Political Cartel

Today, from the floor of the Israeli Knesset, George Bush spoke out against the imprudence of the Democrats’ foreign policies and the follies of appeasement. It being the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel, Bush couldn’t resist a Nazi reference:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Good God, man! At what point in a man’s presidential career does he become politically senile and oblivious to popular disapproval?

Maybe Godwin’s Law needs to be expanded to cover the probability of a lame duck president’s rhetorical comparison to Nazis or Hitler.  We could call it the Bush exception.

Joe Biden’s response:

“This is bullshit. This is malarkey.”

Go get ‘em, Joe.

It wouldn’t be complete without the GOP’s favorite Democratic naysayer, Joe Lieberman:

President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that — if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers — they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.

Joe “let’s bomb ‘em all” Lieberman on flawed thinking, ladies and gentlemen.

This morning, the Myanmar Cyclone Nargis victim estimates reached 1.5 million displaced people and nearly 200,000 dead. Almost 2,000 square miles are still under water, and rain is in the forecast for the Irrawaddy Delta region. People are gathering in tiny makeshift refugee camps, which means that the spread of diseases such as diarrhea and malaria will spread very quickly. In one extreme case, there are exactly 5 latrines for 3,500 people in a camp. A bag of rice costs upwards of $35.

In spite of these horrendous numbers and the accelerating deterioration of the situation, the government of Myanmar is still wary of foreign aid. They are very reluctant to accept assistant from a country like the US, for fear that we are working to sabotage their military regime. A vast majority of the world would doubtless like to see the junta ended, but this is not the time to consider politics. Humanitarian aid should come without strings attached. It should be delivered and accepted with no question when so many lives are at great risk. We cannot do anything to prevent natural disasters from occurring (except perhaps shrink our carbon footprint), but we can at least respond to them quickly and efficiently.

Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) works exclusively in regions facing natural disasters, war, or anything that creates a health crisis. MSF, along with many other NGOs like World Vision, is working tirelessly to distribute the resources necessary to keep the Burmese refugees healthy, but their efforts are continuously blocked by the junta. In order to keep a favorable image, the military regime wants all aid to be channeled through themselves, so they’re blocking visas and keeping supplies for themselves. In the face of such irrational behavior which is further endangering Burmese citizens’ lives, what are our other options?

1. Deliver aid from Thailand. Yesterday, Admiral Keating and Harriet Foreman, the head of the US Agency for International Development, flew into Myanmar from Thailand to meet with the top Burmese naval officer in what the Washington Post called “the highest-level military contact between the two countries in decades.” Fore reported that the discussions were “a good first step” toward further US aid. The US will have three naval ships, each stocked with helicopters and aid supplies, off the coast of Burma within 48 hours. The helicopters can begin air-lifting supplies into Burma as soon as they receive permission.

2. Look at diplomatic options. The US should avoid anything that remotely resembles a unilateral intervention. This should not be about politics, but the junta’s policy of retaining power at all costs, regardless of lives lost, forces the world system to consider them. Probably, nothing can be accomplished politically unless China* begins to lean on their neighbor. Unfortunately, they have already forbade the UN Security Council from acting, stating that the Council is supposed to be used for threats to international peace.

*(Of course, China’s got it’s own problems now: an estimated 12,000 died in an earthquake this morning. Fortunately, the relief efforts began quickly and the government is doing everything it can to aid survivors and find victims trapped under the rubble.)

3. Consider a coalition. Burmese authorities are much more likely to allow aid from a Western coalition than from any single Western state. Safety in numbers.

Hopefully the junta will relent and allow aid to flow unchecked over its borders. Until then, the US, ASEAN, and the UN should think outside the box and find a way to relieve the suffering. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims in Myanmar and China today.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is one of those pieces of law with such a great name that you wonder how anyone could ever have a problem with it; in that way it is kind of like the Equal Rights Amendment.  Who could be against equal rights or for discrimination?  Well, I seriously do wonder what arguments the opponents of ENDA are making against a law that is so clearly justified.

