Christmas Day Quote

After reading Dickens' A Christmas Carol, I thought this quote especially relevant in regards to religious extremism in the world today, no matter what the faith:

“There are some upon this earth of yours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.”
-A Christmas Carolby Charles Dickens

The Anbar Experience: A New Solution or Just Another Problem?

While the decision of many Sunni militias (including former Baathists and religious extremists) to join with the Coalition forces in combating Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (AQM) in places like Anbar province has been hailed as an aspect of success for the surge of U.S. troops and military actions in the Iraq, a recent article in the NY Times presents a more in-depth look at the implications of this new "Sunni Awakening" for Iraq at large, specifically as concerns the country's biggest obstacle: Sunni-Shia violence:

Though the Americans obtain biometric data on every Awakening group member to try to screen out known insurgents, the government and many Shiite citizens say they fear that the movement has spread so quickly that it is impossible to keep track of who has signed up for it. And while government officials are somewhat willing to accept the tribal character of the Awakening groups in Anbar Province, they are leery of the new ones in and around Baghdad, which have more Baathists from the era of Saddam Hussein in their leadership and are active in more mixed neighborhoods.

“Many people believe this will end with tens of thousands of armed people, primarily Sunnis, and this will excite the Shiite militias to grow and in the end it will grow into a civil war,” said Safa Hussein, the deputy national security adviser and a point man on the Awakening program for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

...

While Mr. Mashadani is ready to look past his former enmity to work with the Americans, he draws the line at any partnership with the central government. He characterizes Shiite officials as pawns of Iran and Shiite death squads, a common view among Sunni Arabs in both Baghdad and Anbar.

“We want to work for the Americans, not the government,” he said. “It is as clear as the sun: the Iranians have dominated the ministries, the whole government. These guys are a bunch of conspirators who belong to Iran.”

So the Sunni-Shia rift in Iraq still seems no closer to being resolved, and not one presidential candidate seems to have put enough thought into facilitating any type of viable peace or balance of power between these two groups. All we hear is either Republicans talking about defeating the omnipresent, ill-defined "terrorists" or Democrats talking about withdrawal, without mentioning what effect this process would have, positively or negatively (because arguments have been made either way), in regards to Shia-Sunni violence.

Paul Krugman is a dick

There was a time when I read NY Times columnist Paul Krugman's op-eds and gave them a chance. He seemed like an intelligent man and I thought he may have some insightful things to say.

But the more I've read Krugman over the past couple of years, the more I've realized how little his craptastic columns are worth. What repulses me most about the man is that he personifies everything that's wrong with blind partisanship, whether it's to a political party or ideology. For Krugman, there is an absolute truth and he knows it. And anyone who departs from this ideoligical (leftist) or party (Democrat) line is to condemned as a heretic.

This dogmatic position angers me even more as someone who politically leans left of center. I may not always agree with religious conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, or even leftists like marxists, socialists, or even fellow liberals. But I do not, however, believe that I hold the absolute truth to all things social, economic or political. And I believe even less that anyone who disagrees with me on an issue is always a charlatan or an evil, disingenious bastard. In some cases I may feel that is the case. But most of the time I do not. For instance, I do not agree with the libertarian belief that the income tax should be abolished and replaced with a national sales tax because I think this would lead to a more regressive, less egalitarian tax structure. Yet I do not believe that most of the people who do support this tax structure are doing so because they want to make the rich even richer and stick it to poor people. Most of these individuals seem to believe that this tax structure would lead to greater individual freedom and economic growth for everyone. They believe it. I don't. And I will continue to oppose this idea, but not on the grounds that my opponents are evil.

But for Krugman, anyone who disagrees with him never seems to fall into the category of simply mistaken or wrong about their position. Rather, Krugamn almost always implies or outright charges that his opponents should know better, that those supporting different beliefs are evil and want to harm the vast majority of people and further empower themselves.

No where has the sick structure of Krugman's attacks been clearer than on presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. For Krugman, Obama is a heretic for even considering "moderate" positions or bipartisan efforts. The biggest pet peeves for Krugman are Obama's positions and statements on healthcare and social security as we can see from a recent interview with TPM:

Yet on health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.

On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these thing through a kind of outbreak of good feeling.

