The Fall of the Jerusalem Wall

On January 11, 2013 a group of Palestinians erected tents in an area designated E1, which is east of Jerusalem. They set up this tent city, named Bab Al-shams, to protest the building of an Israeli settlement that is scheduled to go there later this year. The reasoning goes that Israeli settlements are still standing because by the time anybody told the settlers to move, “facts on the ground” already existed. Almost immediately, Israeli police arrived on the scene with eviction papers. As is to be expected with a protest, the residents of Bab Al-shams refused to move. Later that day the Israeli Supreme Court ordered a stay of eviction for six days while they sorted out the issue. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, objected to the stay and demanded the Courts to lift it. Rather than wait for the Court to lift the stay or make any other decisions, Netanyahu sent in police to arrest everyone in the camp and remove them from the property. Fortunately nobody was killed and only six people reported minor injuries.

There are a couple major themes in this set of developments that I would like to take a deeper look at. The first is that Palestinians have finally starting organizing large non-violent protests. The second is that Benjamin Netanyahu specifically, and Israel in general, is unwilling to make up their mind about which is the lesser of two evils: an independent Palestinian state or full acceptance of all inhabitants of the Holy Land.

Israel has been unwilling to deconstruct the wall for security reasons. Palestinians have done themselves absolutely no favors in this regard. Consistent support for the terrorist group Hamas has alienated the international community and Israel can point to incessant violence to quiet critics. Mahmoud Abbas, the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, has made statements in recent months condemning the use of terrorism and violence in the struggle for independence. Much of the Arab Spring movement has centered around a shift to nonviolent protest to create government change. Extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are now finding themselves in a new position: power. The Taliban is a prime example of a group of people that were very good at fighting the powers that be until they became the powers that are. In fact, the history of Taliban rule in Afghanistan is what the international community is afraid will happen in Egypt now and potentially happen in Palestine if they become a country.

The Carter and Reagan doctrines promised religious extremists that if they denounced communism they would money, weapons, and other aid. The Taliban in Afghanistan and the Ba'ath parties in Iraq and Syria jumped at the chance to fight for independence. Twenty years later the United States fought against the very people we had put into power. Even in Egypt, the secular National Democratic Party was supported by the United States and imposed authoritarian rule on its people. Violent people were willing to claim democracy over socialism in order to gain access to guns, food, and money. Democracies were set up in countries all over the Middle East even though there was rarely any real opposition and never a chance for a religious minority to attain office. Only one of these countries has built a wall to cordon off the minorities to remind them that they are not welcome in their homeland.

Bab Al-shams is a great start to a protest movement. The problem is that there are over 100 officially recognized Israeli settlements with over 300,000 inhabitants. If the PLO organized a sit-in of 1,000 Palestinians at every settlement it would very quickly be seen as an attack on Israel. The history of violence between the two groups is so long and well-documented that it would only make sense that such a large movement of people could only mean trouble. I have another idea in mind. Similar to the Hands Across America movement of the 1980's, Palestinians should stand facing the wall, hand in hand, silently protesting its existence until the world takes notice. It won't take long. As soon as everyone shows up and begins the protest, Mahmoud Abbas should appear before the United Nations imploring them to recognize both the plight of the Palestinian people and their right to govern themselves. This move would still provoke a response from Israel but it would be less likely to be seen as a possible attack. Israeli Defense Forces would immediately demand the people to clear away from the wall and disperse. Again, the point of a protest is specifically to not respond to such demands.

Best case scenario is that the United Nations declares the settlements to be illegal and that the settlers must return to Israel while the PLO becomes the officially recognized government of the new Palestinian nation. Worst case scenario is that a lot of peaceful protesters will be killed before the world moves to action. Either way there is one country that stands in the way of all of this: the United States. Both President Obama and Vice President Biden have made public statements condemning continued building of settlements. In fact, the E1 settlement is seen as a slap in the face of the US government after the presidential election. Patience has grown thin among many in the administration. American foreign policy is being focused on reducing the military role in Afghanistan and preventing a nuclear Iran. Responding to peaceful protest with continued violence or oppression would not only respark Islamic anger towards the US but would also push Ayatollah Khomeini to change his mind on his budding nuclear program. After a well-publicized protest, akin to the movements of the Arab Spring, the United States would be hard-pressed to maintain their current level of support. As President Obama has famously said, “After my election, I'll have more flexibility.”

With the creation of a new Arab state, there will be plenty of leadership needed to make sure that things go smoothly. There will need to be many press conferences declaring that the existential crisis in Israel is over and that the Jewish state has nothing to fear from the Arab world at large. Mohammed Morsi, President of Egypy, and Recep Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey, are looking for way to both calm tensions at home and also express their power in the international realm. The Arab League has begun to show that they want to be considered as prestigious as NATO or ASEAN and this would provide them with the chance. Thus the creation and maintenance of an independent Palestinian nation might have a real chance this time. With the safety and security of both Israelis and Palestinians no longer in question, there will be no future need for a security wall to separate them. Similar to the fabled city of Jericho, I hope we shall someday see the fall of the Jerusalem Wall.

Cliffhanger

I try very hard to never tune in to CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CSPAN, or really... anything else that tries to tell me what is going on.  I read a LOT. Sometimes too much but I'm sure there are a couple English professors and comic book nerds who would argue that you can never read too much.

