This Is Why There's No Peace

Yet another episode is unfolding in the deadly and virtually continuous battle between Israel and Palestine-based Hamas.  After the Egyptian-negotiated truce broke down just over a week ago, Hamas and Israel attacked each other brutally, with death tolls rising fast.  Spectators around the world are sure to ask two major questions in assessing the conflict: 1. Who started it? and 2. How do we fix it?

A big problem is that discussions about the conflict stop at the first question, whose answer has definite implications for the second one: whoever is at fault will pay an enormous price in answering the second, through international sanctions or otherwise.

Probably the biggest contributors to the lack of a clear-cut answer as to who is the culprit in violating the terms of the previous cease-fire are long-held and blatant biases against either Israel or Hamas that are present in virtually every piece of reporting on record.  For example, Iranian press has released their version of a timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian fight that attributes basically no blame to Hamas and vilifies Israel.  On the other hand, Israel has barred international press from covering the unfolding story in Gaza, according to the Kansas City Star.

However, when we trim the fat from both sides of this story and cut to the meat, we can see some emerging truths: 

1. Hamas has incentive to copy the Hezbollah attacks of 2006 that led to international condemnation of Israel's overwhelming response and a strengthening of Hezbollah.  If the international community responds to this wave of Israeli military action in the same way as it did, Hamas will gain much.  Hamas has almost nothing to lose in inciting a conflict, because it is fighting from a position of relative weakness in a densely populated area.  It would seem, as Michael B. Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi argue, that Hamas "needs" Israel to retaliate against the Gaza Strip and kill its own people.

2. Israel has a legitimate case that it has tried to negotiate with Hamas and even sought diplomatic means to resolve the current conflict after Hamas launched 300 or so rockets into southern Israel after the truce ended (ibid).

3. Hamas' own creed is dedicated to violence and war: according to Stephen Farrell of the New York Times, "[Hamas] has preached to Palestinians the rejectionist credo that Fatah negotiated with Israel and got nowhere; Hamas’s way of armed force, it argued year in and year out, was the only way."  Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist.

I think Hamas is to blame for the most recent flare-up.  And yet, while to me it appears that Hamas is the instigator in this conflict, Arab journalists and governments would most likely claim that my news sources are "puppets of the Zionist regime" or some other, similar, probably ridiculous notion.  Therein lies the problem: I probably couldn't convince your everyday Palestinian that its government is wrong, especially after he or she has been told for years that Israelis are evil, have no right to exist, and should be killed through jihad.  All they see are the tanks that enter Gaza, not the rockets that fly out.

The bleak truth behind the answer to Question Number Two is this: both Israel and Palestinian interests are indivisible--they do not allow for compromise--and neither side will ever say that it is responsible for the constant bloodshed in the Middle East.  Either Arabs across the Middle East recognize Israel's right to exist, a lot of people are forced to move from their homes, or a lot of people will continue to die riding the bus to work or cooking dinner for their families.  Thank God we live in the United States.

Robert Gates: The Man with the Plan

As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently wrote in his Foreign Affairs article “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age,” the United States’ national defense strategy needs significant overhaul to effectively fight the Global War on Terror (GWOT).  The necessity of American military dominance remains a top priority, and to ensure it, more effort must made to alter our methods of fighting terrorist extremists in “small wars” throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.

As Gates suggests, our new defense strategy should be configured to deter conventional military threats from aggressive rogue states like Iran and North Korea while at the same time combating irregular warfare tactics and dismantling terrorist groups piece by piece (Gates).  His proposed changes seem to parallel those made by the Kennedy Administration in 1961 in response to the perceived shortcomings of the Eisenhower Administration’s “New Look” defense policy.  While the New Look policy focused on the threat of American massive retaliatory nuclear attack to deter the Soviet Union, Kennedy’s “flexible response” idea emphasized an ability to fight in several different capacities in regional theaters to deter the former USSR.  

The idea of massive retaliatory attack (in this case by conventional means) -- that is, that we can “shock and awe” terrorists into submission -- must be used selectively.  We must take advantage of new and innovative technology in the GWOT, but in a way that emphasizes low-key counterinsurgency tactics.  We cannot afford to fight in a manner that might fuel terrorist groups’ recruiting agendas.  Osama bin Laden repeats the belief over and over again in his 1996 fatwa, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” that the “infidels” are on a crusade against Muslims and Muslim lands (“Bin Laden’s Fatwa”).  Overuse of our technological advantages over terrorist groups can hurt more than it helps in the battle for the “hearts and minds,” as it stokes the fires that keep these dangerous beliefs alive.  We must combat these groups quietly and forcefully.

In order to be both quiet and forceful, we need to utilize what Gates refers to as “foreign military assistance.”  The United States, he writes, must “employ indirect approaches -- primarily through building the capacity of partner governments and their security forces” (Gates).  It is an unsustainable policy to attempt to tear down and then rebuild every rogue state that crosses us.  The US must, as Gates says, help train foreign peoples to stop terrorism at its roots.  In doing so, we can combat our enemies by proxy and give a sense of ownership in the GWOT to other peoples who desire to stop Al Qaeda and others in their tracks.

With Gates’ voice sure to influence policy decisions made by President-elect Barack Obama, the United States’ defense strategy is in the right hands, with a smart and sustainable future ahead of it.

Sources:

Gates, Robert.  “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age.”  Foreign Affairs.  January/February 2009.  <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090101faessay88103-p0/robert-m-gates/a-balanced-strategy.html>.  12/17/08.

“Bin Laden’s Fatwa.”  PBS Online NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.  <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html>.  12/17/08.

To Be or Not to Be?

In regard to Detroit's Big Three automakers, the question lingers in the minds of many Americans, especially those whose jobs are at stake.  The Big Three are in Washington to beg for bailout money, and the situation with our nation's automakers is so dire that it spurred United Auto Workers union president Ron Gettelfinger to claim, "I believe we could lose General Motors by the end of this month."  Senator Chris Dodd even said, "We're looking at a death sentence."