...

When Obama used the word "crisis" about Social Security it gave me a little bit of a sense of, "Hmmm -- I'm a little worried that my initial concerns were more right than I knew."

To have Obama sort of sounding like the Washington Post editorial page really said among other things that he just hasn't been listening to progressives, for whom the fight against Bush's Social Security scare tactics was really a defining moment. Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.

It's a tone thing. I find it a little bit worrisome if we have a candidate who basically starts compromising before the struggle has even begun.

Now I wouldn't be as ticked off if Krugman simply said that he believes Obama's plans on health care and social security to be wrong. Maybe they are wrong. But Krugman goes even further: apparently, it isn't that Obama is simply wrong--in fact he knows he's taking the wrong position. For Krugman, moderates, centrists and independent thinkers are fictitious beings. The world is simply divided into left and right, liberal and conservative, good and evil. And any position that does not conform to Krugman's worldview is on the "wrong side," the evil conservative side. So when Obama takes a position on healthcare that does not include government mandates and does include more market incentives, it isn't just that his plan wouldn't work (from a more leftist, big govenrment perspective); even more than the plan's supposed inefficacy, Krugman shouts, is the "fact" that Obama is taking "conservative" positions in a cowardly act of surrender to the "evil" Republican side.

None of us, no matter what our political persuasion or party, has a hold on absolute truth. We all have our well-reasoned (and for others, I should mention, not-so-well-reasoned) positions about the world and specific social, economic and political issues. And we should fight and argue in support of them. But we should not, however, be so attached to our worldview that we do not remain open to new ideas and new facts and arguments that may further enrich or evolve our own perspective. We should not be so opposed to other perspectives that we are not willing to compromise for the good of society on certain things. Our entire government system was based on the ideas of ideological balance and compromise, on the idea that no one person or party has a claim to absolute truth or natural law. Moderation is not always the weapon of the weak (although in some cases, of course, moderation may be the wrong way to go).

What we need in the world now, Mr. Krugman, is not more partisanship and blind ideology but more independent thought and open, intelligent discussion.

War, poverty, and disease in Somalia

An important NY Times article on the need for more aid and international focus on the underreported humanitarian crisis in Somalia.

One thing that I resent in this article, however, is the pitting of one humanitarian crisis (Darfur) against another (Somalia), as if efforts to help the two were mutually exclusive:

“Many of these kids are going to die,” said Eric Laroche, the head of United Nations humanitarian operations in Somalia. “We don’t have the capacity to reach them.”

He added: “If this were happening in Darfur, there would be a big fuss. But Somalia has been a forgotten emergency for years.”

The officials working on Somalia are trying to draw more attention to the country’s plight, which they feel has fallen into Darfur’s shadow. They have recently organized several trips, including one on Monday, for journalists to see for themselves.

Both Somalia and Darfur should be priorities for the mainstream media, as well as other areas like Burma, Uganda, Chechnya, etc. We shouldn't pit these crises against each other, but rather cut down on our focus of less pressing news.

For example, these crises should trump the Natalee Holloway death, anything to do with Kanye West's mother and Larry King, Britney Spears, or Dennis Quaid's children--all "top news" items on cnn's website as I glance at it now at 1:05 a.m.

I guess in order to get some more press the Somalis should start taking rapping lessons or become hot blonde chics. Even better, they could develop a drug addiction and then walk off Larry King. Maybe then they'll be deserving of more of our attention.

Why I'm not voting for Rudy Giuliani

This video about sums up why I'm not voting for Rudy Giuliani if he gets the Republican Party nomination for president. In this video Norman Podhoretz, senior foreign policy advisor for Giuliani, "debates" Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek and foreign policy savant, over what the U.S. policy should be towards Iran. Podhoretz's nonsensical answers about bombing Iran and random ravings about Hitler pretty much reaffirm my suspicions about the disaster in foreign policy that would be a Giuliani president:



Still not convinced? Take a look at "Mr. 9/11"'s piece in foreign affairs.

Giuliani displays an utter lack of knowledge about the rest of the world, and a scant grasp on international relations theory, history, and applications. Compound that with a fanatical, misguided, and unrealistic approach to Iran, and you've got a presidential disaster.

