The McCain Strategy: Tortured Tough Guy Lookin' for a Fight

Stop me if you've heard this before: John McCain is a maverick politician who has made a career out of putting his country first...lessons he learned while undergoing torture (or enhanced interrogation techniques when Americans perform such acts) as a prisoner of war for five and a half years.

CNN reports that the McCain camp will push McCain's "tough guy" image in hopes of painting Barack Obama as a Johnny-come-lately candidate who is weak on foreign policy and has a history of putting party and personal interests ahead of what is "good for the country."

The McCain camp also plans to highlight Obama's recent refusal to accept federal campaign dollars due to overwhelming fundraising success. Uh, exactly what is conservative about taking tax dollars to fund your campaign? I guess I shouldn't be too shocked considering that neconservatives like McCain subscribe to the belief that "war is peace" - so it only follows that accepting taxpayer dollars for a (miserable) campaign will one day be considered conservative as well. Indeed, sometimes down IS up!

The Obama campaign's extraordinary fundraising success is a big deal because, unlike McCain, Obama's support primarily comes from real people and not elitist corporate interests that typically fill GOP coffers. Although, to be fair, I should mention that those large corporate interests usually support both candidates so as to curry favor with both parties. Regardless, that Obama has a warchest large enough to refuse taxpayer funds is a testament to his ability to appeal to the individual voter. McCain, on the other hand, can make no such claim - and attacking Obama on this point is absolutely hilarious. How dare Obama refuse "free" public money!

What it boils down to is this: one collectivist campaign is calling out the other collectivist campaign for not being collectivist enough. You really can't make this stuff up.

More hilarious, though, is the mindless "McCain-as-war-hero" image that is ceaselessly beat into our brains on a daily basis. By now everyone in America is familiar with the John McCain story. And if you're not, by god, you must hate America. The requirement number one for entering any discussion about McCain is you must first acknowledge his five and a half year stint at the infamous Hanoi Hilton. After that you are "free" to criticize him, only the mildest of mild tones and only on the most cosmetic issues. But to question his actions as a bomber pilot during Vietnam, where he murdered Vietnamese civilians in over 20 raids on the country before being shot down and captured, is off limits.

Exactly how anyone learns to put his country first after enduring five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton is beyond me. The article points to McCain's refusal to accept early release from his captors as a prime example, but that reasoning is patently false. If the Vietnamese had really wanted to release McCain, they hardly needed McCain's permission to do so. Can you name another prison wherein the Warden solicits the opinion of his or her prisoner before allowing them to leave? Of course not. Yet this is the logic the McCain camp wants you to believe when it suggests such absurdities.

That the McCain camp chose to portray their candidate as a "tough guy" was as predictable as bad acting in a porno film. Equally predictable, though much more absurd, are the reasons we are given to support McCain's tough guy image. I sincerely doubt McCain will face any tough questions surrounding his stint at the Hanoi Hilton, I accepted that fact long ago. But are we really supposed to believe McToughguy is the better candidate because he's more collectivist when it comes to taxpayer handouts?

Towards the end of the article, the author asks, "...is the McCain strategy accurate, and will it work?"

Sadly, I fear the majority of CNN readership will be able to digest that question with a straight face.

One Good Thing about Obamamania

For the past few months I've struggled find the right way to relate to supporters of Barack Obama. In spite of glaring philosophical differences, the Obama movement is similar to the the Ron Paul movement in one very important way: the ability to draw young people to rallies. Sure, attendance at an Obama rally dwarfs any venue featuring Dr. Paul, but the diverse groups of young people attending both rallies is a cause for optimism. Obama's eloquent speeches and his fresh promises to "change" Washington have resonated well with young democrats, but exactly what Obama plans to change and how he plans to achieve his objectives remains to be seen. Similarly, Dr. Paul's brand of conservatism and steadfast devotion to Constitutional principles have struck a chord with a portion of young people, but his support was not widespread enough as Dr. Paul came up short in the primaries.

Although I disagree with Obama's stance on nearly everything and believe he is no different than any Republican candidate (save Ron Paul, of course), I see a silver lining concerning voter ignorance when it comes to differences between Republican and Democrats this fall. As a new convert to the non-voting ideology, I see enormous potential for growth of the voluntaryist/non-voting libertarian movement should Obama become our next President.

I'm no expert on the inner-workings of every Obama supporter, but because a large contingent of my friends are die-hard supporters of his, I'm familiar with the general underlying principles guiding them to cast their vote for the Democratic nominee. Like (hopefully) every voting American, all of my friends are hard-working, intelligent, rational people who pride themselves on keeping up with current events and making their own decisions. Politically, Obama supporters may differ on a few minor details here and there, but in general they are united toward the common goal of ensuring America does not elect another George Bush. On this point, I wholeheartedly agree: another George Bush-like president would be disastrous for America. Electing another warmongering, spend-happy, government-expanding lunatic would bankrupt the country as well as further diminish American credibility overseas.

I've had numerous conversations with Obama supporters. To be sure, you're more likely to have a civilized discussion with Obama supporters than McCain supporters. Perhaps unsurprisingly, because Obama himself has yet to outline the specifics of the "changes" he plans to bring to Washington, his supporters are also infected with a vocabulary full of cliches and slogans. In short, the Obama movement is strong on faith, but weak on details. It has been said that faith can move mountains, although I'm not sure that statement applies to big-time American politics. It is here I find reason for hope in swelling the ranks of the non-voting movement.

The reason for my optimism is perhaps best conveyed by telling a story.

A friend of mine likes to recall a story from his high school days about the first girl he ever loved. The way he describes it, he was obsessed with this woman. She was beautiful, smart, witty, etc. all the things a hormone-crazed high schooler values at such a tender age. He was convinced they were going to be married and live happily ever after - until that pesky thing called college got in the way. My friend went to a military school, I don't know where (or if) she attended college. They broke up after about a year of trying to make the long distance relationship work, and it took my friend a long time to get over the loss.

Looking back, my friend now candidly admits he allowed his ex-girlfriend to walk all over him. Whatever she wanted or was interested in became my friend's top priority - without question. (His friends as well as his brother still give him grief about how 'swept away' he was by this woman).

The most entertaining/meaningful part of the story is when my friend recalls a conversation he had with his father shortly after his girlfriend broke up with him. My friend was (understandably) distraught, enraged, perhaps a little depressed. He described for me in detail what was an hour-long rant about how his life would never be the same after losing his girlfriend, and how being at a military school was not helping matters. Indeed, what had once seemed an achievable goal for him had vanished...and of course my friend looked to his father for wisdom and advice.

His father's reaction was priceless: he laughed. My friend's father laughed at his downtrodden son, telling him "this is the best thing that could have ever happened to you, son - you're going to learn a lot from this!" At the time, my friend couldn't believe his father would laugh at him when he looked to him for advice and/or consolation...today, of course, he sees the wisdom in his father's laughter.