Do we let the Big Three live or die, as it were?  This dilemma may be a turning point in American history. Whether or not our home-grown auto manufacturers will remain in business will depend almost entirely on what Congress decides to do in the coming week.  The implications of Congress' decision will be enormous.  A bailout with strings attached for restructuring based on the demands of Congress would mean that our government would now virtually control two of our major industries: banking and auto manufacturing.  Without a bailout, these companies probably won't generate enough capital to survive the winter.

Do we virtually absorb these failing companies to prevent the loss of thousands more American jobs at a time when unemployment has reached 6.7% nationwide and looks to climb in the coming months?  Or, do we let these companies fail, the consequences be darned, and maintain the integrity of our capitalist system (which is in serious danger already)?  As usual, there's no clean-cut "yes" or "no."

Regardless of what happens this next week, changes will have to be made in the industry: either lower wages (despite the UAW), lower CEO pay (Rick Wagoner received a pay increase this year at GM), and a new business plan that is capable of adapting to current demands and markets (although Reps. Henry Waxman and Barney Frank don't have MBAs, contrary to the beliefs of Reps. Henry Waxman and Barney Frank), or no wages, no CEO pay, and no business plan.

I have low confidence in Congress' ability to run major corporations.  They seemed to be high on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they were on the verge of collapse.  Of course, GM, Ford, and Chrysler seemed to be high on GM, Ford, and Chrysler until recently.  When the only alternatives are bad, you have to pick your poison: Congress should offer the bailout in order to restructure the business.  I fear, however, that this is not the end of these types of deals.

A Time for Change

The most recent wave of economic troubles that has significantly eroded consumer confidence, buying power, and wealth in the United States dramatically points to a need for change in the way America operates.

Our national debt under President George W. Bush has ballooned to over $10 trillion, eroding the purchasing power of the dollar.  State governments across the nation are facing crippling deficits.  Unemployment continues to rise, and in states like Ohio, has passed 7%.  In August, U.S. News and World Report wrote that "the average American with a credit file is responsible for $16,635 in debt, excluding mortgages."  In a word, our current spending policies in this country are unsustainable, like those of a 16-year-old shopaholic.

Whether it's the federal, state, local government or citizens themselves, Americans spend far too much.  We've experienced immense prosperity over the last 15 or so years.  When we have had economic problems, they've been short, and the solution, as provided by our government, is to go out and shop.

To get back on track, we're going to experience some pain.  Although Obamaniacs don't think so, change is inevitably painful, whether sooner or later.  As an elementary example, if you change your daily habits to include working out, you deal with the necessary pain of exercising, but you later reap the benefits.  If you change your habits to stop working out, you will eventually feel the pain of increased medical bills/insurance rates and health problems sometime in your future, and you will likely look terrible and feel more insecure about yourself.  Regardless, change is eventually painful.  The key is to make the pain constructive: to make it work towards an achievable and desirable goal whose benefits eventually outweigh its costs.

Our federal and state governments have to be whipped into shape.  We have to get smarter.  We have to adapt to our changing world.  First, in order for America to continue to be the superpower it is today, we have to find a more sustainable way to combat those who wish us harm around the world.  While I would contend that our actions in the Middle East during the Bush Administration have done more good than harm, I recognize that the use of preventive war is far too economically cumbersome to be seriously considered as a major facet of our foreign policy going forward.  We have to find a more cost-effective way to combat terrorism and rogue states without invading.  

Second, we have to seriously cut back on domestic spending.  Cutting defense spending and increasing federal income taxes is just not enough.  We can't afford to bail out state after state because they are unable to find money to pay for the services they want to provide.  We should maintain educational standards and spending, but states have to cut back on nonessential programs to be able to make ends meet.  

There are a multitude of other things that have to change in this country, but the cold, hard fact of the matter is: governments need to return to truly conservative principles, becoming once again agents of defense and arbiters of justice, oversight, and regulation, with few exceptions.

The Fairness Doctrine

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), whose Chairman and Commissioners include 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, is considering rule changes that would, in effect, bring back the Fairness Doctrine, a tool used to create equity on radio airwaves that has been defunct now for over 20 years. As dcexaminer.com puts it, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is nothing more than an "Orwellian-named government effort to dictate the content of radio and TV news and opinion."

It always bothers me that government actions are usually named after some ridiculous euphemism to hide their real purposes.  Honestly, our lawmakers could pass legislation whose sole purpose might be to allow sociopaths the right to indiscriminately slaughter puppies and kittens everywhere to calm their instincts to kill humans, and call it the "Tranquil Waters Act."  The same goes for legislation like the PATRIOT Act: it's as though opposing such legislation makes you un-patriotic, which is ridiculous (unless your reason for opposing it is that you want the demise of the United States--that's treason, which is categorically unpatriotic).

The so-called "Fairness Doctrine," or whatever rule the FCC proposes that would serve the same purpose, falls under the same category.  Its function would be to coerce radio stations to air both sides of an issue, kind of like the same thing we try to do at WASP Blog by our own choice, but on the radio, because apparently radio is a market that is limited in regard to choice.  Admittedly, there is a strong bias towards conservative views on AM talk radio.  However, why does it matter?  If liberals want to indulge in liberal propaganda, why not watch virtually ANY cable/network news program (don't believe there's a bias towards liberals on TV? Read this and tell me there isn't.)