ENDA adds sexual orientation to the list of categories on which employers may not discriminate.  Right now, federal anti-discrimination law prohibits employers from discriminating based on race, gender, religion, age, or disability.  ENDA, in the form of HR 3685, passed the House last November by a vote of 235-184.  It is on its way to the Senate, but even if it passes there, President Bush is likely to veto it if he is still around.

In my quest to find the opposition to ENDA, I have been more successful at finding rebuttals to the opposition.  I know there are lots of people (at least 184 Representatives and several people I know in real life) who oppose ENDA, but it is difficult to find coherently formed attacks on the legislation.  But these two sites, the American Psychological Association, and ReligiousTolerance.org, have good compilations of the arguments made against ENDA and the obvious responses to them.  These sites attack some of the most frequently-used arguments against ENDA and any legislation that is perceived to benefit those with non-mainstream sexual identities.

Here were some of the top points that people seem to be making against ENDA and my responses to them:

“ENDA gives special privileges to homosexuals.” Actually, ENDA prohibits discrimination against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation.  It applies equally across the board, although it is probably true that right now there is more unjust discrimination going against homosexuals than heterosexuals.  But whatever this law does, it does not give special privileges to any group.

“ENDA will normalize deviant sexual behavior.” This is a contradiction in terms.  What is considered mainstream and what is considered deviant are defined by society, so it seems impossible to normalize deviant anything.  This bill is also not aimed at forcing heterosexuals to embrace alternate lifestyles; our country does recognize, however, that tolerance is important, even of religions, actions, words, and lifestyles with which the mainstream is at odds.

“ENDA will be applied in so many cases, it will change so many of our longstanding traditions.” There are certain exceptions in ENDA so the bill does not apply to the military, to religious organizations, or to small businesses with fewer than 15 employees.  And if discrimination is one of our traditions, I would be glad to do anything to get beyond it.

There are some even crazier arguments that I heard in real life a couple of weeks ago, but I do not think they are even worth responding to.  ENDA provides important protections to individuals who often suffer discrimination because of who they are.  It would be nice if businesses would solve this problem for themselves, but once again, it appears that the only way we can guarantee protection from sexual orientation discrimination is by passing federal legislation.

First and foremost, it is evident that this thing will go to the bitter end. Other than that, I have a few politically innocuous observations about the primary, post Indiana/N.C.:

• Obama cleaned up in North Carolina, as expected.

• Clinton did not win Indiana by enough to convince her skeptics that she’s still in the race; however, she did win, which justifies, in her eyes, staying in the race.

• In Indiana, Obama took the urbanites, the African Americans, and the moderates Independents — again.

• In Indiana, Clinton took the less-affluent, white, rural folk — again. The white voters with no college degree went for Clinton 65 percent to 34 percent.

• The Elitist label and the Rev. Wright vitriol didn’t have the effect the Clinton’s hoped for. Neither did the rural “bittergate.” When voters were asked which candidate did they “shared their values” with, Obama beat Clinton.

• Clinton will have further fundraising issues; especially now that the media has come full swing against her. Many of the political pundits have declared the race over and Obama the long awaited nominee. This will add to the treasure chest complex for the Clinton camp. Evidence that the Clinton campaign is running low on dough is the 6.4 million that Clinton lent herself last month.

• Obama furthers his popular vote lead. Obama has 16.3 million votes, compared to 15.5 million for Clinton. Ignoring the voters who chose “uncommitted” in Michigan, where he was not on the ballot, Mr. Obama has a 230,000 vote advantage.

• The race will come down to the super-delegates. With it requiring nothing short of a primary miracle, Clinton has no shot at raking in the required 2,025 required to secure the nomination. Obama with 1,836 delegates, needs just over 30% of the remaining delegates (including super) to reach the delegate brink; Conversely, Clinton, with 1,678, needs over 60%.

• The Clinton camp has been arguing that the full number of delegates needed to claim the nomination is 2,209, which includes Florida and Michigan, as opposed to 2,025. If those delegates are seated, Obama would need about 43 percent of the delegates that remain.