And thus my reason for optimism regarding the voluntaryist/non-voting libertarian movement in the upcoming election: I see President Obama breaking the hearts of a lot of his emotional supporters who, in their quest for change, willingly overlooked the danger signals emitting from the Obama camp. When distraught Obama supporters reflect upon why they voted for a man who promised change but instead delivered more of the status quo, I hope they realize the inherent evil in voting and disengage from the system altogether. And when Obama supporters realize this important lesson, the voluntaryist/non-voting libertarian movement will be waiting with open arms - no laughter needed.

Ron Paul on Inflation, Iran, and Thursday's DOW Plunge

It's a shame few elected officials were present during Ron Paul's excellent speech tying together our present economic, domestic, and foreign policies as well as demonstrating how those policies have caused worldwide panic. It is impossible to discuss recent price surges without an understanding of the forces that drive up those prices: reckless monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. If you want to work to lower prices, you must first work to curb inflation.



I'm certain Dr. Paul's speech will get next-to-no airtime tomorrow. Instead, pundits will go about their business, leading the witch hunt for businessmen and speculators who are somehow "responsible" for high consumer prices. Indeed, sometimes the truth is an ugly thing - but by refusing to confront it you only compound your present woes. Listening to Dr. Paul's five minute speech is a perfect place to start.

US to (informally) Declare War Next Week

On May 22, a bill (HR 362) was introduced to the US House of Representatives demanding of the President that he increase sanctions on vital portions of the Iranian economy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The bill is expected to pass the House and Senate by the 4th of July.

The way the bill reads, one might come to the conclusion that it sounds like more war propaganda from the same minds that shamelessly trumpeted the merits of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and installing "democracy" in Iraq. Reflecting on the subsequent quagmire that resulted from America's biggest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam war, you'd probably surmise that the neoconservatives were up to their old tricks - attempting to distract the citizenry from their previous mistakes by rolling out their favorite, reliable bogeyman in the threat of American (or Israeli) annihilation at the hands of a bloodthirsty and irrational regime in a country far, far away.

But you would be mistaken. HR 362, as well as its sister bill in the Senate (R 580), were both introduced by members of the "anti-war" Democratic party. It appears neoconservative charges of "soft on terrorism" are beginning to resonate with Democrats.

The most disturbing portion of the bill reads as follows (from antiwar.com blog):

“...demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran”

As Eric Garris correctly points out, a blockade is an act of war (emphasis mine):

"the above can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war."

Indeed, the definition of a blockade includes the provision that the act be regulated by international law, yet we need not look too far back to find examples of American officials guffawing the notion UN authority.

I'm no fan of the United Nations. At best, the UN is a punchless regime incapable of exercising any authority to prevent international conflict and/or worldwide abuse of humans and their property. At worst, the UN is a puppet of the US, Britain, and Israel, designed to place an "international" face on American, British, and Israeli quest for worldwide domination. In short, the UN is like any other governmental body: ostensibly formed to protect the peace and prosperity of individuals and property, yet in practice achieves precisely the opposite of its stated goals. There's little reason to believe UN sanction of an Iranian blockade will be rooted in international support.

The fusing of America's two major political parties should now be clear to even the most ardent believer in opposition between Republicans and Democrats. The bill is expected to pass both houses "like a hot knife through butter" after a whopping 20 minutes of debate, with no room for amendments. That any bill calling for an act of war can pass both houses of Congress in such fashion should serve as a bellwether for America's insatiable appetite for conflict.

Ironically, the few elected officials who oppose the resolutions detailed above are ridiculed for being soft, naive, or (most laughably) isolationist. Barack Obama has been repeatedly raked over the coals for his desire to meet with leaders of US "enemies" like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Whether or not Obama has changed his tune since securing the Democratic nomination for President remains to be seen. However, if Obama's recent speech at the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) provides any insight into how President Obama will conduct foreign policy, it is likely he too will toe the (one-party) line and refuse to negotiate with America's enemies.

The irony in labeling those who favor negotiations with leaders of America's "enemies" is that, by refusing to negotiate with those leaders and instead imposing sanctions on them, you end up fostering more anti-American sentiment instead of admiration. Using the logic of the majority of today's elected officials that oppose any form of negotiations with Iran, a husband could expect to resolve a disagreement/conflict with his wife by ignoring her and cutting off her access to her credit cards. It is not difficult to imagine the wife becoming increasingly confused and upset when confronted with this situation, especially when she's unable to "negotiate" with her husband to resolve the conflict. Who is naive enough to believe that ignoring problems will make them go away?

The lesson is obvious: when America ignores Iran and refuses to acknowledge her right to nuclear power, we are making it clear to them that we do not view the Iranians as our peers. Instead, by ratcheting up already strict sanctions and threatening an all-out blockade of Iranian ports, we sow the seeds for future anti-American sentiment in the region. The real cowards and isolationists are those who mindlessly pursue a policy of refusing to acknowledge our enemies in an effort to find a peaceful resolution to our disagreements.

Less Police, More Firemen

I have the luxury of living within a mile from where I work. Unlike the majority of my working brethren, I have not commuted to work since 2003. As much as I would like to attribute my non-commuting lifestyle to my savvy career choices, my ability to walk and/or bike to work is more happenstance than sound planning. The benefits of not having to spend an hour (or more) in an automobile every day need not be repeated here...especially in light of the recent spike in fuel prices.

My twenty minute commute takes me past several government buildings in the Southwestern part of the District of Columbia. The neighborhoods are by and large poor, small businesses are non-existent (with the exception of a wonderful dry-cleaning service at the base of an eight story condo building), the streets and sidewalks are lined with garbage and in various states of disrepair. At first glance, one might label my surroundings as typical of inner-city lifestyle...and they are probably right. After all, as I am continually reminded by residents who have lived in Southwest much longer than me, just five years ago Southwest used to be what could loosely be termed a "war zone." It was not until the city decided to build a (mostly tax payer subsidized) new stadium for the city's awful baseball team that Southwest started to clean itself up.

But my point is not to dive in to the inherent evils of taxpayer-funded stadiums so suburbanites can watch an uninspired and unexciting baseball team struggle to score runs 81 times per season. The other day I attended my first Nationals game, and the team played so poorly they killed my happy hour buzz (they lost, 6-0). Outdoor baseball on a warm summer evening is one of those uniquely American experiences, but the Nats do a pretty good job of smashing any nostalgic tendencies one might feel upon entering the park.

The reason? In what could be termed a uniquely DC experience, fans entering the vicinity of Nationals Park are literally surrounded by police officers. My commute includes traversing about five blocks of the area surrounding Nationals Park, and in the evenings I enjoy making my way through the jovial baseball fans during the pregame rush to ballpark. Kidding aside, I see no less than ten police vehicles (crossing guards not included) and never fewer than 25 uniformed police officers patrolling the five-plus blocks around the northern portion of Nationals Park. Why are they there? I have no idea. Some of the police officers are outfitted in the latest intimidating garb: black military-style uniforms, automatic weapons, sometimes police dogs at their sides. I shudder to think how the young parent explains the overwhelming police presence while taking his child to his or her first professional baseball game.