If the government is going to force broadcasters to air both sides of an issue--for example, a Christian radio station giving Satan-worshippers equal time to make their case to the audience--then why stop at radio?  Let's hit network and cable TV stations too!  And when we're done with that, we'll go for the blogs (luckily I think WASP Blog might not be forced to, but maybe Andrew will have to issue a retroactive nomination for Barack Obama for President in addition to his pro-McCain article, and tas817 will have to say that supply-side economics is a great economic theory too)!  The DailyKos won't mind putting out some conservative propaganda, will they?  I'm sure Michelle Malkin is itching to write about her excitement that Sen. John Kerry might be our next Secretary of State!  We won't stop there though.  The final stop will have to be state universities.  I'm sure the blue ivory towers of academia won't mind government henchmen in the back of their classrooms, making sure that both sides of an argument are presented!

The point is, if you're going to hit up radio for its bias, then you have to hit up every possible publication or pulpit out there.  It's a disastrous idea, and one that no lawmaker in his or her right mind should support.  I believe that we have the duty to be equitable when discussing controversial issues with one another (hence this blog).  However, we should be equitable by choice, not because the government thinks it's in our best interest.  Like Ronald Reagan said in 1964, the issue is "whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

Congratulations!

Congratualtions to Senator Barack Obama, President-Elect!  Don't mess it up!  I'll be watching...

VOTE!

I voted, and you should too!  Get out and vote today if you haven't already!

Obama's Plan: Tax Cut or Spending Increase?

I'm sure everyone following politics and this election is familiar with Senator Barack Obama's claim that his proposals will "cut taxes" for 95% of all American taxpayers.  However, is this even possible?  In fact, as the Wall Street Journal reports, 44% of all tax filers would have no tax liability under Obama's plan, so the maximum percentage to receive cuts would be about 56%, if those figures are indeed accurate.

How does Obama make this claim without being lambasted by the press?  I'm not going to go into the all-too-partisan debate on media bias and how soft they've been in their coverage of Obama (and have instead focused their fury on Governor Sarah Palin), because that doesn't get us anywhere due to its subjective nature.  Instead, let's look at the way in which Obama defines a "tax cut."  If Obama can't cut rates for 44% of Americans, how does he cut their taxes?  He doesn't!  Instead, he actually proposes to give tax credits to those who qualify, thus expanding his "tax cut" base to 95% of Americans.  

Some critics call this idea "welfare."  If you allow Obama to define tax credits (spending) as tax cuts, then you're certainly able to label proposed tax credits to lower-middle class Americans "welfare."  However, I believe that a more constructive analysis would refer to Obama's tax credits as what Juliet Rhys-Williams and Milton Friedman later called "negative income tax."  Simply put, those taxpayers at a certain income level receive tax subsidies from the government (as originally proposed, to replace a currently failing welfare and entitlement system).  

Obama has taken a libertarian ideal and proposed to implement it but without reducing other government subsidies (unless you call national defense a "subsidy" instead of "the chief purpose of American government")!  In my eyes, this tactic goes hand-in-hand with a basic tenet of Democrat (and socialist) theory: you take from the rich and give to the poor/redistribute wealth.  It would be a great idea, if Obama would agree to cut back welfare and other entitlements, but he won't.  

He will continue to call it a "tax cut" for 95% of Americans and continue to try to implement his $800 billion ($1 trillion if he eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax) in proposed new spending.  Under this plan (which already has Miami Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga trying to get rid of the Dolphins to avoid Obama tax increases), the only thing we will see go up is not our standard of living, not our collective hope, but our national debt, which will eventually crush our economy, and will only be accelerated under an Obama presidency.  

Racism

Obviously, there are lots of reasons that some people won’t be voting for Barack Obama. But, this post is not about racism’s role in this election, it’s about racism in America. Now the majority of Americans are not racist, but having been raised in the South, I know good and well that racism is very much alive, and that it is thriving. I’m not just talking about the blatant sort; I’m talking about the covert, the coded, and the obscured. You probably know exactly what I mean even if you can’t quite put your finger on it. It’s the sort of racism that prompts a store employee to follow a well-dressed black woman around but not a similarly dressed white person. It’s the sort of racism that makes people say they “don’t trust” Barack Hussein Obama. It’s the kind of racism where a person carefully avoids eye contact and rushes to get out of the way of a black person on the sidewalk. It’s the kind of racism that makes people say “I’m worried what will happen if Obama wins, because I think that black people will take it as payback time” (NPR roundtable discussion with Western PA residents). Let’s face it, America is still afraid of black people. The old narratives of hypersexual violent black men are still silently bubbling under the surface of the American psyche. What narrative do you think Ashley Todd played into with her despicable false police report—big black man brutally attacks helpless white woman for supporting McCain. That incident, if no other, surely exposed the ugly underbelly of racial tension that permeates American culture.

This election has also exposed racism and ignorance towards Arab and Muslim Americans. When a woman asserted to John McCain that Obama was a Muslim, McCain’s response was “No, no he’s not, he’s a decent family man”. Now, I’m not calling McCain racist, his response was in a certain context that pinned him to this bumbling answer lest he be called a terrorist-lover himself. Clearly though, this answer is less than ideal: Muslims aren’t decent family people? We all need to take responsibility as Americans to uphold a basic tenet of our constitution: Freedom of Religion! Someone should also point out that there are Arabs who are Christian and every other religion, and being Arab or Muslim doesn’t make one a terrorist. Please, if you hear someone make an ignorant comment, correct it immediately and with gusto, or we’re gonna be herding people into detention camps again.

Now, I know I sound preachy, and possibly paranoid, but do know that I am not asserting that racism is playing a major role in this election, the polling data so far shows that it’s probably a moot point. But I am asserting that this election is exposing a racist undercurrent that has been hidden for the last couple of decades by coded language, “multiculturalism”, and “color-blindness”. No, we are not living in a post-racial society. No matter what direction this election swings, I hope that we will continue to discuss race openly, because we can’t air our dirty laundry in a dark, dank, basement and expect it to dry without mildew. No, it’s not all about race, but for minorities in this country… race and racism is very important, and very present in our every day lives. Our pursuit of happiness, therefore, is sometimes a slightly rougher road. Many minority groups in this country have been told to stop whining and stop expecting government handouts and to accept personal responsibility for an unfortunate state of affairs. I only ask that those of you, who find yourselves in the dominant race and culture, also accept some personal responsibility and address the ignorant and racist beliefs of those around you when you hear them.

