundant in her district. According to the AP story:
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
…Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.
…The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.
These AP excerpts are critical, because none of the court documents established that Mayfield was subjected to warrantless searches or eavesdropping. On the other hand, the court documents reviewed by Judge Aiken included traditional search and arrest warrants and affidavits presented to and approved by a fellow District Court Judge. The Justice Department admitted that the fingerprint mishap was “sloppy” and there were some inaccuracies in the affidavits the warrants were based upon, but the key here is that warrants were issued through routine judicial action in addition to or instead of FISA or the Patriot Act. Thus
while Judge Aiken preaches from her political pulpit about the evil Patriot Act and its “extra-Constitutional” powers given to the executive branch (i.e. President Bush), in this case there is only tangible evidence that the FBI obtained probable cause warrants from the federal judiciary, not from anyone in the executive branch. Apparently she was so eager to inject her political views into the national debate over the Patriot Act that she could not restrain herself to wait for a case where FISA or Patriot Act provisions clearly had been violated.The NACDL and the AP versions were in agreement that the FBI conducted searches of Mayfield’s home, law practice, and vehicles, all with traditional probable cause warrants. Likewise, the arrest warrant for Mayfield was supported by a probable cause finding by Judge Jones. Rather than condemn the Patriot Act or FISA, Judge Aiken should have limited her criticism to judicial colleague Judge Jones if she genuinely believed there was no basis for probable cause and explained to the nation why Jones was wrong to issue probable cause warrants. Alas, it is easier to assault a controversial legislative act and an unpopular president than it is to look your colleague in the eye after ignoring his good faith issuance of warrants. Judge Aiken’s written decision provided a political lecture instead of legal justification, and FISA falsehoods rather than facts.
Technorati Tags: Patriot Act Brandon Mayfield Judge Ann Aiken FISA FBI Madrid Bombing Search and Seizure Unconstitutional
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
General Thinks Mullahs Rational Enough for Nukes
Retired General John Abizaid is working hard to disprove the old adage that “Old 
generals never die, they just fade away.” Unfortunately, many otherwise astute minds are relying on the former CentCom Commander’s outdated worldview to formulate their own policy positions, particularly in our looming confrontation with Iran over that nation’s nuclear ambitions. If America follows Gen. Abizaid's advice, we may all "just fade away" much sooner than we had envisioned.
The Washington Times’ Arnaud de Borchgrave, whom we have praised previously for sound analysis on other topics, quoted Ret. Gen. Abizaid extensively in his recent column on potential conflict with Iran, “Networked and Lethal.” De Borchgrave subscribes to the view that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has aroused international scorn and sympathy in equal portions, is merely a powerless puppet whose strings are controlled by Iran’s Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
This analysis, by itself, is relatively accurate and approaching diplomacy with Iran from that perspective is a somewhat prudent course to follow. However, de Borchgrave draws upon Gen. Abizaid to support his position that military action against Iran would be a mistake. According to both men, using force against Iran to eliminate uranium enrichment sites would be foolish and dangerous because, somewhere under the lecherous layers of power represented by Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, lies a trickling rivulet of revolution that seeks peace with the west and only civilian use of nuclear power for electricity.
We will set aside for the moment the fact that this optimistic view of Iran’s underlying potential for political reform requires, to borrow from Hillary Clinton’s lexicon, “the willful suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton used that phrase to bludgeon General David Petraeus’ report to congress on progress in Iraq, where despite abundant evidence of silver linings, critics choose to see only the dark cloud. By contrast, in evaluating Iran’s potential for peaceful coexistence with the West and its Middle East neighbors as a nuclear nation, those same critics embrace wishful thinking and cite historical references to Persian culture and traditions that they conveniently forget have long since been replaced by radical Islamic ideology.
Ret. Gen Abizaid is a strong advocate of what is, for a leader who was previously so instrumental in the War on Terror, a remarkably reckless and illogical policy toward Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gen. Abizaid sees no reason why Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear technology, apparently including nuclear weapons, because he mistakenly equates Iran with the former Soviet Union and the current standoff with Iran as just another iteration of the Cold War. The following excerpts set forth de Borchgrave’s and Gen. Abizaid’s reasoning for choosing a nuclear Iran over military conflict to prevent that eventuality:
It is stunning that a man with the mindset that “one or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us” was ever selected as the CentCom commander. His comparison between the former Soviet Union and the current Iranian regime is frighteningly naïve, especially from one who many look to as an “expert” on Middle Eastern matters. Ret. Gen. Abizaid either conveniently or cunningly ignores the fact that during the Cold War nuclear capability belonged to only a handful of nations and was a jealously and fanatically guarded secret. There was virtually no concern within the intelligence community that the Soviets would develop a nuclear weapon, sell it to Islamic or other terrorists, and help them to smuggle it out of country to be used against the United States or its allies.