I keep hearing some nonsense about a fiscal cliff. Something about tax increases and spending cuts that will come so quickly that they will devastate first quarter spending and hiring and plummet the country into another recession.  I've been paying attention for long enough to remember that every time the democrats want to raise taxes the republicans say it will ruin us, conversely every time the republicans want to cut spending the democrats say the same. You'll have to forgive me for the terrible reference, but when someone tells me that Sylvester Stallone is in another action film stuffed with peril... I must be in for a Cliffhanger.

I loved early Stallone stuff, he always knew how to keep the intensity up and he could throw out a good line.  When I heard that Cliffhanger was coming out I shrugged and shuddered and stayed away from it.  I started hearing pundits preparing their parachutes and decided to shrug and shudder again.  They have to keep up the intensity to sell newspapers and commercials.

The republicans are going to come to the table in the next three weeks and we're going to see something similar to the proposals made three years ago when we started this recession but didn't have the... cliff... to fall from.  Three years ago republicans saw the White House and the Senate within their grasp if they could just hold out and make the democrats look bad.  Unfortunately for the republicans, in a mud fight everyone gets dirty.  Sure, the democrats in congress looked bad for not getting anything done, but so did the republicans.  They didn't win anything and now are trying to save face.  Good for them. I know what it's like to lose and put on a strong show.

We need to lower a lot of taxes, payroll and property chief among them. We need to raise a lot of other taxes (long list that I don't want to make at 5am sorry). We need to cut spending. This means that we need to go through the budget at every level and decide which projects are more important than others. This means that nobody will be happy because everybody is going to lose a little bit. Sorry, if I could make the world a better place I would, but I'm not Superman ;)

We need to stop electing politicians who govern like Thelma and Louise.  The time to test the brakes is on the open road and not pulling up to a cliff. I know it's fun and easy to vote for people who say all the right things but this isn't American Idol... though that would probably increase turnout.

Does anybody remember what happened to Thelma, or even more importantly what happened to Louise? It's kind of important because the voters are a lot like the car. I don't want to spoil the ending for you, so find the movie on Netflix and check how it ends. Sorry for the... cliffhanger?

Syria-sly?

I'm not sure how to start this article with anything witty or funny.  Thousands are dead in Syria.  The Arab Spring has found itself stopped at the edge of the seas of oil.  People are attempting to use non-violent protests against a government that has no problem killing its own citizenry.

So what do we do?

Does the United States invade, like it did in Iraq, to oust a violent dictator propped up by a false democracy?  No.  Does the United States provide weapons for the rebels, like it did in Libya, hoping that the good guys come out on top?  No.  Do we try to convince someone else that it's their turn to do something?  Have fun trying.

The world still has a bad taste in its mouth from our last foray into not-quite-war war.  Generally speaking, sending an army into a country with the sole purpose of killing its leadership and setting up a new government means that you are going to war.  We didn't.  I'm not quite sure how but that's for another article.

Russia and China vetoed a UN resolution that sounded too much like what happened in Libya.  Apparently saying you're trying to stop the violence and then going in with warships and bombs turned a couple of people off.  Last time I checked, overstepping the mandate of UN resolutions and ousting a government was a prime example of war crimes.  I'm still waiting for those indictments to come out of the ICC.

I guess the United States' hands are tied on this one.  I almost forgot to mention that unilateral intervention in another Middle Eastern nation may get on Iran's last nerve and cause them to: 1) close the Strait of Hormuz and cause oil prices to (I'm guessing) double, 2) kick their nuclear weapons project into high gear and have a dirty bomb in (Still guessing) 8 months, and 3) retaliate with strikes on Israel.  I believe that any of these three actions would be seen as an act of war by us and we would cry foul and attack Iran.  Does anybody remember what happened the last time we attacked two middle eastern nations at the same time?  Little thing called World War 1, you guys should read more books.

So who can stop the killing?  Who can step in and make Bashar Al-Assad step down?  I know! Vladimir Putin!  He'll save the day!  He'll make sure that a populace isn't politically quieted.  He'll put his foot down and make sure that racial minorities are represented equally... oh wait... he doesn't even do that in his own country.  He's also facing pressure from protesters who are completely unable to change the status quo.  I could be wrong though, this guy thinks it's a good idea.  I'm not very good at knowing what Putin plans to do though, I've never predicted an international incident of his before.  Though I do, strangely, have Georgia on my mind.

Maybe Mini-Russia can do something.  China has a long history of promoting human rights abroad and supporting democratization efforts... Foiled again!  The country is going through the long process of trying to legitimize the exchange of power from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping so I don't think they intend to strain the will of the People any more than they have to.  I seem to recall that there is also a small group of people trying to get political recognition from the Chinese, also known as the populations of Tibet, Taiwan, and China.  This guy thinks China is being hypocritical by vetoing a measure that supports the safety of Syrians because it supports the safety of Syrians.  Really?  I've never heard of a politician saying one thing while meaning something completely different.  See: Politics.

Ok, so we have established that the US can't do anything.  Russia and China won't do anything.  Perhaps a neighboring country with similar religious beliefs and historical distrust of outside powers.  Turkey, you say?  They have been trying to get into the EU for a while and this would look REALLY good on their resume.  They seem to be completely disinterested.  Might as well be high school Spanish class...

I hate to be the "blogger of no," so I guess I should say what should happen and what will happen.  Otherwise why would you read this right?