Why I Can't Vote For Obama

I have no problem with Barack Obama. I admire the man for his zeal and for his historic and very possible rise to the most powerful position in the world. I cannot, however, stand his supporters. Actually that's a bit harsh. I cannot stand many of them, and they are a main reason why I could never vote for him in this election (I also don't like his policies, but that is my own subjective opinion and won't be discussed).

Now there are obviously plenty of rational and sane advocates on both sides of this race (sorry to you Bob Barr supporters, but there are only two sides to this election). My roommate worked for the Obama campaign, and we often find ourselves discussing the candidates, their stances on the issues, their ads and other aspects of what has become presidential politics in America. We (usually) manage to do this in completely calm fashion because we are both intelligent, educated, decent human beings. And we realize that (1) there is far more to life than politics and (2) there is nothing we can personally do to change the outcome of the election. As such, there is no reason for us to get into heated exchanges that will strain our relationship over a matter so personally unrelated to our daily lives as this election, which is still weeks away. Speculation should not breed contempt.

And yet, that is the very problem I have with Obama supporters (I will now refer to them generally, but I only implicate those lunatics mentioned in the opening paragraph). I love debating political issues . . . with people like my roommate, because he, like me, realizes that it is not going to be the end of the world because of who wins an election. But you simply cannot "debate," in the real sense of the word, with the Obama people that I am referring to. (As a point of clarification, you cannot debate with lunatic right-wingers either, but they don't cause me as many headaches, so they are not the target of this post.)

These Obama supporters are rabid, and as such, are completely closed to the use of reason or logic. You can't debate people who won't listen. In my experience, these sorts of supporters have very strongly held beliefs, which I respect. The problem, however, is that they simply cannot comprehend that someone (i.e. me) might have beliefs that differ from theirs. They are incredulous that I do not find Obama's healthcare plan the epitome of how a government should be run (or how a government should run things). But in my opinion, the government is very bad at running things outside of a few key areas (like the military). In fact, the left-wingers are in full support of this idea . . . as long as Republicans are the ones running the government. Democrats, they claim, are perfectly equipped to run massive government bureaucracies that control key aspects of our lives. But in my experience, government is government, no matter who is running it. Special interests, pork projects and the like will continue to dominate American politics until we start electing a higher caliber of politician, and that is rather unlikely to occur. But that is of course just one example; any platform issue could be substituted in its place. Obama supporters can't believe that someone would have the audacity (or stupidity or CLEARLY RACIST FEELINGS) to disagree with their man Barack. It is no longer a political debate at that point . . . it becomes personal. Either you are with Obama or you are against him (and all of his supporters). Funny, Democrats moaned when Bush used that line during the War on Terror, but have no problem applying it just as harshly against their fellow citizens and, they sometimes forget, equal members of this great country.

Another problem I have with these rabid loyalists is that they somehow think that Saint Obama is above politics. This, I find, is the main misconception which has fueled all of the other issues. Barack Obama, I will say, is a brilliant politician. He used the theme of Change exactly when it was necessary. This election should have been locked up from Day One. Even Republicans are sick and tired of President Bush and America looking foolish or weak in the international community (although we care a lot less about the international community's thoughts, generally). However, when I say Obama is a politician, that is what I mean. The man is the consummate politician. Politician with a capital P, basically. He has risen extremely quickly to the top, and this has been through his political wheeling and dealing, some possible opportunism and definite use and discarding of allies when necessary (See: Bill Ayers, whom Obama befriended when necessary to launch his state senatorial campaign at the man's house, but discarded as nothing more than a fellow Board member when it became known that he was a terrorist). I don't hold this specifically against Obama. After all, any politician has to do this to succeed in America. The problem I have is that his supporters don't recognize or acknowledge this fact. They think he was sent from Heaven (or Krypton) and is therefore better than the rest of the people in Washington, when in fact, he is merely the personification of a successful politician.

This blindness, and the irrational inability to debate, rather than just accepting what Obama says as Gospel, are just some of the reasons why I cannot stand Obama's supporters. And I simply cannot align myself with such people and vote for Obama this November.

True Confessions of a Liberal Pinko Commie: How American Politics Relate to Emo

I have been constantly accused over the last several years of being a socialist, but this is just dead wrong. I'm actually a Marxist Feminist. In other words, when the great American Holocaust happens, that fact, combined with my documented Tribal Enrollment Number guarantees me a painful death. But until then I'm going to continue to be a bundle of contradictions and selfish ideation.

See, really, all of my beliefs stem from one very simple one: people suck with one exception, me.

This is why, in addition to being a Liberal Pinko Commie, I am also an elitist, in that I'm the only person qualified to do anything right.

But it's also why I think government should control everything but me, and I should be the person running the government. Yes I'll be the leader of the vanguard (if you have any idea what I'm talking about congratulations, you're a member of the educated elite and will likely be burned at the stake along with the rest of us). Anyway, since I'm pretty sure people are stupid and greedy and can't control their urges I think we need government to step in and act like the adult in the room. Protect us from ourselves! But not me.

No, I should be allowed to do whatever I want. I should be able to drink what I want, worship who I want, smoke what I want, screw who/what I want, marry who I want, say what I want, and last but not least, carry as many guns as I want!

But no one else should be able to do that. Why? Well they'll destroy America.

Wait, now I've confused myself.

You see, this is the problem with both political parties today. Neither platform matches the name anymore. And neither fits neatly into the spectrum either. The Republican base seems to be really into small government when it comes to the market (though not in practice of late), and really into big government when it comes to social issues, like gay marriage. Sarah Palin recently typified this by saying the following regarding a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage.