Just a few blocks past the park is the neighborhood firehouse. Regardless of the weather, the firemen are usually outside doing what firemen do best during idle time: washing their trucks, cleaning the floor in the garage, and fatassing on the small patio outside the main entrance. From the looks of things, there's general camaraderie amongst firemen, I suppose camaraderie is to be expected from people who share a common love for rescue and safety of the citizens they protect.

Although they perform separate duties within the community, there are many similarities between police forces and fire departments. Certainly, both occupations are dangerous and demand of their people the ability to make the right decision in times of crisis. Both need to be able to act quickly in order to save lives, often times venturing into harm's way to save those lives. In short, both professions carry with them an element of danger, and only the best and the bravest are fit to perform such arduous duty (at least theoretically).

To me, the only similarities that exist between firemen and police officers are confined to the theoretical--and therefore not practical--realm. The differences, on the other hand, are manifold, and stem from the nature of the respective departments: fire departments are a reactionary force, and police departments are a progressive/aggressive force. In other words, firemen only act when needed, whereas police are an active, investigative body.

Think about it: when was the last time you saw a fireman patrolling your neighborhood? With the exception of the movie Backdraft, firemen are not in the business of creating work for themselves...and for good reason. When the bell rings at the firehouse, it means lives are at stake and property is being damaged. Firemen respond to damages to property and life, and work to minimize its impact.

Conversely, the police department is by and large an aggressive or progressive force. Whereas a firehouse spends its idle time washing their vehicles and swapping tall tales, police officers spend their idle time patrolling, watching, and investigating. On non-baseball days, I still see no less than five patrol cars on my walk home. Five. Why? I suspect most people would answer that police presence prevents crimes from being committed. But this claim is as laughable as it is absurd. If an increased police presence truly led to a decrease in crime, then DC should be completely free from crime. We've got Federal Police, Military Police, Department of Homeland Security Police, Federal Housing Authority Police (?), the list goes on. The point is, as an aggressive force, the police are failing--and failing miserably--to achieve their stated objective to protect and serve the people. Is it possible that the inherent aggressiveness of police officers contributes to the high crime rates in DC?

Second, imagine if a fire department had to meet monthly quotas in order to justify their existence. Madness! Yes, I realize this example is a bit extreme and not every police department operates on the quota system, but I feel the comparison provides valuable insight into understanding why one force is progressive in nature and the other is reactive. In the absence of crimes committed, police departments will inevitably "create" crimes. Or, they might choose to simply enforce some of the more obscure, unknown "crimes" in their code. This might mean increasing the amount of tickets for non-crimes, including things like jaywalking, speeding, or riding a bicycle without a helmet. Predictably, the result of this increased ticketing is always loss of personal liberty, for an idle cop is a ticketing cop.

For an example of this, consider the state of Maryland's removal of all traffic light cameras. The cameras were not removed out of respect for motorists' privacy or because the cameras are incapable of proving driver guilt, they were removed because drivers started to obey the law. The result of Maryland citizenry's compliance with the law is decreased revenue to police departments. If you are still having a difficult time accepting my quota statement for police departments, the situation described above should help shed some light on the real reasons why police departments are an aggressive force.

Finally, the fireman (or woman) enjoys widespread respect within a community. The complaints about the loudness and irregularity of their sirens notwithstanding, do you know anyone who genuinely does not like the fire department? My guess is no. The reason for the fire department's widespread respect are legion, but I think they all have their roots in the fire department's protection of life and property. When not called to action, the fire department is content to leave the general population in peace.

Police, on the other hand, are by and large feared within a community. It seems every day a new video surfaces alleging some degree of police brutality. Police are shown at their worst - pulling people out of their vehicles and tasing them, forcefully evicting residents from their private property during natural disasters, and harassing citizens for sundry non-violent "crimes" like drug possession or taking videos or pictures. Indeed, a strong case could be made that the reason police are not respected is because they do not respect you. The police officer's primary function is to protect themselves (and their fellow officers) against you, not to protect and serve the citizenry.

Police officers and firemen are often lumped into the same category when discussing community heroes, yet in my mind the two are diametrically opposed to each other, especially concerning their role in society. To me, equating police officers with firemen is an attempt to equate fear and respect - an impossibility if ever one existed. Yet today the line between respect and fear is blurred, further complicating the relationship between a police force and the community it is sworn to protect. There are few things in life that I genuinely fear, but near the top (if not at the top) of the list is being interrogated by a police officer. I recently viewed a few short videos that were created to inform citizens of their rights when confronted by a police officer. The message in each video was clear and consistent: you have nothing to gain (and everything to lose) by voluntarily speaking with police officers. Whatever happened to the friendly, venerable neighborhood cop?

One of the traits of a police state is when a society obeys orders, not laws. Sadly, when I walk past the overwhelming police presence at Nationals Park, I cannot help but wonder about the increasing relevance of that admonition.

But I am not without hope, for after making my way through the security gauntlet blanketing Nationals Park, I once again pass by the firehouse. The workers are outside, one older man is smoking a cigarette and fiddling with his mustache. An awkward tattoo adorns his upper arm and is visible only because he has rolled up his sleeves to work on one of the engines. He doesn't know when the alarm will sound again, but he knows when it does he will be ready to save lives and protect property. There's no fear, no coercion, no quotas, no harassment: only action.

The answer to a more peaceful society may not be less police officers, but instead more police officers acting like firemen. I hope that day comes soon.

More George Carlin

Two more brilliant pieces by George Carlin. First, he attacks religion:




Then he makes a convincing argument against the American brand of tyranny:




Man I'm gonna miss this guy. It's a shame today's "celebrated" comics include simpletons like Dane Cook.

George Carlin on War - Priceless!

Black Armband Day

I always enjoyed the comedic insight of George Carlin. Although he tended to be crude and raunchy at times, his insight into critical issues bordered upon brilliance. May he rest in peace.

It'll be interesting to contrast the media's coverage of Carlin's passing with their ongoing worship and memorial services for big government mouthpiece Tim Russert. Certainly, I feel sympathy for Russert and his family, but at this point the non-stop coverage of his death is beyond annoying. Russert was far from the "impact" journalist his contemporaries claim he was (one need to look no further than his animosity towards Ron Paul last December for an example), and we can rest assured that whoever occupies Russert's Sunday morning seat will continue to provide a stage for big government support.

For an excellent analysis of the cheerleading Russert, see Justin Raimondo's article from antiwar.com. Raimondo disposes of the media-generated myth that Russert was among the last of a dying breed of maverick journalists.

I think Charles Burris sums up best the contrast between media coverage of Russert's death and the anticipated (lack of) coverage for George Carlin (re-printed from LRC blog):

"The greatest philosopher of our time has died.

"Now observe the contrast of how the mainstream media will cover this event with their unceasing marathon of coverage of the death of Tim Russert.

"Notice how the MSM celebrated and lauded one of its own who was a servant to the powers-that-be, a soothing and compliant tool who help spread disinformation and mendacious lies for the state and its policies of war, mass murder, heinous torture, repression of civil liberties, and destruction of the rule of law.

"Contrast that coverage with the meager reporting of the death of the brilliant and courageous Carlin who always spoke truth to power, and exposed the hypocrisy, vacuousness, and intellectual bankruptcy of the mass man culture fostered by the overlords who rule our corporate welfare-warfare regime.