For a more sensible and pragmatic approach to Iran, check out Fareed Zakaria's piece in Newsweek from October:

In a speech last week, Rudy Giuliani said that while the Soviet Union and China could be deterred during the cold war, Iran can't be. The Soviet and Chinese regimes had a "residual rationality," he explained. Hmm. Stalin and Mao—who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, fomented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them—were rational folk. But not Ahmadinejad, who has done what that compares? One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.

Darfur charity event

For any interested in helping the people of the Irdimi refugee camp in Chad, which is made up of Darfuris who have been driven from their homes by the janjaweed militias and aeral bombings from the Sudanese government (for a larger version of the flyer click on the image):



The money raised from the event will go toward solar cookers that the refugees can use to cook their food. This will allow them to stay in the camp rather than trek outside to gather firewood--a task during which many, many women are brutally raped and/or killed by the janjaweed.

Come out and support it if you can. It's on Thursday, June 28th from 7pm to 10pm at Philadelphia Cathedral, 3723 Chestnut Street. It's $10 per person and will include poetry from Sandra Turner Barnes, great granddaughter of the last ruler of Darfur, Ali Dinar; Afro-Cuban music; speeches from Darfuris like Fatima Haroun; displayed drawings by Darfuri child refugees; and much more.

The Harsh realities of Darfur

Here's a quote from a heart-wrenching AP article on the brutal realities of Darfur, where the use of rape as a weapon is growing more prevalent every day. The Darfuri women who are raped by the janjaweed militias are not only left with the physical scars and pain of their attack, but the shame and stigma their rape entails within their broader cultural and familial life:

Sheikas in Kalma said they report over a dozen rapes each week. Human rights activists in South Darfur who monitor violence in the refugee camps estimate more than 100 women are raped each month in and around Kalma alone.

The workers warn of an alarming new trend of rapes within the refugee population amid the boredom and slow social decay of the camps. But for the most part, they added, it all depends on whether janjaweed are present in the area.

And still the international community does little to end these attrocities.

Lesbian Soldiers: Al Qaeda's new plan?

With a nice use of humor, Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman gives a scathing critique of the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning homosexuals. Under this current policy, even service members fluent in Arabic and/or Farsi can be and have been kicked out of the military for being homosexuals.

Ask yourself--in a time when knowledge of the Muslim World is essential for sucess in our national security and foreign policy, does rejecting those fluent in these two most prominent "Islamic" languages make any sense?

That is, of course, not to mention the effect this policy has on the status of equality in the United States.

Ackerman may have also stumbled upon a new strategy for the insurgents in Iraq. Take a look:

Brooks on Political Pandering

An interesting piece from David Brooks on the conflict between politicians' public and private persona. I'm not sure if I agree with his conclusion, but it's worth the read.

"In short, our democracy, at least as it has evolved, takes individuals who are reasonable in private and it churns them through a public process that is almost tailor-made to undermine their virtues. The process of perpetually kissing up to the voters destroys the leadership qualities the voters are looking for in the first place: tranquillity of spirit, independence of mind and a sensitivity to the contours and complexity of reality."

Hagel: On Governance vs. Partisanship

Many have spoken about the evils of divisive, partisan politics and the pernicious effect this thought has had in recent years. Yet, behind this confrontational, childish attitude, is the pollution of governance with the fumes of campaign politics. Campaign politics invovles certitude, unrelenting attacks, and (most importantly) victory. Governance, on the other hand, requires humility, compromise, and pragmatism.

With the dawn of 24 hours news networks and instant information via the world wide web, the "never say die" campaign mentality has seeped dangerously deep into the roots of good governance. The melding of these two political mentalities has resulted in nothing but bad news for our U.S. government in recent years, no better personified than in the stubborness and arrogance of President George W. Bush. The Bush administration and its loyal followers have been less interested in governing and compromise than in ideological zealotry and dominance.

On Jan. 24, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska highlighted the danger of partisan politics at the expense of good governance. Being that rare type of politician who is not afraid to say what's on his mind, Hagel takes a strong stance not only against President Bush's troop surge plan for Iraq, but his administration's simplistic, personalized attacks against critics of that plan.