“I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do,” she said. “But I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.”

So ... you're not going to tell people what to do, but you do want to make it illegal for them to get married??? whaaaa??? Oh and don't get me started on the separation of church and state issue here.

Then there's the democrats. They clearly like government to step in whenever possible when it comes to the market, etc. But they want government to stay out of people's personal lives, and that line is blurred frequently. For instance, they support the first amendment almost to a fault (see Howard Stern), but shun the second amendment. (Forgive me for not having a better, more fleshed out example, but I am clearly biased.)

So I'm confused.

Apparently, both parties are angst-ridden teenagers going through identity crises; one has become a born-again Christian and the other a whiny little spoiled Emo rocker. I'm just going to play the part of an alcoholic parent, check their drawers for abortion clinic bombs and shrooms, and stay Independent (but I'll be voting Democrat because I am a liberal pinko commie).

(Disclaimer: I mean no offense to born-again Christians, half my family are such, but you damn Emo kids need to suck it up and appreciate all that expensive equipment mommy and daddy bought you so you can "express" yourself. Son of a *****!)

Hawaii Drops Universal Child Health Care After Seven Months

According to FOXNews.com, Hawaii is ending its attempt at universal child health care after only seven months.  Apparently, "families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan," which was not the intent of the program, according to Dr. Kenny Fink, administrator for Med-QUEST. 

Unfortunately for efforts like this program, "intent" is not as important as "reality."  The reality is, that with programs like these, self-interest of the people gets in the way of intent and turns them into menaces for balanced budgets and healthy economies.  

As an analogy, Congress and past presidential administrations have made efforts to increase homeownership via legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and other similar measures to make loans more available to the poor and minorities.  However, these initiatives have not just been taken advantage of by the poor and minorities.  Just like those who didn't need the help took advantage of the child health care system in Hawaii, self-interested speculators (and even those who just wanted to stretch a little bit beyond their means) who didn't "need" zero-down loans took them anyway, and through mass borrowing and sophisticated financial tools, housing prices were inflated and then crashed, leaving us in an ironic bind: we're using the government to fix what the government is chiefly responsible for creating.

Self-interest: the nemesis of socialism and socialist-minded reform everywhere.

You Don't Have to Appreciate, But Don't Hate

It seems that stalwart Republicans across the nation have recently turned away from arguing for and voicing positivity about Senator John McCain's vision for the direction of the United States, and instead have focused on spewing dangerous and misguided invective about Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama.

In one case, two questioners at a recent McCain town hall meeting in Minnesota insinuated that an Obama presidency would be scary for Americans, and directly accused Obama of being "an Arab."  Furthermore, the Sacramento GOP website recently "encouraged people to 'Waterboard Barack Obama,'" according to The Seattle Times.

The McCain campaign has exacerbated the beliefs held by the two at the Minnesota rally and presumably others across the nation somewhat by increasing efforts to tie Senator Obama more and more to Bill Ayers, who has acknowledged that he committed acts of domestic terrorism.  It is true that Obama served on of the Board of Directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund with Ayers, and started his run for Illinois State Senate in 1995 at a fundraiser in Ayers' home for which he and his wife, Michelle, were present. 

However, these connections do not support the idea that Obama condones domestic terrorism.  They, along with Senator Obama's connections to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and others, show that the Senator at the very least has questionable judgment in who he associates with.  But, they are not, in my eyes, as important as the proposals that Obama and Senator McCain claim will put our country back on the right track, economically and politically.

Much more dangerous than any apparently damning connection Senator Obama might have are his presidential proposals: one, to raise taxes on approximately half of American small business income in what is looking more and more like an economic recession; two, to withdraw prematurely from Iraq and possibly send the nation into turmoil.  The combination of those two actually does scare me.  The point remains: let's stick to the real issues, people.

ACORN Is Nuts/Another Shady Obama Connection

The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) has been quite busy lately.  The group has worked to sign up over 1.3 million new voters for the upcoming general election, and according to their website, "As part of our nonpartisan voter registration program, ACORN staff reviews every single application submitted by our canvassers."  However, some questions have arisen as to whether these canvassers have somehow gotten beyond ACORN's quality control.  Investigations into allegedly fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN canvassers in at least 12 key states for the upcoming presidential election are now underway.  The exact number of allegedly fraudulent voter registrations is unknown at this point in time, but notable names already uncovered in Las Vegas include the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys. 

This could be potentially bad news for Senator Barack Obama.  According to an editorial by Investor's Business Daily (IBD), ACORN endorsed Senator Obama for president, and Sen. Obama has paid ACORN $800,000 to register new voters by way of a company named Citizens Services, Inc., allegedly a front company for ACORN that shares the same address with ACORN, according to an article by No Quarter Daily.  

Furthermore, the IBD article asserts that Obama worked for ACORN because "[he] worked as executive director of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992."  Obama's fightthesmears.com site claims that "ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992."  However, the current voter registration drive under suspicion is run jointly by ACORN and Project Vote, according to Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times.

This is just another bad connection in a line of bad connections for Sen. Obama.  Obama's links to groups like ACORN and individuals like unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (whose connections to Obama CNN recently investigated), slum lord Tony Rezko, and America-hating Reverend Wright continue to pile up.  In my opinion, it is difficult, if not impossible, to view all of these shady connections and not be at least somewhat disturbed about the people Barack Obama has associated with in his likely rise to the presidency.

A Better Debate

Watching the presidential debate was probably one of the most frustrating experiences I've ever had.  Neither candidate made any real effort to answer the questions put before him with any frankness or effort to be straight with the American people.  McCain was certainly no "straight talk express," watching Obama was like being in a boring lecture class with no pretty girls, and both candidates did their best to dodge the crux of every question asked them and repeat tired half-truths to the audience as if they were the Word of God.