Turkey and Iraq should close their borders to any weapons trafficking and allow only refugees out, nobody in.  Israel will have to be told to stay out of the issue but I don't think that Jordan or Lebanon will want to face the impending sanctions of joining what should be termed an internal struggle.  This is where it gets nasty.  What follows is called a revolution.  Not a coup, an overthrow, or an ousting.  A revolution.  The kind that the Russians and French know about.  The kind where the currently governing don't get to go to another country to keep pecking at the legitimacy of the soon-to-be governing.  The kind where lots and lots of people die.  It's ugly and it's not fair.  It does, however, get to a finish sooner than thousands of people dying unarmed in the streets because they are waiting for the President to step down or the rest of the world to intervene.

What will happen is much less clean.  The problem will continue to be discussed in committees by men and women who are not Syrian.  The Arab League will continue to send in observers who will observe mass killings.  Eventually the people will give up like they did in Iran because oil money is good.  In a few years everyone will forget that any of this happened and thousands will have died in vain.

I, personally, am much more worried about Iran getting a nuke... (I don't know if the sarcasm came through or not so I'll mention that the last statement was satirical.  It destroys the joke but proves the point.)

With a Capital T

President Obama plans to unveil a new deficit reduction plan on Monday.  He plans to cut three TRILLION dollars in ten years.  That's over four times the amount his stimulus package cost.  He plans to do it with 1.5t in tax increases and 1.5t in spending cuts.  You see how both of those numbers are the same?  That sounds like compromise to me.  You know how else it sounds like compromise?  A socialist president is calling for cuts in medicare and medicaid.  Now I guess I have to DVR the roast of Charlie Sheen to watch the speech...

Freedom of Speech

I'm going to break from my usual posting style. I'm not going to quote very much. I'm going to shoot from the hip a little bit. I would like to say that I am glad that the Supreme Court realized that they were making a decision about the right of a group of people to peacefully say what they thought needed to be said and didn't undermine the strength of the first amendment of our Constitution. As much as it pains me to say, they made the right call and the people of the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to their opinion. By the way, if you're not familiar with that particular church, you can read their message at http://www.godhatesfags.com I promise that is their real website. You can also see it on signs.

Anyway...

The point of this post isn't to discuss the merits of their message. I would merely like to say that it would be nice if people used the first amendment the way it was actually intended to be used. It would be nice if people would gather peaceably and discuss things that actually matter. I was just watching the Daily Show and the topic of major discussion was the rally against teachers in the Midwest. Not to even get into that whole mess, it deserves its own post, I think we need to spend our first amendment right to free speech to talk about the issue at hand. The issue isn't are teachers paid too much. The issue isn't that they only work 9 months a year. The issue isn't what kind of benefits they have. The issue is whether or not it is the government's job to educate our young people. Please comment and let me know what you think, I'm interested to hear.

The issue isn't where we should have our troops. The issue isn't who we have alliances with. The issue is do we want to be the world's police.

The issue isn't the rising cost of healthcare. The issue isn't the raiding of the Social Security account for bailouts or wars. The issue is how to deal with an aging population.

The issue isn't a black man in office. The issue isn't the Republican party splitting in half between the conservative and the more conservative. The issue isn't how much money is spent on lobbying. The issue is how to make government accountable and efficient in the 21st century.

Everyone is so busy bickering over tangential points that they don't take the time to realize what they should even really be talking about. Obviously if someone thinks Obama is a Muslim I won't be able to change his or her mind. I don't think that anybody should even begin to talk to Birthers about schools in Indonesia. Talk about stuff that matters: like whether or not free speech is so important as a principle that even God-fearing fag-haters are allowed to thank Him for dead soldiers in public near the mourning families of homosexuals and soldiers.

Are you ready to free yourself from the noise and start to speak about what matters?

Words Fail Me

Like Obama! He won't tell us who the next leader will be in Egypt! He won't cut spending as much as we will! He probably wants the Muslim Brotherhood in charge because he's secretly a Muslim! He wants to spend our country to ruin because he's also secretly a terrorist!

I think that's my quota for exclamation points for this month. Please read the two stories I linked because they deserve their own time. If Mrs. Palin actually read all of the magazines she said she does, she would know very well that nobody knows who the next leader will be. Nobody even really knows what kind of leader it will be yet. I'm really glad that her speech will be aired on the same show whose host said that America deserved 9/11 on 9/12.

Mr. Hensarling is also an idiot. At the bottom of the article he says quote, "There is no limit to the amount of spending that we’re going to be willing to cut." Well actually there is a limit. Another Republican congressman returns his salary to the Treasury minus the cost of his living arrangements, travel, and other necessary costs. How much money would we save in ten years if the other 534 members of Congress did that? Somebody work on that.

What about cutting the Defense so that it matches the next highest defense budget in the world?

According to a guy who knows more about this than I do, China is second on the list of military spending with $125 billion. We could save $875 billion dollars every year right there. That's not even really asking us to fall behind the curve, that's asking to get back in line. Russia only spends $69 billion a year. So matching China's budget would still be almost double Russia's and neither of those countries wants to go to war with us.

Social Security is next on the list of top three expenditures. I'm sure Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota wouldn't mind ending the program. At least in theory. If she, or anyone else, actually proposed to end Social Security there would be no re-election. For all the vitriol, congressmen are still at the whim of their constituents. The elderly are the most likely to vote regularly and also benefit the most from Social Security, so good luck cutting that and surviving November when your number is up. However, sometimes leaders have to sacrifice themselves for the good of all. Even if the good of cutting spending means not providing for the poor and elderly. I guess you have to then go into a discussion about which is the greater good (I'm not going to).