It's refreshing to see that politicians like Hagel, who care more about good governance than preserving a fallacious image of infallibillity, still exist:

Foundations

So before I start regularly analyzing the news, I'm going to outline my general political philosophy in this second post:

If I had to characterize myself along the often used yet inaccurate political paradigm of liberal-conservative, left-right, I'd fall into the leftist/liberal camp, but a bit toward the center.

Yet this dialectic is inaccurate in trying to classify political beliefs. It's not an either or type of thing. There are various viewpoints, intermingled across a web of thought.

Like most Americans today, I'm a political liberal. That is, like our nation's founders and the founder of liberal thought, John Locke, I believe in a government set around preserving individual liberty. The Constitution, and, especially, its corresponding amendments are a testament to this political thought.

Unlike these classic liberals (today's Libertarians or Goldwater Republicans), I envision a larger role for government in the economy. This does not make me a socialist or protectionist, however. I still believe in the innovative power of free markets. Yet our historical experience include numerous experiences where the magical hand of the market fail--fail in providing humans with certain guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because of this, I believe in a minimum wage, some form of universal health care, a welfare system, and the continued state control of social security.

In contrast to these pro-interventionist views, I am not an opponent of free trade and globalization. The term free trade, however, has been twisted by pro-statist businessowners, who pursue trade policies that are far from free or fair. The inevitable "flatting of the world" (as Thomas Friedman describes it) is not something to be feared--globalization will reign in an era of greater wealth, innovation, diplomatic realtions, and human rights, in done correctly.

I am also wary of subsidies and tariffs for "struggling" businesses. Often times these policies go to support behemouth fearful of losing their power to worldwide competition, like American agrobusiness. I believe that outsourcing is overall a beneficial phenomenon, although I have yet to reconcile the short term effect it has on American workers. I do fear that if done incorrectly, outsourcing could result to a "race to the bottom" for the global work force. In other words, my views on outsourcing are mixed.

Having outlined a vague synopsis of my economic views, I'll move on to my foreign policy views.

I do not view the United States as a force for evil imperialism in the world, nor do I view it as a messianic, infallible nation. It is a flawed hegemon. Yet it can and should use its extensive power to promote the general good, the promotion of human rights, stability, and, where possible, democracy. That is the only area where I agree with the neoconservative philosophy--the United States should use its power to promote liberty.

Where I disagree with the neocons is in their simplistic means--unilateral militarism. The United States needs to work with the United Nations (as flawed an entity as it is); it needs to be proactive in promoting multilaterism, and reforming and legitimizing international institutions.

Having given these broad views on economics and foreign policy, I'll give a quick overview of some other issues:

1.) Abortion--I believe in a woman's right to choose to have a child or seek an abortion in the first or second trimester of pregnancy. Although I think the unborn child in these states constitutes some form of life, I do not believe it qualifies as a total human life form. Abortions will be done whether the government prohibits them or not. The question is--how safe will they be?

I do find the constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade a little shakey, however. I'm not sure if the right to privacy argument holds up in the case of abortion (although I do believe in an implied constitutional right to privacy). I believe creative minds will be able to extrapolate another, stronger constitutional basis for preventing government from legislating prohibition against abortion. One idea I've heard suggested is using the 13th amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude as a basis (women would be forced to carry out a pregnancy against their will). I'm not quite convinced by that argument yet either, though.

2.) Stem Cell Research--Stem cell research, especially embroynic, holds great potential for revolutionizing medicine and helping countless numbers of those suffering from previously uncurable conditions. These cluster of cells, the great majority of which will be discarded anyway, are not human beings. This research should be strongly supported and funded by the federal government.

3.) Gay Marriage--There is no reasonable argument for prohibiting gay marriage. Homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else.

4.) The Death Penalty--Because of human fallibility, I am opposed to the death penalty. Innocent people can and have been wrongfully killed. There is a relatively strong socio-economic bias in our judicial system, resulting in inequal practice. I'm also a bit wary of giving the state the power to execute its own citizens.

5.) War in Iraq--A huge and tragic mistake. I do not believe, however, the war was the result of greedy oil-grabbing robber barons, but rather the unrealistic plans of "groupthinking" neoconservative idealogues who assumed democracy would easily flower in Iraq. It has resulted in the death of thousands of American soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqis. It has further destablized the region, and greatly harmed the global image of the United States.