We at WASP Blog, however, will try to answer at least one of the important questions asked in the debate.  Because of time constraints, we cannot do it right away, but by sometime next week we will debate the issue of whether health care, or health insurance, is an American right or a responsibility of the American adult to acquire for him or herself.  This will be the first installment of a series of debates between our writers that attempts to make arguments for each side of the issues.  Look for it sometime after the weekend on WASP Blog.

No More Foreclosures!

If your home is foreclosed upon in Cook County, Illinois (Chicago), don't worry about being evicted, according to Sheriff Tom Dart.  A recent CNN article outlines the issue.  Apparently, Dart worries that those renting don't have any control over their landlord's mortgage issues, and banks might possibly be not doing their homework to figure out who should be evicted.  So he's stopping evictions despite cries of "vigilantism" and reassurances that banks are doing the best they can.  

I think that although Sheriff Dart's sentiments come from a compassionate perspective, we are a nation of laws, and the sheriff's job is not to make them.  Dart's observations are good insight into a problem, and Illinois should look into wrongdoing by banks to make sure they are doing their homework.  In the meantime, however, Dart should begin evicting tenants again as designated by the court system, as it is his job to do so.  If he fails to do so, he should be put in jail for contempt immediately.

My Genius Plan to Save the Economy

Obviously these are very scary economic times. People are starting to panic. Whispers of the D word are starting to emerge. But do not panic my children, there is hope on the horizon. I have devised a fail proof plan to save the world economy. Sit back, relax, and read on.

So, one of the reasons people way smarter than I with actual degrees in economic theory and stuff say that the Recession in 1929 turned into the Great Depression was the underconsumption spiral of death. That is, that when money got a little tight, people stopped spending money, leading to a sharp decline in consumption. This of course meant that companies weren't making any money and had to lay people off, resulting in higher unemployment resulting in even less spending resulting in more lay offs resulting in less spending resulting in more layoffs repeat for 5 years and the unemployment rate peaks at 24%.

Thus, my plan for saving the economy is simple: get in touch with your inner consumer. Take your next paycheck and go buy that Wii game you've been wanting. Get yourself some rims! Buy your girlfriend that sexy taupe colored suede blazer with the silk lining she's be wanting. Gorge yourself on Halloween candy. Treat yourself to a mani-pedi. Let the pleasures of sweet sweet consumption engulf your very being. In these trying economic times there is nothing more effective than to indulge in some retail-therapy. It's the patriotic thing to do. Remember, we're at war, spendin's your chore.

In all seriousness folks,
Adair

Credit Crunch Hitting State Governments

Not only is the housing/credit crunch hitting people and businesses on Main Street, it's also hitting City Hall and the State Capitol.  Here's a nice editorial by Joan Venocchi of the Boston Globe, talking about what plans state governments are making in the wake of this financial crisis.  It also addresses the effect the state of the economy will have on our next president's (regardless of who gets elected) proposed spending plans.

Ready to Lead

Almost eight years ago, slightly less than half of those who voted on November 7th elected as President of the United States of America a man with whom they believed they would like to have a beer.  Since that day, our nation has paid dearly for that mistake with a disastrous war, crumbling infrastructure, loss of foreign credibility, and most recently a collapsing economy. George W. Bush rallied voters with his "main street persona."  People felt the sentiment, "I can trust him; he talks just like me."  Well for those that felt that way, you were wrong.

It takes more than just being an average guy or woman or "Joe six-pack" to be the President of the United States, as some inexperienced politicians have so affectionately put it recently.  The President needs to be more than just an "average Joe"--someone who rises above the "everyman."  He or she must be someone we can trust to have the knowledge and foresight to govern the most powerful country in the world.  I find it a bit confusing that we search and fight to get the most qualified and best-trained doctors available to perform surgery on ourselves or our loved ones, but when it comes to the individuals we elect to control our collective destinies, it comes down to "he makes me comfortable."  Frankly, I would rather be uncomfortable and have the best person for the job than ever elect another George W. Bush.  The presidency is a position of tremendous responsibility, pressure, and mental strain.  It requires that one be able to deal with issues that run the gamut of domestic and foreign policy.  We need a president who understands these issues.

Now, after the last eight years, one would hope and pray that the American people have learned from their mistake.  Luckily, many have and will vote to make a fundamental change in the Oval Office.  Sadly, however, there is a large portion of our population that has not learned this vital lesson.  This fact is in no way better portrayed than in John McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President.

Governor Palin is a candidate who, time and again, has proven that she does not have the experience dealing with or grasp of the fundamental issues that matter the most to our future. As an example, I will simply ask the reader to watch her recent interview with Katie Couric.  The interview displays her complete inability to answer questions that someone running to be Vice President of the United States of America should be able to answer clearly and intelligently.

Our country is at a critical juncture in its history.  Our next President will have to make crucial decisions concerning the right way to lead us out of Iraq, the right way to protect the country from terrorists, and the right way to lead our economy.  There are 3 candidates in this election who are ready to lead our country.  Sarah Palin is not one of them.

Introduction

Hello readers of WASP Blog . . . let me introduce myself. My name is Andrew, and I'm a second-year law student at Duke. I'm also a middle-class Jew from Massachusetts. I imagine your first question is going to be, so just how liberal are you? And therein lies the purpose of WASP Blog.

The very name of the blog--When America Suffers Politics--explains why we feel that you asking that initial question is problematic. When your first question--and thus, potentially the most pressing issue in your mind--involves identifying someone's political persuasion, I think that distracts you from what really matters, to wit, what people have to say. Having watched the vice presidential debate with a liberal and a left-winger (I will explain the differences in my next post), it is clear that too many people in this country are unwilling to listen to each other based solely on what seems to be an assumption, based on an opponent's political persuasion, of what that person believes in or will say. It is my opinion that there is no use in pigeonholing people into tiny titles and then judging them strictly on whether they are Liberal or Conservative.

