The Occupy Movement, which began in the United States, has spread throughout the world. Demonstrations large and small have cropped up, with people coming together to protest a variety of issues that they see as problems in our nation and world. This article is going to look at what the Occupy movement has managed to accomplish, and to try and make suggestions that, if followed, might actually help them accomplish their goals.
I. The Occupy Movement Needs Goals.
The Occupy Movement has been fairly leaderless. Each city seems to have a grand assembly, where everything is voted upon in a beautiful example of pure democracy. Unfortunately, what the Occupy Movement has not done is come up with a list of specific goals that they hope to accomplish. The things they are protesting against seem to be almost everything. The lists include corporate greed, the death penalty, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Space Exploration, (or conversely, the lack of space exploration), the climate, the environment, poverty, homelessness, foreclosures, and almost every other social and political problem facing the world today. However, to put it succinctly, "The Lady doth protest too much, me thinks" (Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2) While many if not all of the social and political evils protested by the Occupy Movement are important, by failing to focus on a few at a time, and work for meaningful change, the Occupy Movement limits its effectiveness. Thus, the Occupy Movememt should establish a clear set of goals and agree that they will work towards those goals. They can use their built-in democratic process to determine which goals they will pursue, and in what order, but do this they must or they will continue to be like a gnat: they will get a lot of attention, but have little to no effect on American politics or the practices of corporate America.
The goals must be reasonable goals. This means, that the goals must not call for the demise of large corporations, for socializing America, or any other extreme position that will give their enemies ammunition to be used against them. Reasonable goals, however, which are not extreme, will resonate with the reasonableness inherent in most Americans, and further fortify the movement. This means, for instance, that while eliminating corporate greed is an interesting idea, how does one do this? 'Tis a rhetorical question only. The Occupy Movement will have to determine for itself what goals are reasonable, but I have faith that this can be accomplished given the resources in intelligence available to the movement.
II. Act Upon The Goals PEACEFULLY.
The Occupy Movement, if it establishes clear, reasonable goals, which can be agreed upon by the majority of its members, can have a positive impact upon our nation and the world. This means that the Occupy Movement will have to become a force for political change. Through our political system will be the only methods of changing the vast majority of the problems. The protesters need also to listen to the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom counseled against violence as a means of political protest. To their credit, the protestors have largely been very peaceful, and most of the violence that has happened has been on the part of the police. The police departments of several cities have proven their brutality several times, but that can backfire upon civil authorities if not closely checked.
How can the Occupy Movement act upon its goals? By organizing and getting involved in the political process. In doing so, the Occupy Movement should not take aim at specific companies, for instance, but should instead look at the all companies, or an entire industry. Boycotts, writing campaigns and other forms of social process are also effective when aimed at companies who are in business to make a profit.
Influencing politicians is a different process altogether. However, making sure that protesters who are eligible register to vote, and then vote, is an important first step. While many in the US today are rather cynical about the power of the individual voter, the power of many voters, all of whom are irate over the action of any particular politician, is something that no politician wants to confront. Add the publicity that the Occupy Movement seems to generate, and the Occupy Movement could become a force for political change.
III. Do Not Give Up.
The Occupy Movement started as a group of people who were fed up with the status quo. Change in our system doesn't come overnight. True change, of the type that is wanted by the Occupy Movement, is worth working for, until it comes about. However, it will take long, hard work, by everyone involved, and involve sacrifice and courage to forge a better America and a better world.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Occupy Movement - Christ would approve
“And the young man saith unto him, ‘All these things I have observed, what lacketh I yet?’ Jesus said unto him, ‘If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions. And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. “ Matthew 19: 21-24.
The moral of this story is astonishingly simple, yet it is a subject which is seemingly beyond the grasp of many Republicans. Christ, in this story, was warning us against worship of a false god, money, and with the greed and averice that comes with that worship. The conditions of Christ’s day were in many ways, analogous to today’s. Let’s examine the political, social and economic conditions in Roman Palestine during the time of Christ.
Roman Palestine had no middle class. There were the very poor, (about 99% of the people) and there were the very wealthy (1%). This is similar to what is happening in the United States today. 1% of the United States has a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and the middle class is steadily shrinking. This is the impetus of the Occupy movement.
Recently, the head of the Family Research Council, a far right-wing religious group, stated that Christ would not have approved of the Occupy movement, and he was “pro business”. This is misreading the Gospel, at best, but more likely, it is an attempt to pander to the religious right, who are more like the Pharisees that Christ regularly called out for their hipocracy.
The problems that the Occupy movement has been calling to our attention are not imaginary. They are real problems, that require solution. Its true that the Occupy movement is short on solutions. However, the lesson in the Parable of the Talents, (Luke 19: 11-28), is not that we are to support corporate greed, but that God does not expect us to be indifferent. To see the sins that corporate America, and our politicians inflict upon the people of the US and do nothing is in itself a sin, and Christ would have spoken out against it.