6.) Bush administration--President Bush is one of the worst, if not the worst, U.S presidents of all time. This is not a partisan critique. He has been incompetent in almost all possible areas. He has promoted a failed, simplistic foreign policy. He has driven up huge budget deficits and foreign debt, while failing to veto huge pork-filled legislation. He has shown contempt for the Geneva Convention, the timeless right of habeas corpus, prohibitions against torture, the shared powers of the three branches of U.S. government, and the list goes on. One area where I do commend him is for the great attention and funding he has given to the issue of HIV/AIDS, especially in promoting programs for treatment and research in Africa. Now if only he'd give out condoms.

7.) Illegal Immigration--The real victims of this grandiose illegal immigration are not the American workers. These immigrants are working jobs that many today's Americans refuse to do. The real victims, however, are the immigrants themselves. They are often abused, taken advantage of, tricked into a form of slavery, etc. Although their presence does seem like a huge boost to our economy, especially with the resulting low prices for the American consumer, the human rights of these immigrants are more important than that. I do not favor mass deportation of all these immigrants, but rather a way to phase them into our immigration program, for their safety and liberty. We do need to step up our surviellance and enforcement along the Mexican-American border; although I don't think a new "Great Wall" is the answer either.

8.) The Environment--Our government's environmental record is a disgrace. The United States needs to be more proactive on combating global warming, promoting energy efficiency and alternative fuels, and protecing our open spaces and animal life.

9.) Guns--I believe in the individual's right to carry arms for defense or for hunting. I do believe, however, in regulating the sale of guns in a reasonable matter (number one--reenstate the assualt weapons ban), in light of the general interest. That being said, I find that many of the regulation laws that have been and are being proposed are often times ill-thought out and ineffective.

10.) Drugs--I'm against prohibition. It leads, and has led, to a huge violent criminal network, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocents with little involvement in either taking and selling drugs. Everyone will be safer once drugs are legalized and regulated. If individuals choose to purchase and use drugs, that is their individual right (much like buying alcohol and ciggarettes). At the same time, we should educate about their harm and provide services for rehabilitation for those individuals seeking to better their lives.

11.) Taxes--When I see them being used toward useful means and programs, I'm for them. When I see superfluous use of taxation with no countervailing result (as in the case of the city of Philadelphia--one of the highest taxed cities with the shittiest public programs) I'm against them. I'm generally a fan of progressive taxation over a flat tax structure.

12.) Judicial "Activism"--It really isn't as widespread as some make it seem. Our government is one based on balance. Federal versus state. Executive against legislative. AND liberty versus democracy. The Supreme Court is the vanguard of liberty against a sometimes illiberal populace. When the majority passes legislation infringing on the rights of the minority as espoused in our constitution, it is the role of the Supreme Court to step in and uphold the principles of liberty.

The Genesis Project

And so begins my postings.

I hope to use this blog as a place where I can give my analysis on social and political events, religion, philosophy, and the wonders of life in general.

I'll admit up front that none of my posts will be "objective" in the traditional sense, that is, in the form it has come to be recognized in America's 20th century media.

In fact, from my short experience on this planet, I've come to view true journalistic objectivity as a futile pursuit. Well, at least for a personal perspective. It's not that I bear any ill will toward the pursuit of objectivity. Rather, I merely feel that this style of analysis and blogging is a bad fit for me. It's dishonest. It's not true. I, like every other human being, view the world through my own ideological lens. Some people's lens may have less scope than others. Yet even the most open-minded thinker is bound by his/her own prejudices and emperical markings.

So I'm not promising objectivity in these posts. What I am promising, however, is a reasonable balance. Fairness. In contrast to many of today's talking heads and partisan pundits, I will acknowledge the strength and validity of opposing viewpoints--I will acknowledge my own imperfections, that I may be wrong. From time to time, my opinions will change as the facts do.

In my next post I will outline a synopsis of my philosophical and political world views to better let you all understand how I'm deriving my opinions on various current events and issues. In other words, I'll begin by showing you the philosophical foundation, and then build from there.

Well, that's all I have for this first post. Hopefully I can keep a consistent blogging schedule.