What about Medicare? Score two for the elderly. If Congress were to approve a budget without any appropriations for Social Security or Medicare and an 87.5% reduction in defense spending, not only would spending be down, but the national debt would probably be paid off in a couple of years (just a guess, if anyone wants to do some number crunching I would love to hear about it). Then we could cut taxes to a bare minimum. That's assuming that by the time we've made those kinds of cuts, other things like the Department of Education has been shut down, grant funding and other silly things like that have been disapproved. We could probably do away with income taxes, lower property taxes, and do with just a sales tax. Wouldn't that be great?

Of course, without any of that spending we wouldn't be able to afford to have an intelligence network that spanned the globe. Without that intelligence network we wouldn't be able to know who the next leader in Egypt would be. Then again, even with their $80 billion per year budget they didn't see the uprising in Tunisia going how it did. Talk about a bad return on investment.

I suppose what I'm saying is that before you go out into the world and say something stupid, run it by someone who knows what they're talking about first. Otherwise you turn into the one thing nobody in Washington wants to be:

The Jasmine is Budding

Jasmine, the national flower of Tunisia, is derived from Persian meaning "gift from God." It is widely popular as a fragrance, a tea, and as a houseplant. When protesters in Tunisia were looking for a name for their cause, they decided upon the Jasmine Revolution. Like the scent of the flowers, the revolution is spreading.

Tunisia is that purple one at the top of Africa between Algeria and Libya. Contrary to normal wind patterns... the revolution spread to Egypt next (read the previous blog for more on that). As soon as people saw, through Twitter and Facebook, that normal Arabs were standing up for freedom, they knew it was possible everywhere. Jordan, which is east of Israel, watched their king immediately fire the whole cabinet and bring on new people to prevent the wide spread protests. The new Prime Minister of Jordan, Marouf al-Bakhit, has already started talking to opposition parties to try to implement major democratic reforms. Yemen's President has vowed not to run for reelection. There have been call for protests in Syria. Some people have been talking about possible uprisings in Morocco. Iraqis and Saudi Arabians are looking on to see how the events unfold. To put that into a sentence: every Arab nation in the Middle East is about to throw off the post-colonial chains of the West and become self-governing nations.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has vowed to not take advantage of the situation. Hamas, an extremist Islamic group in Palestine, told people not to go out in public to show solidarity with the Egyptians. Hizbullah in Lebanon has been fairly quiet about the whole ordeal. I mention this because it is incredibly significant. The fundamentalist religious groups that everyone fears will prevent democracy are stepping aside to help it grow. Certainly the Muslim Brotherhood would like to have a few seats in the new Egyptian Congress, but they don't expect a supermajority.

Israel needs to move very quickly and efficiently. If every major Arab nation becomes democratic they will be led by the popular will of the people instead of the Western-backed leaders. If Israel doesn't make peace with the Palestinians very soon their problems will be two-fold. First the new governments will move to impose sanctions on Israel until peace is accomplished. Some might even go so far as to try military options. If you look back at the map you'll notice a lot of Arab nations surround Israel. Sanctions would be devastating to their economy and the United States is already pulling back from Israel. If the entire Arab world, as a democratic whole, were to condemn Israel the US would be hard-pressed to back them as the US currently does. Second, all of the Arabs that live in Palestine will see the effects of uprisings around them and get a few ideas in their heads. The roughly 4 million Arabs that live in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank might decide it's time for them to join the Jasmine Revolution and protest against the 5.8 million Jews in Israel. Israel has been able to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state so far because every government around them was supported by the US. That seems to be about to change.

To be sure, it is going to take time for the new democratic governments of the Middle East to become fully functioning. They are going to need help and guidance and they probably aren't going to ask the United States for it. There are two governments in the Middle East who are thought of as democratic, Turkey and Iran. As discussed in the last post, Turkey is moving away from the Western circle. Iran is as far from the Western circle as it gets. So which government will these new ones follow? Both countries want to be leaders in the Middle East and both are poised to be so. Nobody, here or there, knows what is going to happen next.

I can only hope that the people who live there decide what will happen for themselves.

Letter to the Blind

He who blinded by ambition, raises himself to a position whence he cannot mount higher, must thereafter fall with the greatest loss. - Niccolo Machiavelli

This post is written with two audiences: to he who is blinded by his own ambition and to those who are unable to see this post because they cannot access the Internet.

Hosni Mubarek took office in 1981 and has held his power ever since. The United States government has supported him because he represented Egypt without Islamic fundamentalism and because he supported efforts to bring peace to Israel-Palestine. When Barack Obama took office, he gave a speech in Cairo that was widely criticized. He spoke about ending what seemed to be a United States jihad on Islam and a new sense of cooperation between the West and Middle East. When the United States makes an ally with an Islamic nation, it is hard pressed to break that alliance (see Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan). Turkey is helping Iran deal with sanctions, Pakistan is harboring terrorists, and Afghanistan is led by a corrupt president. Even though all of that is true, the United States will not sanction Turkey, invade Pakistan, or oust the corrupt president it put in place as the lesser of plenty of evils. Mubarek doesn't really like Iran, isn't a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and wasn't put into office by the United States military. However, Egypt as a country is overwhelmingly Muslim (as is Iran), is home to the Muslim Brotherhood (terrorists), and is led by a corrupt president (Mubarek).