Quite simply, the Soviets feared that any nuclear weapon used against the United States would be blamed on them and retaliation would not be long in coming. Thus it was in the self-interest of the Soviets not to share nuclear technology with radicals who might strike the United States rashly. Though dangerous in its own right, the Soviet Union wielded nuclear weapons in large quantity as a demonstration of national strength. There is far more fear that a nuclear Iran would use or sell its weapons than there ever was that the Soviets would do so. The Soviets likewise did not harbor any sympathy for or ally themselves with Muslims and were understandably alarmed by the potential consequences of any nuclear Islamic nation.
Ret. Gen. Abizaid seems to think that our ability to “instantly vaporize” Iran should make us
confident that Iran would never be irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against America. In essence, the general advocates applying the strategy of deterrence, or Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Iran. MAD was crafted to defend against an enemy's all out assault, an attack intended to cripple America with strikes against multiple cities simultaneously. It was never meant as a deterrent against terrorists who would be perfectly satisfied with a random detonation in just one American city. To equate MAD's capacity to deter the Soviet Union with a similar effect on radical Islamic terrorists is illogical in the extreme.
It is baffling why this so-called expert would not prefer keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands in the first place. Radical Islamic terrorists are not known to be reasonable, rational people. Gen. Abizaid would like to believe that the Iranian nation as a whole is not suicidal and that “they aren’t mad.” He forgets, however, that the weaponry of Iran is in the hands of a small number of religious zealots who preach loudly of their role in ushering in an apocalyptic future. The Iranian nation may not be bent on collective suicide, but its radical leaders have no such qualms about martyring themselves and their nation to fulfill prophecy.
The general’s portrait of Iran as an inherently peaceful nation fails to address what is undeniably the greatest source of concern regarding Iran: that it will provide nuclear weapons and/or technology to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use them against America and its allies. A nuclear-armed Iran would be unlikely to engage in a tactical nuclear conflict with America, but most Americans would not share Gen. Abizaid’s opinion that we should not be rattled by “one or two Iranian nukes.” Which cities in Europe would Gen. Abizaid be so casually willing to lose? What would be left of Israel after “one or two Iranian nukes?” The nuclear devices would detonate and we would face then the same question we face today: Should we take action to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear technology sites? The only difference would be the tragic loss of millions of lives due to a nuclear terrorist attack that would have been preventable.
Given Iran’s well-documented record of funding, equipping, training, and transporting terrorists who attack American civilians and military forces on a daily basis and who have struck at Israel for decades, it requires the willful suspension of disbelief to think Iran would not sell or give freely its future nuclear weapons to terrorist groups it already supplies with weapons. The confusion after a nuclear terrorist attack would be paralyzing to America. Some would blame it on Russians; others would insist it was a preemptive strike by an increasingly aggressive China; Al Qaeda would naturally be suspected, but in the aftermath of such an attack it would be difficult to establish who orchestrated the event and how to respond. The knee-jerk reaction would be to annihilate whatever nation produced the weapon and supplied it to terrorists.
Gen. Abizaid appears to have great respect for Iran and its Persian culture and traditions. He should recognize that the best way to preserve Iran’s people and culture is to prevent its current radical regime from ever developing nuclear weapons that, through their existence and potential use or sale, would jeopardize the future of the entire Iranian nation. Neither the world nor the Iranian people can afford to take the risk that mullahs with nuclear weapons would act responsibly in possession of nuclear weapons. Their record terror sponsorship, their stated vision of a world without Israel, and their hatred for America should rattle us out of our diplomatic course that has allowed Iran to bring over 3,000 centrifuges online and race toward sufficient uranium enrichment for weapons production.
Gen. Abizaid is a trusting soul, but trust in the intentions of Islamic radicals in pursuit of nuclear weapons may prove suicidal. This may be the only situation in recorded history where America should take the word of Ahmadinejad and his mullah puppeteers at face value and ignore the advice of one of our decorated retired generals.