"I was privileged to see two live performances of this raucous cantankerous oracle of wisdom and insight.

"I laughed so much that my sides ached.

"But my mind was opened to joyous illumination and wonderment.

"Something great has gone out of our world."

I'm not certain Carlin was the greatest philosopher of our time, but he's near the top of my list for original thought and ability to deliver a powerful message to the masses. Without question the world lost a great artist today...and for his contribution to our culture Carlin deserves a tribute greater than that paid to career sycophants like Russert.

One Less Thing to Argue About

As if there was any difference between the candidates in the first place, at least we will not have to wade through the BS regarding energy socialism because both John McCain and Barack Obama seek to clamp down on energy speculators, blaming them for the high price of oil.

I'm no expert when it comes to the inner-workings of oil speculation as it pertains to put and futures contracts, but I do understand that when money is as cheap to borrow as it currently is (Fed funds rate is at 2%), speculators will react accordingly to the irresponsible monetary policies and seek to protect themselves against inflation by purchasing valuable commodities such as oil.

The answer to the recent surge in energy prices is not more government intervention, but less. The best thing the government can do is get out of the way and allow market forces to work (after installing a reliable monetary system, that is). It seems the greedy capitalist pig is always to blame for the shortcomings, blunders, and inherent failures that are intrinsic in a centrally-planned economy.

(Excellent related reading on this topic here. Although the author deals primarily with crises vis-a-vie the supply of oil, the article's application serves as an excellent guide for understanding how market forces always outperform government planning)

The Hensley - McCain Family Fortune

John McCain: murderer, warmonger...war profiteer?

It appears war has been good business for the McCain's - not only does John McCain enjoy unearned status as a war hero after murdering Vietnamese civilians, but his wife Cindy Hensley McCain stands to reap handsome profits as the primary beer distributor for our fighting forces. With John McCain serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee, certainly the potential exists for preferential treatment to be bestowed upon the Hensley distribution firm.

Anheuser-Busch has a history of hiring big-time military men as brokers to ensure their products maintain a strong presence at overseas bases. After departing his post as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton secured a lucrative position on Anheuser-Busch's board of directors. According to the article, Shelton's responsibilities include:

"...advising the company and its distributorships like Hensley Beer regarding which senators, congressmen and military procurement officers to call to facilitate the distribution of hundreds of thousands of Anheuser-Busch bottles of water and nonalcoholic beer products to troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

A thorough examination of Mrs. McCain's tax forms should shed light on how much she's profited from distribution of Anheuser-Busch products within a war zone. Coincidentally, she has filed for an extension and, barring application for another extension later this year, the records may become public in October.

Iran to OPEC: Dump the Dollar

In what surely will be spun as further evidence of his bellicosity towards the "civilized" world, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced the American dollar as a "worthless piece of paper" during a recent OPEC summit.

As the world's reserve currency--and presently the only currency accepted in the oil trade--the dollar enjoys special favor amongst all nations. America's role as the issuer of dollars is therefore particularly powerful, but only inasmuch as the dollar maintains its purchasing power in the world market. The dollar's steady decline against other currencies has eroded what used to be widespread support for the currency, and has strengthened the argument for another, more stable currency as a replacement.

Discussions about the value of our currency are not likely to crop up in casual conversations in mainstream America. Frankly, it's a boring topic. However, as fuel prices continue to surge to unprecedented levels, it's becoming increasing clear to most people that something has gone awry--and most are not sure how to fix the problem or where to lay the bulk of the blame.

The usual scapegoats are working their way into everyday conversation, with most pundits looking to Washington to find the answer. And Washington is all too happy to use this "crisis" as an opportunity to expand power and influence over the citizenry. Calls for reduced consumption, price controls, energy independence, increased domestic drilling/exploration, etc. have entered the debate, creating the illusion that our politicians have our best interests in mind.

The American citizen's confusion over who or what is causing steep increases in energy prices, coupled with their already itchy trigger finger for war in the Middle East, adds another interesting twist to Iran's proposal to dump the dollar in favor of a stronger currency. With no large-scale army, navy, air force, or coast guard and very few (if any) long-range weapons, Iran is in no position to challenge America's superior military might should America decide to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

Warfare need not always involve exchanges of bombs and bullets, however. Iran, as well as the other nations comprising OPEC, has the ability to severely cripple the American war machine without ever firing a shot. Should OPEC take Iran's advice and dump the dollar, the potential exists for a prolonged, painful brand of warfare that will affect every American - rampant inflation and an extended downturn in economic activity.

Objectively, it's difficult to argue with Iranian (and OPEC) logic on this issue. After all, America's reckless devaluing of her currency directly affects the prosperity of every other nation that uses the dollar to purchase oil (which is the entire world, as stated above). Iran is a bit of a special case, however. Already under strict UN-levied sanctions with the threat of even tighter restrictions looming, how do you expect the Iranians to react when they are forced to accept the worthless currency of a country who threatens them with military force on a daily basis?

I don't know enough about the Iranian regime to make any comments about them. Certainly, Iran is not paradise, but then again neither is America. The way I see it, America is forcing Iran into a corner, starving their people and inciting further Western hatred in the region. Tightening sanctions and further depriving the Iranian people of needed food, energy, and medical supplies will further destabilize the region and increase the likelihood of hostilities between the two countries. To suggest fomenting conflict has been America's plan all along is far from a stretch, for one need only to look back to Iraq in the 1990's (or Japan prior to WWII) for historical precedent. As long as America or her allies do not fire the first shot, a conflict with Iran--regardless of the weapons used in retaliation--will forever be spun as a defensive conflict.

Same Sex Marriage

This week we have been treated to what some people will label an advancement in civil society; namely, California's Supreme Court lifting the state-wide ban on same-sex marriages. Interviews were conducted, photos were taken (none too risque, of course), and men married men, women married women. Indeed, these past few days have been portrayed as a celebration of the newfound "freedom" within California homosexual communities, with advocates for homosexual rights touting the court's decision as a "victory" for the heretofore suppressed people.

But can freedom be legislated? In other words, can the same state that once suppressed you assuage years of personal anguish with one strike of the gavel?

The way I see it, it is foolish for homosexuals to tout their right to marry as a "victory" over the state. After all, in order to achieve their victory, homosexuals had to go through the same state they "defeated" in order to gain the right to marry! I don't know about you, but that sounds like charades to me. While I hold no ill will towards anyone desiring to marry the person, object, etc. of their choice, I bristle at the notion that the California Supreme Court's decision is a "victory" for anybody but the state. If anything, the California Supreme Court has re-affirmed the role of the state as grand arbiter in what should be a free society.

We obtain freedom by virtue of being human, not from any non-entity such as a court, government mandate, or written document. A common misunderstanding is that we obtain our freedom from our Constitution, but the Founders understood that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.

For the record, inalienable rights apply to non-Americans, too, which underscores the absurdity of the outrage over Guantanamo Bay detainees demand for the right to petition civilian courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus. That pundits (from the Constitution-loving "conservative" side, no less) continue to make the argument that the "liberal" court is somehow undermining our benevolent Commander in Chief during a time of war only underscores how far the "conservative" mind has regressed.