Clinton is going to get desperate, who wouldn’t? I’m not blaming her. She’s invested a lot of time, energy, and money (especially her own). I would do the same. However, this doesn’t make it right nor is it helpful to the Democratic cause. The pleads to up the required delegate count and include both Michigan and Florida in the count is prophetic of the political desperation to come from Clinton.

Personally, I think it’s time for Clinton to cut her losses and withdrawal so the DNC can coalesce around a nominee. Personal convictions and wishes aside, I know that’s not likely to occur. So, brace youselves, it’s going to be a derisive and divisive end to a tight race.

Techno-optimism is a relatively new concept, but I have heard several references to it and its underlying principles over the past few weeks, so I thought it would be worth discussing.

At its very core, the definition of techno-optimism is the belief that technology can continually be improved and can improve the lives of people, making the world a better place. In practice, there are two different kinds of techno-optimists: the good kind and the bad kind.

The good techno-optimists believe that humans can use technology for good, and can mitigate its negative effects. They believe that people can develop new technologies to address new problems as they arise. They essentially believe that technology should and will be used for good purposes. I would like to think of myself as this kind of techno-optimist in many ways (although there are some things I am pessimistic about).

The bad techno-optimists agree with all that, but they take it too far. The bad techno-optimists believe that technology can trump any problem so fervently that they tend to be apathetic to dealing with problems while they are in their early stages. One of our commenters, Jesse, posted a link to this book a while ago: The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy. The end of the subtitle - “why we will never run out of energy” - caught my eye first because it seems like such a silly statement to make. The more I looked into this book and other books and writers like this one, the more I realized that these people are serious techno-optimists, but they are often the bad kind. They put so much faith in the inventiveness of humanity that they convince themselves not to worry about the need for intense alternative energy research now. They assume that when the conditions are dire enough, that new technology will emerge from the market somewhere to save the day.

This image of a technological deux ex machina is highly improbable, and in my opinion, irresponsible. It is true that technology tends to develop and there are massive reserves of ingenuity coupled with incredible market forces that continuously drive innovation; however, ingenuity has not been able to solve every problem on short notice, and the market is far from perfect, especially in dealing with issues of long-term significance. The bad kind of techno-optimism is thinly veiled laziness that consigns responsibility for major issues to future generations instead of addressing them now. I had a teacher recently articulate a similar position when he referred in passing to global warming. Evidently he is one of many who ignore the threat of climate change as something for future generations to worry about once the problem reaches critical mass and the incentives are high enough for the market to produce new technologies to fix the problems.

The obvious problem with applying too much techno-optimism to complicated issues like alternative energy and climate change is that the solutions for these problems will require vast resources and time to develop and implement. If we wait until peak oil production comes and goes and the price of gas is in the double digits, and if we wait until catastrophic flooding and weather patterns produce enough incentives to start developing solutions for these issues, it will be too late for millions of people to save their lives and livelihoods. We must have optimism to drive us toward implementing solutions for the collective problems we face. We cannot allow our optimism to become an excuse for laziness.

The definition of insanity is often defined as something lacking reason or good sense, which is true. However, the defining characteristic of insanity that is often omitted: trying something over, repeatedly, expecting a different outcome. Much has been the case throughout of American intervention for the cause of establishing democratic nations. The most current example is the conflict in Iraq, which is becoming a case-in-point on how not to intervene in foreign territories.

In the recently published book, A Faustian Foreign Policy, author Joan Hoff, discussing the inanities of wars for democracy, cites a 2003 Carnegie Endowment survey in The Christian Science Monitor, of the forced regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century. “[O]f the eighteen regime changes forced by the Unite States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy, and in the case of wars fought unilaterally, the number goes down to one — Panama” (hardly an applauded event). Yet, the argument continues to go that democracy can be imposed from above, especially by military intervention — which, in less developed regions, is often the case.