Technorati Tags: General John Abizaid Iran Ayatollah Khamenei Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Weapons War on Terror Cold War
generals never die, they just fade away.” Unfortunately, many otherwise astute minds are relying on the former CentCom Commander’s outdated worldview to formulate their own policy positions, particularly in our looming confrontation with Iran over that nation’s nuclear ambitions. If America follows Gen. Abizaid's advice, we may all "just fade away" much sooner than we had envisioned.The Washington Times’ Arnaud de Borchgrave, whom we have praised previously for sound analysis on other topics, quoted Ret. Gen. Abizaid extensively in his recent column on potential conflict with Iran, “Networked and Lethal.” De Borchgrave subscribes to the view that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has aroused international scorn and sympathy in equal portions, is merely a powerless puppet whose strings are controlled by Iran’s Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
This analysis, by itself, is relatively accurate and approaching diplomacy with Iran from that perspective is a somewhat prudent course to follow. However, de Borchgrave draws upon Gen. Abizaid to support his position that military action against Iran would be a mistake. According to both men, using force against Iran to eliminate uranium enrichment sites would be foolish and dangerous because, somewhere under the lecherous layers of power represented by Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, lies a trickling rivulet of revolution that seeks peace with the west and only civilian use of nuclear power for electricity.
We will set aside for the moment the fact that this optimistic view of Iran’s underlying potential for political reform requires, to borrow from Hillary Clinton’s lexicon, “the willful suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton used that phrase to bludgeon General David Petraeus’ report to congress on progress in Iraq, where despite abundant evidence of silver linings, critics choose to see only the dark cloud. By contrast, in evaluating Iran’s potential for peaceful coexistence with the West and its Middle East neighbors as a nuclear nation, those same critics embrace wishful thinking and cite historical references to Persian culture and traditions that they conveniently forget have long since been replaced by radical Islamic ideology.
Ret. Gen Abizaid is a strong advocate of what is, for a leader who was previously so instrumental in the War on Terror, a remarkably reckless and illogical policy toward Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gen. Abizaid sees no reason why Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear technology, apparently including nuclear weapons, because he mistakenly equates Iran with the former Soviet Union and the current standoff with Iran as just another iteration of the Cold War. The following excerpts set forth de Borchgrave’s and Gen. Abizaid’s reasoning for choosing a nuclear Iran over military conflict to prevent that eventuality:
Mr. Ahmadinejad, who today will put in his third appearance in three years before the U.N. General Assembly, has little power in Iran's theocracy. The key levers are in the hands of Supreme Religious Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Everything from media to intelligence and including the armed forces and parliament is in his hands. And former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who lost the presidential election to Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2005, was elected chairman of Iran's Assembly of Experts, the body that elects the supreme spiritual leader. Mr. Rafsanjani defeated a hard-line cleric who was Mr. Ahmadinejad's friend and protector.
Unlike Mr. Ahmadinejad, who would seem to welcome a military showdown with the United States, if only to force the entire Middle East to side with Iran against the U.S., both Messrs. Khamenei and Rafsanjani are apparently worried about the voices calling for the bombing of Iran's estimated 23 widely scattered underground nuclear facilities.
…Former CentCom commander Gen. Abizaid, who speaks fluent Arabic and whose command extended from Afghanistan to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and took in a large chunk of Africa from Egypt to the Horn of Africa down to Kenya (27 countries), said bombing Iran would be catastrophic. It would set the entire Middle East ablaze and bring millions more recruits to al Qaeda's anti-U.S. bandwagon.
Gen. Abizaid, now retired, says: "We can stop Iranian expansion. We contained the Soviet Union with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in missiles targeted against the United States. But we kept talking to Soviet leaders throughout the worst of the Cold War. And we blocked Soviet expansionism and we also learned to live with China after President Nixon restored diplomatic relations."
Iran, the general explains, is a dangerous power that seeks weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to dominate its neighbors much the way the Soviet Union developed satellite and client states. The United States should deliver clear messages. One or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us. If they fired them, Iran would be instantly vaporized.
"The ayatollahs are heirs to a great civilization," he said in a colloquy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "and they are not in the business of collective suicide. Using suicide bombers against Western or pro-Western countries is one thing, but committing national suicide quite another. They aren't mad." And we should talk turkey with Iran at the highest level as soon as possible.