Such is the same with the same sex marriage advocates. Like the conservative pundit bemoaning the loss of security at the hands of a liberal court, the same sex marriage advocates' celebration of a court's decision to "free" them from oppression completely misunderstands the larger issue at stake: human subservience to an arbitrary body's (government's) decision on whether or not a particular group of people (homosexuals or detainees) merit freedom. Whether the issue is Habeas Corpus or the right to marry, both groups have to go through government to validate their claim. Regardless of the government's decision, the government has already won - both parties have affirmed their vassal position before the issue is considered.

If marriage is a contract between two (or more) parties and their god (assuming the parties have a belief in a higher being), then what right does the government possess that allows it to interfere? The answer is simple: the right granted--implicitly or explicitly--by the parties involved in the contract itself. In other words, the only reason government can involve itself in a private contract between two parties is because the parties involved allowed it to happen.

In a free society, marriage would be based on private property rights. The decision of whether or not two parties can marry would be made by the institution conducting the ceremony, not granted by an arbitrary government bureau. An institution that disapproves of the preferences of the parties seeking marriage would be free to refuse services to those persons. While that means some homosexual marriages would not be allowed at some institutions, it also means that other institutions would be free to perform marriage rights ceremonies for homosexual couples without fear of government interference. The beauty of a free society based on private property rights is that it allows everyone equal opportunity to pursue their own rational self-interest without having to resort to an arbitrary government body for approval beforehand. No government mandate, license, or law has ever come close to ensuring equal rights for everyone without violating the rights of other individuals in the process.

The real winner this week is the government, not homosexuals seeking the right to marry. As long as individuals divorce (bad pun) themselves from their inalienable right to freedom, the government is all-too-happy to fill the void as freedom arbiter. Government-mandated freedom is false freedom, for as the saying goes, "what the government giveth, the government surely can taketh away."

Paul Questions Obama's Principles

The majority of my friends are die-hard supporters of Barack Obama. I have absolutely no problem with Obama supporters; in fact, I much prefer discussing political issues with Democrats vice Republicans. Generally speaking, Democrats will allow you to speak and will actually listen to you...Democrats are much more interested in engaging in philosophical discussions than Republicans (from my experience, anyway).

In contrast, flag-waving Republicans are much more likely to bristle upon being questioned about their beliefs. Ask a flag-waver about any issue - especially anything pertaining to foreign policy - and you're likely to get the "who farted?" face and a deep sigh before the person launches into a lenghty, cliche-laced diatribe about how America is one (liberal-infested) Supreme Court override from allowing Al Qaeda to detonate nukes in every major city from Maine to Hawaii. To the flag-waver, you are never patriotic enough; and only a fool would question the policies of the current administration.

Then again, most flag-wavers are not aware the Supreme Court exists. Their primary concern is the expansion of the Executive Branch. To them, the powers of the Executive cannot be expanded fast enough, and the role of Congress is merely to provide administrative headaches.

But I digress. At the Future of Freedom Foundation, Dr. Paul fielded a question from the audience about what he would say to presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. Specifically, Dr. Paul was asked to address Obama's (hollow) campaign promise to bring "change" to Washington. What followed was a sparkling critique of Obama's platform.



While it is true that there exists a lot of similarities between Obama supporters and Paul supporters, the philosophical differences between the two candidates could not be any more pronounced. In my view, Obama is a status quo candidate - much like McCain - and it is highly unlikely any major philosophical change will be made in the coming years under an Obama administration. Under Obama, we can expect an even larger welfare/warfare state, wherein the government plays an increasingly influential role in everyone's lives.

That said, I hope Paul supporters continue their excellent work and continue to convert people (especially young people) to Paul's appealing brand of libertarianism.

Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto

Although he officially dropped out of the race yesterday, Congressman Paul still plans to hold an "alternative" convention in Minneapolis in early September at the same time as the Republican National Convention. He chatted with FOX News' Neil Cavuto about his reasons for holding an alternative convention and what that means for the Presidential campaign of John McCain.

Predictably, Cavuto asked the expected questions of Dr. Paul (will he continue his run independently, is he trying to sabotage McCain's bid, etc.) but what stuck out to me in this interview was Dr. Paul's response to how much of his motivation to hold an alternative convention was driven out of anger. What followed is what I believe to be Dr. Paul's finest answer he's given throughout his campaign.

Dr. Paul responded that he's not an angry person, that he deals in philosophy, and that the reason he's holding an alternative convention is because he's determined to change the way people think about government. Whatever fun I've made of the FOX audience in the past aside, I sincerely hope a portion of Dr. Paul's answer resonates with them. As Dr. Paul explains, there's very little difference--philosophically and otherwise--between the major political parties today...thereby adding greater importance to the need to hear alternative viewpoints.

Admiral Mullen: Stop-Loss to Continue

(from the Army Times):

Addressing a group of about 600 soldiers of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, Admiral Mike Mullen, the highest ranking military officer in the United States, admitted that the military's present draft system - euphemistically referred to as "stop loss" - will continue and possibly expand over the next few years.

Stop loss is an evil, corrupt breach of contract that is legal solely because the party responsible for the breach is the United States government. Presently, the stop loss program affects approximately 11,000 soldiers. The official reason for the policy is to maintain trained soldiers who are ready to deploy in support of the War on Terror.

By any other measure, maintaining an individual against his or her will, and coercing them to serve in a capacity after which their agreed upon length of service has expired, would be considered slavery. Indeed, the word slavery conjures up images of the pre-Civil War era in United States history, but slavery in its simplest terms is defined as "the state of being under control of another person." Therefore, these soldiers, by virture of being pressed into service against their will and with the threat of violence or imprisonment should they resist or desert, are slaves to the United States military.

The usual argument in favor of stop loss stems from necessity for trained, experienced soldiers in a time of war. Although military officials and commanders do not like having to enforce the policy, they express greater concern over having to adjust to life in a war zone without adequately trained personnel.

The obvious response to these concerns is to wonder what kind of management is responsible for the oversight of training and turnover of soldiers who are slated to deploy. If a privately-owned company failed to adequately plan ahead and adjust to fluctuating numbers of employees, that company would quickly go out of business. It goes without saying that because privately-owned businesses do not have the "luxury" of enslavement available to them, the importance of personnel management is much more vital than it is to an organization like the US military who maintains a coercive authority over its "employees."

Some proponents of the program go so far as to eschew the importance of honoring a contract between employer and employee, calling stop loss a necessity in a time of war. Such arguments, while they are certain to generate patriotic fervor amongst the flag-waving (but chickenshit) neoconservatives, ignore the fact that stop-loss is implemented as a preventative measure rather than a reactive one. In other words, the Pentagon enacts stop loss before the country goes to war. According to the LA Times, the Army has twice implemented the stop loss program prior to US involvment in major conflict: just prior to the first Gulf War and again in 2002.