Further failures at American lead transformations aboard can be seen in hyper version of Globaization called the “Washington Consensus.” America’s idea that modern global capitalism, based on free trade, open markets, unregulated international investments, and dramatic improvements in communication technology will bring prosperity and personal freedom abound has “yet to produce anything like universal prosperity,” says Hoff. The neo-liberal ideas, namely capitalism, are products of Western values, some cultures are simply less culturally adaptable to its development. There is even evidence that suggest that neo-liberal policies run counter to the development of democracies, because neo-liberalism fosters “anarchical economic forces that undermine national cultural and political institutions that might otherwise foster democratic governments.” The neo-liberal bete noire is the reform period in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in what is known as the “lost decade,” General Pinochet, the Argentine Junta, and severe inflation that still plagues the the Latino nations today.

American interventionism is hardly the efficient machine is it often made out to be. It can be especially hard to shift through the patriotic fog that blinds sound perception. I’ve talked about American Exceptionalism — the driving force behind American interventionism — before, and had concluded long ago that it does much harm to America’s credibility at home and throughout the world. As is clearly obvious, America has once again embarked upon the great unilateral crusade, this time into the desert of death and turmoil. Very similar economic policies that have been tried and failed are being tried again in Iraq. The “Green Zone” and the selling off of occupational duties to Private Military Contractors and huge Multinational Corporations. America is sub-contracting the reconstruction of Iraq to billion dollar MNCs and other private organizations in an attempt to turn Iraq into a seabed of foreign investment in the hopes that it may one day be the quintessential capitalist, free trade center of the Middle East.

American unilateralism in Iraq is highly unlikely to produce anything closely resembling a viable democracy — if a democracy at all. As much as I want to see Iraq succeed as a democratic state, the notion crumbles under the mounting evidence that Iraq is not in the process of democratic “transition,” but destructive sectarian civil war. The incessant call for “stay the course” has become the sign post for ignorance and stubborn nationalism. The notion that we must stay in Iraq “until the job is done” is applying tried tactics that have proven failure. The insistence on what has become the proverbial protracted occupation is down right insane, if you ask me.

I decided to make a new custom image header for the blog. I choose a theme that corresponds to the current season: Spring. It’s about that time here at Christian University. The semester is over bar finals; the average temperature is steadily rising, and the grass is greener than it was last week.

Spring is a particular favorite of mine. The blossoming flowers, colors galore, and the maturation of trees’ leaves has always resonating a bit of solace in me. I couldn’t help but to read over a couple of passages from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Nature, the chapter entitled “Nature.” I thought I’d give those of you who visit us here a quote to go with the new image header and to ring in the spring feeling.

“The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food. In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows. Nature says, — he is my creature, and maugre all his impertinent griefs, he shall be glad with me. Not the sun or the summer alone, but every hour and season yields its tribute of delight; for every hour and change corresponds to and authorizes a different state of the mind, from breathless noon to grimmest midnight. Nature is a setting that fits equally well a comic or a mourning piece.”

Why are Chinese Buddhists, Koreans Taoists, Japanese Shintos, Arabs Muslims, Greeks Orthodox, Italians Catholic, and Americans Protestants? This is a question that crosses the mind of any person who has taken a general survey of the living world religions and the societies in which they exist. The sociology of religion is often a vexing concept, warranted of more time than it is given. One man did warrant this question more time. The early 20th century German Protestant Theologian Ernst Troelstch took the question of why we are who we are head on.

Ernst Troeltsch was a prominent figure in the field of the sociology of religion. Troeltsch argued that Christianity was nothing more than a contingent development within European culture, a malleable product of its time and place. Troeltsch was, by all accounts, a religious relativist. Someone who believed that the beliefs are unique to their time and space, and that as time progresses, beliefs will change accordingly.

Mark Lilla, in his book The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West, portrays Troelstch’s theological beliefs according to a relativist view. As stated by Lilla, Troelstch believed that “modern society no longer represent[ed] a simple cosmological or theological order; it ha[d] become a complex mechanism with interlocking economic, political, communal, artistic, intellectual, scientific, and technological gears, turning and whirring, sometimes in harmony, sometimes at cross-purposes.” According to Lilla, Troelstch believed that the glue that holds all of these relative concepts together was “individualism, which was first discovered in Protestantism and now governs the whole of modern life.”