What is the United States supposed to do? It can't jump up the tree, else be knocked to the ground. It can't stay on the ground and listen to the cries of the smaller cat and risk the smaller cat falling, either. To apply that to the situation: the US can't explicitly back Mubarek because if the protests turn to revolt and revolt to overthrow, it will have backed the wrong horse. The US also can't sit back and not support the government in charge or else the international community will think it doesn't want to support its allies. A major problem with supporting the protesters is the unreliability of the protesters to pick a pro-US replacement. It would be very easy for the protesters to overthrow the government with US support and then snub the US in favor of a more Egypt-first domestic policy (Iranian Revolution, 1979, anybody?).

The United States could look to others for help in the situation. The United Nations is busy with things like the Afghanistan conflict. The European Union has a few money problems. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are military organizations and aren't equipped or intended to maintain peace during anti-government protests. The African Union is dealing with Somalian pirates, money problems, uprisings in Tunisia, bloodshed in Darfur, tyrants in more countries than not, and diseases like AIDS and malaria.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in 1979 and current Johns Hopkins University professor, said that, "Egypt is seething." The youth are doing what they always do, they get angry about what they cannot change, and they set about changing it. I had a history professor in college who said that any time a political movement had the word 'young' in the name, it was probably in favor of violent regime changes (Young Italy, Young Tunisians, etc.). The difference this time around is that the Internet has allowed young people from a much larger area to communicate with each other to compare ideas and strategies. Hence the internet being shut off across the country.

Peter Beinart wrote in Newsweek:

Middle Eastern tyrannies aren’t falling the way George W. Bush predicted. America isn’t the hammer; if anything, we’re the anvil. But Bush’s argument that Middle Eastern democracy could help drain the ideological swamp in which Al Qaeda grew may yet be proved true. Osama bin Laden has never looked more irrelevant than he does this week, as tens of thousands march across the Middle East not for jihad, but for democracy, electricity, and a decent job. It’s a time for hope, not fear. America can survive having less control, as long as the Arab people have more.

Egyptians have a right to control their political destiny. The Middle East needs more countries like Turkey, willing to snub powerful Western nations to protect domestic interests. Iran and Syria are close behind, but they are still waiting for their own democratic revolutions to really work. It is a scary thought for the US to allow Middle Eastern nations to control their own policies. Then again, I'm sure most European nations were uneasy in 1776 when a few colonies declared that they were independent from England.

I know that Hosni Mubarek will not read this article. I also know that if he did it wouldn't really change his mind. I know that the people of Egypt can't read this article. If they could, I doubt they would feel like they needed my words of justification. The message applies to anyone who can read this, however. This drama is the same that is played out anytime a third party tries to assume its interests are more important than the first two parties. It was the the wise Nunya Bidness who said, "This is an A and B conversation, so C your way out of it."

Two Birds and One Stone

In New Hampshire it may soon be punishable by death to kill someone before, while, or after you break into their home. Breaking and entering, theft, and murder combined into one charge and given the power of the ultimate punishment. This law would put into effect a new maxim, "Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill, but especially not at the same time."

I recently asked my girlfriend if she thought it was acceptable to have a gun in the home. While we don't live together I think that it is a very important question for everyone to answer. How many murders have happened because a burglar broke into a house and wasn't expecting anyone to be home and panicked? Fortunately, the NH legislature is looking to make this punishable by death.

I think that every person should have some means of defense in their home. From knives to baseball bats to guns, each person should have a reasonable weapon with which they can protect themselves and their family from invasion.

If burglars knew that going into a home could very reasonably end in injury or death, I would expect there to be fewer break-ins. And that would help me sleep better at night.

A Day of Remembrance

I'm going to go ahead and admit something personal. I'm a Christian. We have a lot of holidays. We remember a lot of things. As a country, Americans have a lot of different occasions to look back and remember that there were times we were great and have cause to celebrate those times.

Unfortunately, both groups tend to stop there. (That's really about the end of the religious segment of this post) It is not enough to remember that a group of people stood together under the leadership of a great man and rallied around the cause of equal rights. Are there not still people in our country who are being treated unfairly?

It is not enough to remember that a great man was killed on the path towards his dream, of which he so eloquently spoke. Have we fulfilled the goals for which he lived and died?

What can we accomplish before the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday comes again next year? We even have an opportunity to help the people of Haiti in front of us. We have equal pay for equal work for women waiting desperately for our attention. I think this blog has posted plenty of articles about equal marital (or union) rights for homosexual couples.

Passing a decent law almost 50 years ago was not the end of the fight, it was the beginning of a job. We must always be on the lookout for the disadvantaged, the mistreated, and those crying in desperation for help.

If the man whose birthday we are remembering were to stand in front of you and ask you what you've done, would you be able to answer him proudly? If he asked if you had continued the work that had been cut short for him, could you say yes?

Nobody is perfect, especially not this author, but can you say you have tried to help everyone you have seen around you, even the ones you don't like?

Have you loved your neighbor?

Trading Places

This is a classic scene from the film, 'Trading Places.' If you haven't seen it yet go to a movie store now, rent it (get popcorn too), come back home, watch it, and then continue reading. I'll wait....


That'll do nicely.