My goal in contributing to WASP Blog is to counter this growing trend by giving a common-sense approach to world problems. I will basically type what I think, which is the way that I act in reality. This speaks to my method: I do as I say, and say as I do. I feel not only that there is no reason to do otherwise, but I believe that those who do are hypocrites, pure and simple.

And for those of you that still want to know the answer, I am a moderate conservative. I support the death penalty, but also the right to abortion. I support the troops but would prefer if we stopped using them to help out ungrateful other countries. I think that war is very necessary in reality, I don't think we have any business getting involved in religious affairs, I want to drill the hell out of Alaska, but I don't have any problem with gay marriage. These are obviously just samples and facts/circumstances will sway my opinions on any and all of these issues depending on the real world implications. In my thinking, there is no reason to take definite stands on anything, and actually doing so lowers your credibility in my eyes. If you aren't willing to adjust your views to real-world conditions, then I am not going to listen to your opinions, pure and simple.

My motto: Never trust anyone who speaks only in absolutes.

Enjoy.

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes

With the economy at the forefront of most Americans' minds (including my own), the back-and-forth on taxes in last night's Vice-Presidential Debate particularly sparked my interest.  Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin each praised his or her running mate's tax plan, while attempting to paint the other's plan as one to raise taxes or irresponsible and unfair.  In the end, as Gerald Prante of the Tax Foundation's Tax Policy Blog notes, "both candidates played loose with the facts. Even worse is that Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin made some of the same exact errors that their running mates made in the first debate."  Prante's article provides a pretty even-handed and comprehensive review of each side's blunders in the tax war.

Another tax-related gaffe I noted but haven't come across on any other site: after Gov. Palin made the claim that Sen. Obama had voted to raise or not lower taxes 94 times in his short career in national government, Sen. Biden defended his running mate's record by pointing out that Palin's statistic is not only misleading, but by "using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes."  Hypothetically speaking, though, if Barack Obama were to have served the exact same time in the Senate as John McCain, and been held to the same standard that Biden and Palin are fighting over, Obama would have 'raised taxes' an estimated 611 times vs. McCain's 477, assuming Biden isn't lying about McCain's statistic.  

The math, holding the standards equal: 1. McCain's 477 votes to 'raise taxes' divided by 26 years in national government = 18.35 times per year; 2. Obama's 94 votes divided by 4 years in national government = 23.5 times per year.  (23.5)(26)=611.  So, Barack Obama is definitely more likely to favor higher taxes, but for who?  He certainly did not "[support] increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year," as Gov. Palin suggested.  According to FactCheck.org, Palin's statement about this apparent 'tax raise' refers to Senate Concurrent Resolution 70, which isn't a binding piece of legislation, and so is not a direct tax raise.

Instead of correcting the mistakes made by their running mates in the first Presidential Debate, Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin continued to propagate mischaracterizations that only serve to advance partisan interests and detract from any claims either ticket makes about "change," "reform," or "hope" in American politics.

Is More Debt the Answer?

Most Americans one way or another have heard of the so-called "Wall Street bailout," a proposed 700-billion-dollar attempt by the Bush Administration to rescue our financial markets. The bill (link to the Senate-passed version) has been met with severe opposition by many Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, who feel that it is a bailout of Wall Street insiders who caused the current financial crisis.  Supporters of the bill argue that without this bailout, credit markets will freeze, causing banks to shut down and seriously undermining other financial institutions' ability to lend much needed money to hard-working Americans for homes, cars, college tuition and small business expenses. 

While I don't presume to know if the bill will or will not help our country's economy in the long run, I think it fails to address the much bigger, basic problem our economy faces: a staggering rate of job loss and a paralyzing stagnation of middle class wages.  This month's Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Situation Summary released today shows a loss of 159,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in September, a whopping ninth straight month of job loss in American labor markets.  Despite the current crisis, the only solution our Congress and the Bush Administration can seem to come up with is to propose legislation that plunges the nation's taxpayers further into debt!  This is a time when people are struggling just to pay their basic energy and health care bills, while the proposed "bailout" may line the pockets of the very individuals that caused this crisis!  

It seems to me to be common sense that a bill that at least attempts to create new jobs and improve wages would be more beneficial to the American economy than the current proposal.  However, I do believe that the current bill is necessary (unfortunately) to keep us from slipping into a very serious recession or possibly a depression.  Even so, because of the major economic problems the nation faces, it should be the main focus of the next administration to address the vital issues of job loss and flatlining middle class wages, which are so important to our nation's continued prosperity.

UPDATE: 2:07 P.M. EDT:

The House of Representatives has passed the "bailout" bill and President Bush has declared that he will sign it into law as soon as it reaches him.

The Brilliance of John Stuart Mill

He may not be right all the time, but in my opinion, he's got this right:

"Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right."

  -from "On Liberty"

This is the spirit of WASP Blog--we function on the premise that we are right in our opinions because they are out there to be disputed by anyone who wishes to try, and we can then defend them based on fact and reason in the effort to find truth.  If an opinion is merely subjected to praise from like-minded thinkers, then we really don't know if we're right or wrong, we are just blind.  The liberty of our authors to write what they want, with whatever preference they want, knowing they will likely be criticized, is integral to establishing a common-sense view of the world steeped in sound reason, and that is what we strive to do.

Don't Let the Ankle Stop You, Gwen

Gwen Ifill of PBS is set to moderate the Vice Presidential Debate in St. Louis on Thursday night.  However, should she?  Many conservative pundits, like Michelle Malkin, think that "there is nothing “moderate” about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama."  And so she is therefore not qualified to be a "moderator."  But why is there even a controversy here?