Indeed, in the Gospel according to Matthew, quoted above, He did just that. He pointed out that those who worship wealth, and who are wealthy simply for the sake of money, will find it difficult if not impossible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who oppose the Occupy movement in their non-violent opposition to corporate greed, corruption, and the unholy marriage of corporate America to our politicians are opposing the will of the people for change. Let them look carefully to their souls as they contemplate how much profit they will make this Christmas.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Censorship in High School - Political Correctness Gone Mad
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback apparently has a thin skin. He can't apparently stand the idea that a high school senior in Kansas thinks that "he sucked".
On November 21, 2011, during a field trip to the Kansas State Capitol Building in Topeka, Shawnee Mission East High School student Emma Sullivan, age 18, tweeted to a friend "just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot". This tweet was apparently picked up by Gov. Brownback's staff, who then tracked it (how?) to Ms. Sullivan, and notified her principal. The principal has demanded that she write a note to Gov. Brownback apologizing.
The more immediate question is, what for? For saying she thinks he sucks? It might surprise His Excellency, but not all Kansans think he is the second coming. Governor Brownback's policies have led to a decline in Kansas schools, less opportunity for Kansas youth, all that the expense of making sure that his corporate buddies don't have their taxes raised. His religious ideologies are somewhere out of the 15th century, and he has consistently tried to force his beliefs down the throats of the Kansas people.
Now, apparently his staffers think they need to protect him from what a high school student thinks. Governor Brownback has shown his true colors as a fascist, who is not interested in freedom of speech unless he approves of the speech, and is interested only in what is good for Brownback, not for the people of Kansas.
Emma Sullivan should be given a medal, not punished.
UPDATE: Shortly after noon on Monday, November 28, Governor Brownback's office released a statement indicating that his staff had "over-reacted" to the tweet. Apparently, Fuhrer Brownback has decided to back off given all the negative publicity this incident has given to him and to Kansas. He should also think long and hard about educating his staff on the basics of civil liberties, including the right to disagree publically with a public official, and including the right to say that a public official "sucks".
On November 21, 2011, during a field trip to the Kansas State Capitol Building in Topeka, Shawnee Mission East High School student Emma Sullivan, age 18, tweeted to a friend "just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot". This tweet was apparently picked up by Gov. Brownback's staff, who then tracked it (how?) to Ms. Sullivan, and notified her principal. The principal has demanded that she write a note to Gov. Brownback apologizing.
The more immediate question is, what for? For saying she thinks he sucks? It might surprise His Excellency, but not all Kansans think he is the second coming. Governor Brownback's policies have led to a decline in Kansas schools, less opportunity for Kansas youth, all that the expense of making sure that his corporate buddies don't have their taxes raised. His religious ideologies are somewhere out of the 15th century, and he has consistently tried to force his beliefs down the throats of the Kansas people.
Now, apparently his staffers think they need to protect him from what a high school student thinks. Governor Brownback has shown his true colors as a fascist, who is not interested in freedom of speech unless he approves of the speech, and is interested only in what is good for Brownback, not for the people of Kansas.
Emma Sullivan should be given a medal, not punished.
UPDATE: Shortly after noon on Monday, November 28, Governor Brownback's office released a statement indicating that his staff had "over-reacted" to the tweet. Apparently, Fuhrer Brownback has decided to back off given all the negative publicity this incident has given to him and to Kansas. He should also think long and hard about educating his staff on the basics of civil liberties, including the right to disagree publically with a public official, and including the right to say that a public official "sucks".
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Unintended Consequences
This past week, a Republican led attempt to change the US Constitution with the Balanced Budget Amendment failed when it received only 261 votes, well short of the 290 needed to send the amendment to the Senate. Senate approval of the amendment was virtually a non-starter, and the entire Balanced Budget Amendment was largely a political gesture, intended to attempt to embarrass President Obama and congressional Democrats. However, neither Republicans nor Democrats should be interested in an amendment such as this; Republicans should consider it especially anathema.
A balanced budget amendment would virtually guarantee judicial involvement in the political budget process. In a time when ranting and raving about "Judicial Activism" is the political mantra for Republicans, especially for Republican presidential candidates, the idea that our judiciary should be involved in the budget process seems to be especially galling. Judges, whether elected or appointed, are not intended to be involved in budget processes. Their jobs, as defined in our system, is to resolve legal disputes brought before them by interpreting the laws and applying them to disputes. This does not extend to determining budgets and whether or not they are appropriate.