The message sent to soldiers by the government cannot be any more clear - the government considers you her property, and you are a slave to her bidding. The importance of war supercedes any agreement made with the individual soldier, and that soldier is nothing but a cog in the war machine. While military leaders may lament having to maintain soldiers beyond the original terms of the contract, that they have done nothing to protest the program only underscores the faux leadership prospective recruits can expect to encounter should they join the armed forces. That fact, coupled with the knowledge that America now goes to war on a whim, makes me wonder why anyone would want to join today's military.

"A Completely Unprovoked and Cowardly Act"

Today the Pentagon released grainy footage of the US strike on Pakistan Tuesday, repeating the tired line that the strike was undertaken in order to protect our forces in the region.

Two very difference accounts have surfaced regarding the incident on Tuesday. The United States maintains forces came under attack by soldiers who crossed the border into Afghanistan. They also maintain that the Pakistani forces were aware that the forces were under attack and had called in air support to suppress the threat.

In contrast, the Pakistani government says the video fails to tell the whole story. They maintain that Afghani troops were setting up a checkpoint near the border when they came under attack by the Taliban. No mention was made of whether or not the Pakistani government was made aware of incoming air support.

A quick solution to this would be for CNN to disclose where the blast crater exists. If any part of the crater is on the Pakistani side of the border, the Pakistanis have more than a legitimate argument against US aggression. That CNN failed to disclose where the blast zone exists automatically makes me suspect a cover-up is being concocted by both governing agencies.

How is this not an act of war?

Well What'dya Expect?

President Bush ran nearly the entire gamut of personality during his recent stop in Germany.

First, an introspective President Bush said he has no regrets about invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein in 2003. While he lamented his choice of words prior to the invasion, Bush maintained that the invasion has made the world a safer place.

Second, In a rare display of humility, Bush admitted regret over his usage of cliches such as "Bring em' on" and "Wanted: Dead or Alive" during the run up to the war. Bush said that using such phrases did not portray him as a man of peace.

Imagine that. According to Bush, if only he had chosen his words a little more carefully he would be remembered as a man of peace. That whole illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of two sovereign countries thing? Shrug. Reckless expansion of the American surveillance state and simultaneous usurpation of individual freedoms? Whatever. Millions of people have been slaughtered, injured, displaced, and/or emaciated in his ludicrous "War on Terror" and the only regret he has is rooted in semantics?

Third, peaceful Bush replaced the humble, introspective Bush when the topic of Iran was broached. In order to prove he has learned from mistakes, Bush toned down his rhetoric when speaking about the "threat" Iran's nuclear program posed to the "free" world. Using the safe, bi-partisan approved line that "all options are on the table" in forcing Iran to halt its nuclear program, peacemaker Bush stated that the choice between increased isolation and integration into the world economy was Tehran's.

But warmonger Bush won the day. Bush remarked that present sanctions on Iran should be enforced, and allies should work together to strengthen those sanctions of Iran fails to capitulate to the demands of the "free world."

So there you have it. A session with enough range in personality to baffle any government-licensed psychoanalyst. Of course, Bush's saber-rattling has become so familiar to Americans as to call it cliche. Who knows, though - perhaps even Dubya grows tired of his own BS and therefore decided to throw a curveball to the crowd by being coy?

The Real Republican Convention

Ron Paul will not be allowed to speak at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN this September because he refuses to endorse the warmonger war criminal John McCain. Instead of closing down shop and ending his campaign, Dr. Paul plans to host his own convention at Williams Arena in Minneapolis, MN.

The official announcement as well as additional details will be made public on Thursday when Paul makes an appearance at the Texas state Republican convention.

Despite widespread disapproval of McCain's candidacy amongst traditional conservatives, we've consistently been told that he's the Republican nominee. But what's the purpose of a convention if the nominee has already been decided?

About halfway through the article we discover the real purpose of the Republican convention...and why Dr. Paul will not be allowed to speak (emphasis mine):

"Conventions are about demonstrating unity and purpose and showcasing the nominee. They are media events made for prime-time TV. Any distraction from the central message of the convention is not helpful," [G. Terry] Madonna said.

Translated, Madonna's message is "conform or shut up." Not exactly a traditional conservative viewpoint, but then again McCain is far from your typical conservative candidate. McCain's consistently poor showing towards the end of primary season (winning under 75% of the vote in key states such as Pennsylvania) underscore the severe disconnect between him and conservative voters. Outside of his perceived "strong" position on National Defense and his reputation as a "war hero" McCain has tons of work to do in order to repair his relationship with the conservative base.

Pundits like to paint Obama as the second coming of George McGovern, and perhaps they're right. But let's be fair - if Obama is indeed the second coming of McGovern, then is it possible McCain is the second coming of Bob Dole? Or, worse yet, Alf Landon?

Bravo, Mr. Kucinich!

Although his motion is not likely to bear any fruit, Congressman Dennis Kucinich should be applauded for introducing articles of impeachment against President George Bush yesterday.

I enjoyed watching Kucinich during the Democratic Presidential Primary debates. In spite of my philosophical differences with the man, I always thought he presented a cogent, understandable, and refreshing point of view - especially when contrasted against establishment candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The case for impeachment against Bush is not short on material, that's for sure. From lying about Iraqi WMDs to his shameless disregard for the Constitution and human rights, it could be argued that the Bush presidency was one marked by abject failure. Pundits and certain members of the media like to pretend that history may yet vindicate the Bush administration, but it's far more likely that history will remember Bush and his cronies as the group that bungled everything it got its hands on.

Obamanomics: Print More Money!

On the first day of his two week economic tour, Barack Obama recommended lawmakers inject another $50 million of liquidity into the economy. Citing the recent rise in unemployment and rising prices for oil and other necessities, Obama claims the needed aid cannot wait until the next president takes office.

My question is, why stop at $50 million? Hell, why not just hand out money on every street corner? I wonder what it's like to play Monopoly with Obama - especially when he's winning. I wonder if he proposes that the banker distribute more cash to all players, you know, just to "stimulate" the game?

The net effect of another round of "stimulus" will only raise prices. An increase in the amount of money circulating in the economy can only increase prices, and its a shame politicians like Obama have yet to learn this basic economic fact.

Luckily for Obama and the other stimulus-backers, however, the price of one precious item is immune from inflation - votes. No doubt Obama's "proposal" will resonate well with the increasing number of poor and unemployed in this country.

In addition to winning over more votes, economic stimulus packages have another, more sinister effect on the voting population: it allows for politicians to shift the blame for a slumping economy from themselves to those "greedy capitalist pigs" who raise prices in order to garner their windfall profits.

Like all other political solutions to economic problems, this one is a ruse designed to win votes during an election cycle and shift blame from the real culprits. Anyone who is serious about solving our present economic mess should first work to curb inflation - and the best way to do that is to re-establish the gold standard.

Hilarious!

Jon Stewart on Obama, Clinton, and McCain's speeches at AIPAC last week.

C-SPAN Radio with Eric Schmidt

Tonight I caught the very tail end of C-SPAN radio's replay of the Economist Club of Washington's interview with Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt. I heard a grand total of ten minutes of the interview, including three questions from the audience.