The controversy exists because Ifill plans to release a book on January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day) named The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.  "In The Breakthrough," according to the Editorial Reviews section on Amazon.com's page about the book, "veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power."  The intimation is, then, that Ifill stands to gain quite a bit financially if Obama is elected, and we can infer that Ifill almost definitely has a political preference for Obama over John McCain.

Ifill has been accused of bias against conservative politicians before.  As WorldNetDaily reports, at the 2004 Vice Presidential Debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney, Ifill retorted, "Well, that's all you've got" when Cheney asked for more than 30 seconds to respond to an Edwards attack about his involvement with Halliburton.  She claimed her intent was not to be "snippy" to Cheney.  In another apparent show of political preference, when reporting on Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention this September, viewers complained that she wore a look of "disgust."  The WND page features a link to the coverage in question.

Left-leaning blogs have not said much about the Ifill's capability to moderate the debate; in a brief overview of lefty blogs, I did find an article from the Huffington Post's Judd Legum saying "if [the McCain camp's claim that they did not know about Ifill's book and its release date is true], it just shows the McCain campaign's incompetence" because news of the book's release was known at least two weeks before the Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement on debate moderators, on August 6th.  Also, the blog Eschaton thinks (from the post's title) that the extra attention paid Ifill recently is only the "latest wingnut crusade."  Neither post discusses whether Ifill is qualified to moderate; both simply bash the right's consternation for her selection.

Can Gwen Ifill moderate the Vice Presidential debate in an unbiased manner?  Definitely.  But will she?  The answer is unclear.  Her past performance dealing with Republican candidates  combined with her potential personal financial gain if Barack Obama is elected President would seem to indicate a preference for the Democrat side.  But the chances of finding another suitable candidate to moderate the debate are quite unlikely. Also, given the date that her book release was announced and the date on which the two parties agreed to the terms of the debates, it seems that the McCain campaign should have been more thorough in their examination of the proposed moderators for debate.   Ifill should be allowed to go ahead and moderate the debate, but she must realize that her words will be carefully scrutinized, and any indication of preference for Joe Biden will be heavily criticized.

We Didn't Do It, But We Can Do Something About It

Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) provides us with a bit of humor for the night.  As reported by Alec McGillis of washingtonpost.com, Governor Palin stated in the most recently aired part of her interview with Katie Couric: 

"I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is, it's real, we need to do something about it."

Alright, so Palin is saying that the world's weather patterns are cyclical, which would mean that our current warming/cooling/whatever we're in right now may not be attributable to man's activities.  Fine, that's her opinion.  But then to say that we need to do something about it begs the question: why must we do something about a phenomenon that we are not responsible for?  It's almost like claiming that although we may not be responsible for leaves falling off of trees in autumn, it's a real thing, so we have to do something about it.  Even if the leaves falling would cause the calamitous end of humanity, if you can't stop it, what's the point?

You can be a firm believer in man's complete responsibility for the gradual increase in world temperatures since the Industrial Revolution and thus believe that we need to act to stop greenhouse gas emissions to save our planet.  But you can't believe that we didn't do it and can't affect the weather and then say we have to stop the rain (although China says they can!)

Mission Statement

This blog is not intended to be a medium that simply furthers partisan ideas on either side of the political spectrum, rather we at WASP Blog will try to take a more common-sense approach to issues instead of the typical bitter partisanship of media punditry circulating across the political spectrum today.  While at times this blog will favor one argument over another on the issue at hand, such preference will only be shown when the author believes it is in the best interest of the nation, not to advance biased rhetoric.  All posts will back up assertions and opinions with citations and practical/factual arguments, and are designed not to "spin" issues, rather they are designed to present issues and advocate the position for which the known facts seem to indicate is the better position.  The term "WASP" effectively encapsulates this idea:  When America Suffers from Politics means that America suffers at the hand of partisan politics instead of benefitting from a practical examination of individual issues.  We at WASP Blog hope to bring attention back to the issues, first and foremost.

Note: Discussion will be kept as free as possible, but all comments deemed inappropriate will be removed.

Bailout, Rescue, Whatever You Call It

Get it done.  Although many economists and Republicans and Democrats alike have shown hesitance over the Bush Administration's proposal for an economic rescue/bailout plan, one thing is clear: if Congress doesn't do something, the country is looking at a severe economic crisis.  

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of economists and politicians who think the idea of taxpayers rescuing the fools on Wall Street is stupid or wrong.  I don't like it either, and in a perfect world we wouldn't have this issue.  I am saying that this is not a perfect world, and Wall Street's reaction to the failure of the plan to pass through the House of Representatives yesterday was a precipitous drop in the stock markets.  Now, I only know about the Great Depression from what I've been told in history books, but if memory serves me right, in 1929 the Hoover Administration didn't step in to "bail out" the economy, and a crisis ensued--specifically, the stock market crashed.  So if we repeat that mistake, we could be looking at another major depression, even with tools like the FDIC and others at our disposal.  Even if the rescue/bailout plan is no more than a bandage on a much more severe problem, at least we can delay an economic downturn until we can straighten out the problems underlying the crisis at hand, or at very worst, say that "at least we tried."

As for Congress, I can only hope that concerns about being reelected and popular opinion aren't the driving force behind their rejection of the bailout/rescue bill.  If congressmen/women are only going to vote for something based on opinion polls of their constituents, what's the point of a representative democracy?  We might as well run the country by plebiscite (As an aside, I can only imagine that if the economy does crash, voters won't be sympathetic to the idea that their representatives only had their best interests in mind when voting down the proposal).

It's up to Congress to put their partisan bickering aside (see: Speaker Nancy Pelosi's awful speech before the vote and Rep. John Boehner's ridiculous assertion that her speech caused House Republicans to change their votes) and move forward with some remake of the current plan to save our financial markets.  Whether it is more or less partisan is not as important that something be done when Congress reconvenes on Thursday.