With the new year coming swiftly many are looking back to remember what has happened in the last year and decade to say, 'Wow I don't know how we came out of that.' I would rather not look at the depth of the valleys behind us but would prefer instead to turn towards the mountains that we have before us to climb. There are a lot of things we have to do in the next year and decade.

We must fix Social Security. There are many in the country who think that Social Security shouldn't exist anymore. There are some who think that once a person has worked for 20 years they shouldn't have to lift a finger ever again. These two viewpoints obviously have a lot of space between them and some compromise is necessary. I would like to see care for the poor and disabled to be removed from Social Security's charter so that it may be regulated separately from retirement benefits for retired workers. The quickest and easiest fix for Social Security is to put more people to work to put more money into the system. That would also, I might add, solve a lot of other problems...

We must fix Healthcare. Yes the Senate passed a version of a bill and yes the House of Representatives passed one too. now the Joint Committee has to agree to something and God only knows if they can do that. Once they do it's going to be a miracle to see it passed. Legislation takes a very long time, especially of this magnitude. When a bill has as many provisions in it as this newest healthcare bill does, it usually dies.

We must fix the economy. As mentioned earlier, putting more people to work will fix a lot of our problems. We must return to being a producer and exporter of goods and return to a strong dollar fiscal policy so that our nation may once again 'rule the world' with our goods, services, and money instead of our military.

We must fix the military. Our current path is unsustainable. We must find a way to be able to maintain our safety and deter future attacks without the deployment of a quarter million men and women in harm's way and the possession of 9600 nuclear weapons. Raising tax barriers against other countries will not improve the condition of the domestic worker. That will only hurt our relations with other nations that we want to buy our products. We must instead tear down the regulation barriers that make it so difficult to own a business in this country.

We must fix civil rights. I don't know if anybody noticed or not but a justice of the peace in Louisiana refused to marry a man and a woman who were of different racial backgrounds. He quit his job after severe political pressure to do so. Every single day men and women of homosexual orientation are refused their equal right to the pursuit of happiness. We must end this hypocrisy or else we should stop criticizing countries like China for their moral fallacies.

We must fix our infrastructure. Our bridges are falling apart, our roads are old, our phone and internet and cable lines are becoming outdated. Surely there is some way we could fix all of these and a few aforementioned problems... ah yes. That stimulus money could be used to update our power grid and our roads and our other vital tools so that we can step into the 21st century (a little late). This would create countless jobs as well as accomplish a necessary goal. We might also send some people down to New Orleans to fix the levies, that would be nice.

I think that's a pretty short list but a hard list. We must look forward to the challenges ahead of us to accomplish them or else we will see another decade pass us by rife with problems. Many other countries have seen such 'lost decades' and we can be sure that more will in the coming years. I would hope that we are not on the latter list. I would hope that we, like Dan Akroyd in the film 'Trading Places' can join with the Eddie Murphy's in the world who have taken our place at the top and overcome our problems.

Merry New Year to everybody and I'll see you a little farther down the road.

I Don't Have Time To Discuss This In A Committee

Someone should draw a comic of Barack Obama shouting that at Nancy Pelosi while she shouts the classic response, "I am not a committee!" Would Joe Biden be Chewbacca? (I would cast Harry Reid play C-3PO and Olympia Snowe play R2-D2 (not to say that Ms. Snowe is a little person but referencing her minority status as a Republican and the character being the lone voice of reason that nobody wants to listen to) The Millenium Falcon could have the word Healthcare on it since the two were both standing on shaky ground at the time of the exchange. I digress.

The Senate came in to work on Christmas Eve so that they could vote on the most important issue of the year: healthcare. The headlines on Christmas morning read that the Senate had passed landmark legislation set to go to committee in the new year. They didn't even need 60 Democrats or any Republicans to move on to voting and the 58 Democrats and 2 Independents also voted yes on the actual bill, moving the bill into the next stage of the legislative process.

I'm blogging from my work computer so if you read this before I can fix it, look up 'I am a Bill' on youtube and enjoy the video.

The link in the title takes you to an article from the Washington Post that compares the House and Senate bills on some of the major points.

I'd like to give the Dems kudos for muscling a bill through both houses of Congress. It's been a long time since a Democratic majority in Congress actually meant anything other than creating a sitting duck. I'm going to hold off my commentary on the healthcare bill until a final version is passed by Congress simply because there are too many facets to explore and I don't want to write a thesis (that's a lie, I don't mind writing it but apparently nobody would read it).

Hopefully the next piece of life-altering legislation that comes through Congress will see a more productive response from the GOP. While "You Lie" activates the base, garners some campaign money, and wins some elections in off-years, giving 30 million Americans health insurance improves the quality of life in our country and might win the Presidency (again).

In he dream world I like to think we might create some day, the moderates will split off from both parties and then nobody would have a majority and would have to form coalitions to get anything done, much like.... almost every country in Europe has to. (Aren't they making an international President soon? We'll talk about that later)

I think that's where I'm going to end this one. I'm glad that something got passed and I'm glad that the Dems flexed their muscles. I hope that the GOP does more in committee to help mold a more cost-effective and private-run bill and I hope that people will realize that higher taxes aren't always a bad thing. Merry Christmas to all of you and thank you for reading!

Blessing in Disguise?

The headline out of the Washington Post begs the question: Can Swine Flu Shut Down the Internet? People staying home from work or school either suffering from or in fear of the new strain of flu that has so far killed fewer people internationally than regular strains of flu kills in this country alone are starting to strain internet networks in several communities. At present this is not a serious problem. The government, in a surprising twist, is doing what it is supposed to do and is planning for future disasters and is afraid that the strained networks will make it difficult if not impossible for government agencies to send out warnings and for e-commerce to survive.