It is stunning that a man with the mindset that “one or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us” was ever selected as the CentCom commander. His comparison between the former Soviet Union and the current Iranian regime is frighteningly naïve, especially from one who many look to as an “expert” on Middle Eastern matters. Ret. Gen. Abizaid either conveniently or cunningly ignores the fact that during the Cold War nuclear capability belonged to only a handful of nations and was a jealously and fanatically guarded secret. There was virtually no concern within the intelligence community that the Soviets would develop a nuclear weapon, sell it to Islamic or other terrorists, and help them to smuggle it out of country to be used against the United States or its allies.
Quite simply, the Soviets feared that any nuclear weapon used against the United States would be blamed on them and retaliation would not be long in coming. Thus it was in the self-interest of the Soviets not to share nuclear technology with radicals who might strike the United States rashly. Though dangerous in its own right, the Soviet Union wielded nuclear weapons in large quantity as a demonstration of national strength. There is far more fear that a nuclear Iran would use or sell its weapons than there ever was that the Soviets would do so. The Soviets likewise did not harbor any sympathy for or ally themselves with Muslims and were understandably alarmed by the potential consequences of any nuclear Islamic nation.
Ret. Gen. Abizaid seems to think that our ability to “instantly vaporize” Iran should make us
confident that Iran would never be irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against America. In essence, the general advocates applying the strategy of deterrence, or Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Iran. MAD was crafted to defend against an enemy's all out assault, an attack intended to cripple America with strikes against multiple cities simultaneously. It was never meant as a deterrent against terrorists who would be perfectly satisfied with a random detonation in just one American city. To equate MAD's capacity to deter the Soviet Union with a similar effect on radical Islamic terrorists is illogical in the extreme.It is baffling why this so-called expert would not prefer keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands in the first place. Radical Islamic terrorists are not known to be reasonable, rational people. Gen. Abizaid would like to believe that the Iranian nation as a whole is not suicidal and that “they aren’t mad.” He forgets, however, that the weaponry of Iran is in the hands of a small number of religious zealots who preach loudly of their role in ushering in an apocalyptic future. The Iranian nation may not be bent on collective suicide, but its radical leaders have no such qualms about martyring themselves and their nation to fulfill prophecy.
The general’s portrait of Iran as an inherently peaceful nation fails to address what is undeniably the greatest source of concern regarding Iran: that it will provide nuclear weapons and/or technology to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use them against America and its allies. A nuclear-armed Iran would be unlikely to engage in a tactical nuclear conflict with America, but most Americans would not share Gen. Abizaid’s opinion that we should not be rattled by “one or two Iranian nukes.” Which cities in Europe would Gen. Abizaid be so casually willing to lose? What would be left of Israel after “one or two Iranian nukes?” The nuclear devices would detonate and we would face then the same question we face today: Should we take action to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear technology sites? The only difference would be the tragic loss of millions of lives due to a nuclear terrorist attack that would have been preventable.
Given Iran’s well-documented record of funding, equipping, training, and transporting terrorists who attack American civilians and military forces on a daily basis and who have struck at Israel for decades, it requires the willful suspension of disbelief to think Iran would not sell or give freely its future nuclear weapons to terrorist groups it already supplies with weapons. The confusion after a nuclear terrorist attack would be paralyzing to America. Some would blame it on Russians; others would insist it was a preemptive strike by an increasingly aggressive China; Al Qaeda would naturally be suspected, but in the aftermath of such an attack it would be difficult to establish who orchestrated the event and how to respond. The knee-jerk reaction would be to annihilate whatever nation produced the weapon and supplied it to terrorists.
Gen. Abizaid appears to have great respect for Iran and its Persian culture and traditions. He should recognize that the best way to preserve Iran’s people and culture is to prevent its current radical regime from ever developing nuclear weapons that, through their existence and potential use or sale, would jeopardize the future of the entire Iranian nation. Neither the world nor the Iranian people can afford to take the risk that mullahs with nuclear weapons would act responsibly in possession of nuclear weapons. Their record terror sponsorship, their stated vision of a world without Israel, and their hatred for America should rattle us out of our diplomatic course that has allowed Iran to bring over 3,000 centrifuges online and race toward sufficient uranium enrichment for weapons production.
Gen. Abizaid is a trusting soul, but trust in the intentions of Islamic radicals in pursuit of nuclear weapons may prove suicidal. This may be the only situation in recorded history where America should take the word of Ahmadinejad and his mullah puppeteers at face value and ignore the advice of one of our decorated retired generals.
Technorati Tags: General John Abizaid Iran Ayatollah Khamenei Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Weapons War on Terror Cold War
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)