Although Troeltsch was himself a Protestant, he was no exclusivist; he believed he was a Protestant for different reasons than why most Protestants believed they are Protestant. Troeltcsh didn’t believe in fundamentalism or orthodoxy. “We are children of time, not its masters,” said Troeltsch. Beliefs, to Troeltsch, were relative to time and space, not a permanent system set-in-stone.

The crux of Troeltsch’s social-religious belief comes from his answer to the question of how we define ourselves. Troelstch said:

“[Christianity's] primary claim to validity is the fact that only through it have we become what we are, and that only in it can we preserve the religious forces that we need . . . We cannot live without a religion, yet the only religion that we can endure is Christianity, for Christianity has grown up with us and has become a part of our very being.” He then added, “This experience is undoubtedly the criterion of its validity, but, be it noted, only of its validity for [Christians].”

Imagine if Troeltsch had grown up in a rural Chinese society shaped by Confucius and Taoist doctrine. He would have grown up being taught different ethics, morals and norms of society. He would have likely been taught an entirely different set of theological and teleological beliefs. Instead of Jesus, Troelstch would have grown up listening to stories of Lao-zi and Confucius. These set of beliefs would have been valid for him in his social environment.

It seems that Troelstch believed firmly in the idea of religious relativism. The idea that the environment into which you are born will shape your belief structure. Everything from economics and politics to theology and the meaning of life is determined by the society into which you live. It is easy to imagine that your belief system as absolutely right, and that your religious beliefs are orthodox. However, what is often overlooked is the social influence and contribution to your certain set of beliefs. Are most of the things you believe in approved by social norms? Are they shaped by family and social traditions? What if you were born into a Buddhist household in the heartland of Tibet? Would you still be Christian?

One of the most recognizable parts of the Department of Homeland Security is the National Threat Advisory that you find on their website. I got to thinking about that the other day and wondered if there has ever been a time that the threat has been below yellow. Well, I looked it up and, as you might expect, the answer is no. The DHS has a history of changes to the threat level. Its interesting reading but the one thing that struck me about it is it has never been below yellow.

The obvious question that I think has an equally obvious answer is, “Is it even possible for it to be below yellow?” The answer is of course not! No executive department is going to say that they are no longer important. They might as well just cut the whole left side of that thing off. It is a daily reminder that we need to be afraid.

I also wonder how many people really know what that thing means or even use it to make day to day decisions. I wonder how many national security-related agencies consult the national threat advisory for guidance in their day to day operations. Does anybody use that thing?!?! Or is it…well…propaganda? Quite frankly, its the slickest propaganda ever. We don’t even know it. It penetrates the guards of our intellect and leads us to view people we don’t understand with microscopic suspicion. I say we get rid of that horrid thing. I don’t want to go to war with Iran.

Watch this short commercial by Amnesty International. Then click the link below. Then let’s talk about waterboarding.

Click here to unsubscribe: http://www.unsubscribe-me.org

If we are willing to commit human rights violations in our so-called War on Terror, then what have we become? What is worth protecting if we abandon our principles? I have said before, and I will say again, if you are willing to sacrifice your principles when it is inconvenient to keep them, then you have no principles.

In a democracy, the people create the government and ultimately set policy through elected representatives. The people also bear the moral responsibility for the actions of the government.

Even if “moral principle” isn’t enough of a motivation to oppose torture techniques like waterboarding, at least we should look to international law. The United States is a signatory to dozens of human rights treaties and conventions. And although we once helped lead the “free world” in the fight for universal human rights, the United States today appears far more interested in shirking international law whenever possible. Frightening memos circulate around the White House, telling the president that he is authorized to ignore domestic and international law any time he judges it to be contrary to his view of national security.

Fortunately, it appears that our next president will switch directions, at least on this issue of torture. Those people who think that any action that perpetuates and protects the state are justified scare me. Some of the Republican primary debates scared me when the candidates kept trying to one up each other in how brutal they were willing to be with detained terror suspects in the fictitious “ticking time bomb” scenario.

Maybe this is something to pray about today, since it is the National Day of Prayer.