The article says that the companies have several options from laying down new cable which takes too long and is expensive or can figure out a way to slow traffic down which might violate contracts. Sounds like a lose-lose situation right? Perhaps not.

Laying down new cable to deal with an emergency will be too slow if it is in response to a disaster and too expensive if the companies have to pay for it. Enter the stimulus bill.

We have already decided to give money to people for projects vital to communities. Very little of the money has actually been given out because planning such civic projects takes a long time. Laying down upgraded cables in many areas, and more in the rest, is a project that can be written up relatively quickly and paid for. This creates new jobs, promotes e-commerce, increases infrastructure, prevents unnecessary problems in security, and in all ways improves the economy.

So perhaps the swine flu epidemic can do something good for everyone after all. Perhaps if everyone has better access to better internet they can find out that 20-something active healthy males don't need a vaccine and they should let the pregnant women in front of them in line. Does the internet teach decency?

Annulment

To quote directly from Wikipedia, "Annulment is a legal procedure for declaring a marriage null and void. Unlike divorce, it is retroactive: an annulled marriage is considered never to have existed."

I agree fully with protecting the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution. I believe that it is written in the Christian Bible that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. I think that going to a justice of the peace and signing a marriage license and being declared married is not a religious ceremony and does not create a holy union and does not constitute a marriage.

I think that if two homosexuals want to go to a justice of the peace and be legally united with all benefits allowed therein the government should not say anything about it because it is a legal union of two individuals. To continue, if two adults, even if they are related, desire to join into a legal union they should not be stopped by any force of government or church. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

With a divorce rate at or beyond 50% and many celebrity marriages lasting a matter of days or weeks, it is difficult to argue that what is currently called marriage compares to the holy union many people think of when they use the word.

I think that if churches do not want to marry gays that is fine. If the Baptist church down the road doesn't agree with the practice that is well within their rights as an institution to decide. If the Episcopal church does agree with the practice then they should be allowed to unite any two people into sacred matrimony as they see fit without any interference. I believe that refers to the freedom of religion discussed in the first amendment of the Constitution.

I think that marriage is a sacred word which implies a religious ceremony and a religious union and should not have any impact on legal discussion in any case. If two people want to get married but don't want to be considered legally united, what's the problem? They want ceremony without benefit.

I think that legal unions imply a secular contract and should have no impact on religious discussion in any case. If two people want to be legally united without getting married, what's the problem? They want benefit without ceremony.

Some people have seen too many divorces in their lives and don't think that marriage is a beneficial union anymore. They might live with someone else, share bank accounts, share children, share mortgages, etc. They should be able to get legally joined for the purposes of tax breaks and hospital visitation rights and so on.

Some people just want to get married without all of the legal mumbo jumbo and want to express their love in a religious venue. They should be able to get married and wear their rings etc.

The government should not use the word marriage and the church should not be involved in creating contracts. Though most people would go to a courthouse and get a legal union and then go to a church and get married (or vice versa) there are plenty of outliers that would not to make such a separation beneficial to everyone.

Rather than force the government and the church to go through a painful divorce and try to figure out who gets which books, they should get an annulment and just go their separate ways.

BRIC Building

In economics, BRIC (typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRICcountries") is an acronym that refers to the fast-growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001.^[1][2] Goldman Sachs argued that, since they are developing rapidly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population.^[3][4]

Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, as the European Union has done.^[5] However, there are strong indications that the "four BRIC countries have been seeking to form a 'political club' or 'alliance'", and thereby converting "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout".^[6][7] On June 16, 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries held their first summit in Yekaterinburg, and issued a declaration calling for the establishment of a multipolar world order.^[8]

The numbers came from Wikipedia. I don't normally like using their stuff but in this case they have some really good sources and it's far better than a summary I would have written. Do check the articles they linked to for some more background reading to this post. I've already written an article about Russian foreign policy and about Chinese fiscal policy, but I have quiet till now about Brazil or about the BRIC as a whole. In light of the recent pick of Rio de Janeiro as the location of the 2016 Olympic Summer games I'd like to change that.

Back in July, there was a G8 summit to discuss the global financial situation, which I suppose is the only thing that the G8 does (the G8 is a group of the leaders of the 8 largest economies in the world) but I didn't want to make that such a short sentence. Brazil, China, and Russia went and said that they wanted to shift the global currency away from the US Dollar. No real alternative was given and discussion on the topic wasn't even really held. The thought of ending the United States' financial dominance, however, was out in the open. According to Forbes shortly after,

A possible BRIC replacement for the dollar has more to do with a political and economic power struggle than with getting a stronger currency as the world reserve. "[The BRICs] 'have to' if they want to be able to exert their desire to be taken more seriously and seen as real economic powerhouses on the world's economic stage," says Stephen Roseman, manager at Thesis Capital.

If you actually look at that link don't give me any guff about the titles being similar, I hadn't read that article since July. China is especially wary of the dollar's current dominance in the markets. They have been trading for a lot of dollars and they are now the US' largest lender. What this means for China's economy is that if the bottom falls out of the dollar and it becomes worthless, so does the yuan. Rather than buying fewer dollars and allowing for less risk China has been buying more dollars and looking for more profit. They are in almost no position to jockey for becoming the next major currency. As TIME put it, "Don't expect to change those greenbacks for redbacks anytime soon."