What struck me immediately was his negative reaction to the emerging market for the telecommunications industry, particularly the growth for mobile phones and mobile Internet service. You'd think the Chairman and CEO of the world's most successful Internet company would be ecstatic at the realization that his market share is about to increase by literally billions of people...yet Schmidt sounded morose--almost ashamed--upon disclosing the news.

Granted, I didn't hear the context in which the subject was brought up, so I could be completely wrong.

Mr. Schmidt redeemed himself during the brief question and answer period, however. One of the questions from the audience came from a network architect (and former US Representative). I didn't catch the gentleman's name, unfortunately. The man's question centered around increasing need for leadership and stewardship to help manage the increasing demand in the coming years; specifically, he wanted to get Mr. Schmidt's opinion on how the vast amounts of information would/should be managed. Although the man stopped short of using the word "oversight" I think that was the intent of his question.

I'm paraphrasing from memory, but the impression I got was that Mr. Schmidt is not interested in that particular portion of online service - that he believed the Internet should be free from any form of regulation of oversight.

Bravo, Mr. Schmidt. The Internet is beautiful because it's the only semblance of a true free market we have. Government officials hate the Internet precisely because they cannot control it. Only the free market can produce companies (such as Google) that are capable of handling increasing demand with little or no interruption. In contrast, rigid, intrusive government regulation strangles creative human energy and can only hurt enterprise.

I don't blame the gentleman for asking that question, but I was elated to hear Mr. Schmidt answer it the way he did. After years of government service it's probably natural for government employees to assume a top-down, bureaucratic-laced managerial team is needed to control everything produced in the market. Hopefully after hearing Mr. Schmidt's answer the man has a new outlook on the benefits of the free market.

Urban Warfare (Training) in Indianapolis

(From Indy Star via InfoWars)

2300 Marines from Camp Lejune, NC will overrun portions of Indianapolis for eight days as part of an urban warfare training exercise. City residents will be treated to live fire exercises, vehicle checkpoints, patrols, and regular airborne patrols by military aircraft.

The article does not quote any citizens of Indianapolis aside from the city's Emergency Management Agency. I wonder what the regular citizens will think when they look outside and see Marines patrolling their neighborhood. Yikes.

It appears DC has competition in its bid to the become the nation's first overt Police city!

The Greatest 70 Seconds on YouTube

Earlier this week I read I fascinating interview with Gore Vidal conducted by Robert Chalmers of the United Kingdom's Independent newspaper.

I have to admit that, prior to this week, I knew basically nothing about Vidal aside from hearing the occasional reference to his recent book Point to Point Navigation and his appearance on "The Real News" offering his analysis of the upcoming 2008 election. After I finished reading Chalmers' interview, I was more than intrigued to learn more about Vidal. The interview contains so many fascinating pieces of information that I would do a great disservice to attempt to break it down. Read it - you won't regret it.

From a tryst with Jack Kerouac to his venomous, blunt denouncements of some of the largest celebrities of his time, it's safe to say Vidal's life has been anything but boring.

In searching YouTube for clips of Vidal's political analysis, I stumbled across this epic, 70 second clip from 1968. Vidal and Crossfire's host, the late William F. Buckley, engage in a heated--and somewhat comical--debate over America's policy during the Vietnam War.



Admittedly, I know about as much about Buckley as I do about Vidal, but watching Buckley come unglued upon being called a "pro or crypto-Nazi" by Vidal was easily the best part of the clip. Buckley's response, as well as the look of utter disdain on his face, was priceless. It's a shame we the public is no longer treated to battles between intellectual heavyweights like Vidal and Buckley.

Here's a great clip of Buckley's analysis of the 1968 Presidential election. Buckley's elitism, rich vocabulary, and powerful stage presence remind me how ripped off we are whenever we are forced to watch any of today's talking heads.

Comcast Joins the National Security Team

Comcast, the nation's second largest Internet service provider, has teamed up with the Feds to monitor personal email, voice, and overall web traffic. Comcast will hire one person as its reconnaissance and analysis of subscriber intelligence specialist.

In addition to holding a snazzy title and having access to millions of people's personal lives, the engineer will work closely with the Feds in monitoring cyber crimes.

For your safety, Comcast is now in full compliance with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a legislative act requiring all Internet service providers to install gear that allows for easy wiretapping.

I don't know about you, but I feel much, much safer knowing someone is out there monitoring my web traffic. From cyber terrorism to software pirating, I have no doubt the one person Comcast will hire will be able to successfully defeat all forms of web terror.

Oh Man...

You almost - ALMOST - have to feel bad for John McCain after viewing this clip. You know you've really screwed something up when FOX News is making fun of you.

Burma Intervention Remains on Front Burner

At the Weekly Standard, anyway.

One would be hard-pressed to find another magazine that vehemently supports intervention and endless conflict as much as Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard. How a man like Kristol still has an outlet for his demented beliefs is beyond me, and it never ceases to amaze me how short of a memory Kristol and his staff must have after getting the Iraq War (as well as every other major foreign policy decision) almost exactly wrong.

But I digress. I normally make a daily trip into neocon hell--visiting National Review, Weekly Standard, etc.--partially for laughs but mostly because I'm curious to know what makes such evil minds work.

Most articles on neoconservative sites are predictable in their analysis of an issue or a person. Like talk radio, they follow a similar strategy: complain incessantly, offer no coherent solution to the problem (except war and intervention, of course), cram heavy doses of patriotism down your audience's throat, ALWAYS blame someone else for your mistakes. Oh, and above all, the American government is benevolent and infallible.

The linked article reeks of typical neocon ignorance. Although the entire article is a brief journey into the mind of two madmen, the second paragraph is what shocked me most:

The Burmese regime is guilty of atrocities far worse than the "criminal neglect" Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ascribes to them. It is guilty of crimes against humanity. Prior to the cyclone, the regime received dozens of warnings from India that the storm was on its way--yet did nothing to prepare its citizens. When the cyclone struck, the government sat on its hands and refused international help. Neither material aid nor aid workers were allowed to reach the victims, causing the needless deaths of tens of thousands. A trickle of assistance has gotten in, but aid workers are still restricted and much relief has been seized and sold on the streets. The junta now declares the relief phase is over: Its military thugs are forcibly evicting thousands of people from their shelters, even though they have no homes to return to. An estimated 2.5 million people have been displaced by this crisis.

Hmmmm, kind of sounds like a situation from three years ago, doesn't it?

It is not until the last half of the article that we discover the author's solution to the humanitarian crisis. True to form, their recommendation should surprise no one:

The United States, with a democratic coalition that could include Great Britain and France, should prepare immediately to intervene in Burma to ensure humanitarian aid reaches the tens of thousands of cyclone victims whose lives are still at risk.

Given the success of America's "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq, I'm surprised Britain and France aren't beating down our door to begin immediate intervention. You can't make this stuff up.

When did the mentality that America needs to use its military force to intervene in humanitarian crises seep in to the American way of thinking? Have no other options been considered, like, say, non-military relief organizations like the Red Cross and UNICEF? I'd like to think natives would be more receptive towards receiving aid if it was not provided at the tip of a bayonet.

Then again, the bayonet may be what the ruling government fears most as it may incite an internal revolution and oust the regime. The authors address this issue towards the end of the article by quoting a letter from Burmese democracy groups to President Bush (emphasis mine):

"Intervention will be seen as divine intervention by the Burmese people, not only to help the cyclone victims but also to finally free the entire nation from the military yoke," wrote a coalition of Burmese democracy groups to President Bush. "Please do not compare Burma with Iraq, because Buddhist monks, students, Burmese patriots will happily assist you with whatever you need to go inside Burma and help the cyclone victims and entire nation Many concerned Burmese citizens are willing to join the intervention. Please do not waste precious time."

Aside from accepting military force as the only means available to provide aid to Burmese citizens, there are two things wrong with citing this letter as justification for intervention. First, there's the question of honesty; specifically, are US forces there to provide humanitarian aid or to overthrow the government? Second, what's preventing these "many" Burmese citizens from rising up and overthrowing their government on their own?

In my view, the authors are suggesting that the revolution--should it occur--is simply a byproduct of the greater good that arrives with American military aid. If my view is correct, then the authors have also (in a subtle way) provided justification for their belief that military resources are the only viable option for relief efforts. It's as if they're saying, hey, let's use the military to distribute aid...and if a revolution happens, all the better!

The problem is, America has been down this path before and it hasn't worked out well for us. America has ostensibly rushed to the aid of oppressed people throughout the world for the greater part of the past one hundred years, sacrificed millions of lives and unknown quantities of treasure and dignity, and for what? How many more times are we going to fall for the ruse that American military muscle is necessary--and the only viable means--to change the world for the better?

I'm not suggesting that life is peachy in Burma and that the Burmese are not living under an oppressive regime. To believe such nonsense is to subscribe to the simplistic viewpoints of the faux intellectuals writing articles like this. What I am saying is that military intervention has not worked in the past, and it is likely to fail miserably in the future. Further, there are other reputable (non-military) agencies--like the Red Cross and UNICEF--that are capable of providing aid during a crisis of this magnitude...yet those options are conveniently ignored by the authors (I consider UN intervention to be the same as using military assets to distribute aid). Until someone can explain to me how responding to a natural disaster, where a massive amount of damage was done to property and infrastructure, with even more destruction of property and infrastructure via military force is good for a country, I'll remain steadfast in my belief that the best relief is the kind that is not accompanied by bayonet.

Finally, if the authors are so hell-bent on overthrowing the oppressive Burmese government, I have a suggestion: become a mercenary, move to Burma, and join the "many" other Burmese citizens who are hungry for revolution. Keyboard killers have no qualms when committing American service members towards their pet projects like overthrowing a government, yet I'd be willing to bet the ranch that they'd never put their money where their RAM is when the revolution came calling for volunteers.

Police District

(From the Washington Post)

In response to a recent surge in violence in the Northeast DC's Trinidad neighborhood, residents have been forced to endure at least five days of police checkpoints aimed at squelching the flow of guns and drugs into the area.

Similar projects designed to recover firearms and quell violence in the city have been flirted with periodically, but an all-out police state-like (dare we suggest Baghdad-esque?) check point system has yet to be enacted within the city.

The program is not without precedent. The article references a similar procedure in New York in 1992, where police cordoned off sections of the Bronx and queried drivers (not pedestrians) about their reasons for being in the area. Individuals who did not have a "legitimate" reason to be in the area were told to leave the vicinity. Anyone resisting police orders to vacate the area were arrested for interfering with police business.

DC's latest "Papers, please" operation is part of a series of larger initiatives attempting to find legs within the city. Other programs, like the Orwellian "Safe Homes" initiative and the militaristic arming of police officers are likely to be enacted in the near future regardless of community backlash. Forever shrouded in the usual rhetoric that such programs are for "community safety" we can be sure other, more oppressive programs are in the works should DC's high crime rates continue to rise or remain at present levels.

Checkpoints, semi-automatic rifles, and warrantless home searches do nothing to stop crime. At best, such practices provide a temporary reprieve from violence. Whenever and wherever oppressive programs are enacted, it is always the individual who must surrender his or her freedoms for the illusion of safety. The assumption is always the same: the police know what's best for the community, the citizenry are helpless to defend themselves against crime.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I think sane, reasonable people, when confronted with the news of increased violence in one part of the city, would go out of their way to avoid coming in contact with the crime-infested region...but that's me.

If the DC police department were truly interested in solving the high crime rate in the area, a good place to start would be lifting the city's absurd ban on guns and decriminalize the possession, usage, and sale of drugs. Given the general attitude towards guns and drugs in the city, however, it's best not to hold your breath for any radical changes in that respect. Another--less radical--measure police can take would be to listen to the criticism offered by of 20 year Trinidad resident Wilhelmina Lawson and become more community minded.

The natural consequence of police state-like measures in any community is increased tension between residents and police officers, ultimately leading to higher crime rates. Given that police in Northeastern DC are already viewed as "not community minded," it should surprise no one that this initiative will fail to achieve its stated goals.

Our "Peace" Candidate

Obama's speech at American Israel Public Affairs Committee should dispel any illusions that a foreign policy debate containing any semblance of substance will take place this fall.

In front of about 7,000 people, Obama reaffirmed America's steadfast support for Israeli security and identified Iran as public enemy number one with respect to peace in the region. Undoubtedly, Obama's speech was meant to convey a stronger, tougher candidate than the one attacked by John McCain in recent days.

Obama delivered his speech just two days after Senator McCain spoke from the same podium. Predictably, McCain drew upon the usual pro-Israel/pro-war talking points that have been hammered into Americans for as long as I can remember: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust and compares Israel to a stinking corpse, Israel must be defended at all costs, Iran is seconds away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, etc. There's not much room for interpretation when it comes to McCain's position on American/Israeli ties - his stance is as simple as McCain himself.

Less predictable, though still unsurprising, was the tough talk emanating from Obama. To his credit, Obama did attribute Middle Eastern instability (and the strengthening of Iran) to American presence in the region. However, shortly after making the above statement, Obama identified Iran as the greatest threat in the region, then delivered this confusing remark (emphasis mine):

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

At best, Obama is pandering to his audience; at worst, his charade as the "peace candidate" is over. While Obama does assert his belief that American troops should be redeployed out of Iraq, it's important to remember the terms "redeployment" and "peace" are not synonymous. Obama's belief in the expanding the military by 92,000, coupled with his bellicosity towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, leave little doubt that Obama and McCain differ in degree--not substance--when it comes to the War on Terror.

The illusion of choice is not a choice. Sadly, millions of people will rush to the polls to vote for the "anti-war" Obama, when in reality they're voting for nothing more than a new manager in the War on Terror. As was the case between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, what differences exist between McCain and Obama are merely cosmetic - and those who desire war will continue to get what they want.

That said, I expect any foreign policy debates between Obama and McCain to center on tactics and not philosophy. The belief that overseas American military presence is necessary in order to protect our vital interests (including Israeli sovereignty) is the universally accepted premise in every foreign policy debate. Let the "debate" begin...