Barack Obama tried to hit the big reset button with Dmitri Medvedev, the President of Russia, in an attempt to warm the re-cooling feelings between the two nations. Russia invaded a smaller country during last year's Olympics, has quietly supported Iran's nuclear program, and has been knocking heads with the United States over plans for missile defense shields across Europe. Russia left Georgia and has presented evidence that they were provoked. Iran is finding support from many more places than just Russia. We aren't putting our missiles in Europe. It seems that Russia has won three major battles. However not everything in life is what it seems. During Obama's visit in Russia, he and President Medvedev agreed to cut each nations nuclear arsenal by almost a quarter in seven years. Russia is going to allow us to fly planes through Russian airspace en route to Afghanistan, a move that helps both countries. The missile defense shields were really only ploys by George W. Bush to upset Russia in the first place so they were easy to give up.

Russia has even begun to lessen its support for Iran's nuclear program. Part of this may come from Ahmadinajed's widely-thought rigged election and increasingly anti-Semitic tone, and part of it may come from the previously mentioned nuclear agreement with the United States. This is incredibly important for more reasons than the preservation of Israel, which I won't discuss any further here. I personally buy into the Samuel Huntington theory of the Clash of Civilizations to a point. I think that Iran, formerly part of the Soviet Union, has enjoyed support from Russia for a long time and with that has been much more comfortable going against our wishes. Since Russia maintains a permanent seat on the Security Council at the UN, they are able to veto any meaningful action against Iran. However, with Russia starting to question that support, Iran might find that a decision to turn a peaceful energy source into the most powerful weapon in history would be the opposite of desirable. I had mentioned that there are other reasons for Russia to put pressure on Iran than to prevent 'the bomb.' Iran controls a major portion of the world's oil supply. While the popular media in this country would like to make us think so, we are not the only country in the world that requires oil from the Middle East.

Iran recently re-elected President Ahmadinajed in what many called a rigged election. The opposition rioted in the streets and was beaten back, literally, by state forces. I was asked by a very good friend about my opinion on the matter and I am afraid I did not provide a very good perspective on the matter. I would like to fix that now. 30 years ago the United States put the current Supreme Leader into power by supplying him with weapons and money secretly so that they could fight off who? Islamic extremists and Russian influence. Oops. I stated that doing the same with the new uprising would hardly be prudent because of past failure and probable renewed failure. I was correct, but that is hardly helpful to the conversation. What should happen in Iran is Russia should use its considerable influence and limit nuclear desire and help international agencies make sure that the next election is open and fair. Russia has certainly had its own trouble with fair elections but maybe working to make Iran more democratic will help it look in the mirror.

Ok, I've covered China's economics and Russia's diplomatics. Familiar territory for many writers and especially this one. Let's delve into some less familiar space on the atlas.

Another former colony of Britain, India is an up-and-coming player in world economics and politics. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. India is another country that has dealt with terrorist attacks in recent years. Attacks on a hotel in Mumbai came from Pakistan and, according to Forbes, funded and armed by China. India is dealing with the growing pains of industrialization and moving into post-industrialization. The location of many outsourced technical support jobs and the homeland of many foreign students and doctors, India is now starting to outsource its own tech jobs and as the education debate rages on in this country it is also the home of ideas for better teaching. India is also the home of new companies that are making smaller cars and cheaper laptops. As these new technologies come out of the largest democracy on the planet, the middle class will boom and their growing economy will continue to grow and we might soon start asking them for the loans that China can no longer afford to give.

Lastly: Brazil. Home of Rio de Janeiro and the 2016 Summer Olympic games, Brazil is perhaps the country I'm most interested in that I don't hear enough about. A couple years ago they found oil just off of their coast and as soon as that oil hits the market not only will the price go down but the economy of Brazil will explode. A side note: gas prices should go down when it hits the market because we will have an option for oil imports that isn't Iran or Venezuela. It should not be taken at face value that Rio was 'awarded' the Olympics. Rio is a beautiful city with a vast population but that is not the only reason they were picked. Rio is the first city in the southern hemisphere to host the summer games as well as the first city in South America. (NOTE: Thanks to one of our dedicated readers I have learned that part of that statement is false. Australia hosted the summer games in 1856 and 2000. I heard that statistic on television and didn't bother to check the facts and I apologize.) The games have been in America, Japan, and Europe before. I don't think that the choice was a move against Obama but a move for Brazil. Obama should publicly embrace the choice and speak proudly of Brazil as an American brother. This could be a very important friendship in a continent, and a world, where our list of friends is somewhat shorter than it used to be.

Each of these four nations still has a little growing up to do. I have listed them in a very particular order: China, Russia, India, Brazil. I don't think they are quite ready to be the foundation, or BRIC, for the world yet because they are still each in their own CRIB.

China needs to bring its poor into the 21st century and make the middle class vastly more independent economically. Russia needs to stop playing Cold War politics and realize that we are in a new world with new problems and they can't keep blaming us for everything while their people starve. India needs to find its own voice and become the kind of regional and global leader that its economy and population allow. Brazil needs to grow out of its former corrupt shell and also lead South America towards freedom from fear and foreign influence.

Once they have each done that they may become the BRIC that we can stand upon to find our own place in a world where we aren't the only superpower and where we must rely on others for survival.