If this amendment were to pass Congress, and were enacted by the states, anyone who disagreed with a budget, passed by congress, would sue to block the budget, and/or to have a part or parts of the law declared unconstitutional. Judges would, of necessity, have to resolve those problems, and would then have to determine whether the law in question passed the test and/or was creating an unbalanced budget. This puts judges in an untenable position, as they are being called upon to exercise judicial function to approve or disapprove a law, but are instead involving themselves in the political process.
If congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to balance our budget, that is a problem the voters need to resolve: they can do it at the ballot box by refusing to re-elect those congresspersons or senators who are unwilling to put politics aside and to do what is needed to truly resolve the budgetary problems of the United States.
A balanced budget amendment would virtually guarantee judicial involvement in the political budget process. In a time when ranting and raving about "Judicial Activism" is the political mantra for Republicans, especially for Republican presidential candidates, the idea that our judiciary should be involved in the budget process seems to be especially galling. Judges, whether elected or appointed, are not intended to be involved in budget processes. Their jobs, as defined in our system, is to resolve legal disputes brought before them by interpreting the laws and applying them to disputes. This does not extend to determining budgets and whether or not they are appropriate.
If this amendment were to pass Congress, and were enacted by the states, anyone who disagreed with a budget, passed by congress, would sue to block the budget, and/or to have a part or parts of the law declared unconstitutional. Judges would, of necessity, have to resolve those problems, and would then have to determine whether the law in question passed the test and/or was creating an unbalanced budget. This puts judges in an untenable position, as they are being called upon to exercise judicial function to approve or disapprove a law, but are instead involving themselves in the political process.
If congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to balance our budget, that is a problem the voters need to resolve: they can do it at the ballot box by refusing to re-elect those congresspersons or senators who are unwilling to put politics aside and to do what is needed to truly resolve the budgetary problems of the United States.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama Bin Laden - Good Riddance
On Sunday, May 1, 2011, US Navy Seals presented the world with a wonderful May Day present. Traditionally an old holiday celebrating spring and new life, this time they presented the world with the death of the most wanted terrorist on the planet, Osama bin Laden. Although all the facts have not yet been reported, and some probably never will be, its now known that Osama bin Laden lived in luxury in a $1 million compound, just a few miles from a Pakistani military academy. This raises interesting questions, which the Obama administration must make a point to have answered, credibly, in the coming days. How much did the Pakastani government know about Bin Laden? How could it be credibly possible for the Pakistani government NOT to have known about his present, apparently for years, just outside their capital?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't credibly possible. No reasonable person can believe that the Pakistani intelligence service, reputed to be competent, albeit brutal and infested with sympathizers to militant Islamist causes, did not know about Osama bin Laden's presence on their soil. This unfortunately bodes ill for the US-Pakistani relationship, and we call upon President Obama to demand answers to these questions in the days to come. If the US does not get adequate answers to its questions about Pakistani involvement, then it is time that the US reassess our commitment to continue to send billions of dollars to the Pakistani government. While Pakistan may have acquiesced in US forces going into Pakistani airspace to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, Pakistan's assistance in the war on terror at best has been grudging, and at times, outright hostile.
I will admit, this is a bit of a surprise operation, considering that I feel that President Obama has largely abdicated any pretense of leadership ability both in our foreign policy and domestically. Indeed, many of the Democratic party's problems in the 2010 elections were self-inflicted. A party which has no unity, which allows its members to ignore the wishes of party leadership, and to cooperate so openly with the republicans that some can be called republicans in all but name, deserved the trouncing they received at the polls. One of the reasons for this is the absence of party leadership by Mr. Obama.
Let us hope that this incident will show us a renewed leadership ability by Mr. Obama as he demands explanations from Pakistani officials, and the intestinal fortitude to follow it up with tough actions, including the suspension or restriction of US aid to Pakistan, if we do not receive the answers and guarantees that are needed.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Amend our Constitution
Either the People of the United States, acting through their state legislatures, or Congress itself have the power to amend the Constitution of the United States. The process is complex, but not impossible. There are two ways to propose an amendment: two thirds of both houses must concur on the proposed amendment, and then three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment, or, in the alternative, two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states may call for a Constitutional Convention, which will then propose amendments to the Constitution. Three fourths of the states would then be required to enact those amendments into law. For the purposes of this article, we will have to assume that these proposed amendments would have to be made by Constitutional Convention. Its clear that Congress itself would never agree to these amendments to limit their own power and terms.
Amendment:
Section A. (To the provisions for the House of Representatives)
1) Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every 4 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the House of Representatives.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-half of the members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within two years of the passage of this amendment.
Section B. (To the provisions for the Senate of the United States)
1) Members of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every 6 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the Senate of the United States.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-third of the member of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within 2 years of the passage of this amendment.
Section C. (To the Recall of Members of Congress)
1) A member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of that state that at least ten percent of the persons who voted in the past general election have signed a petition to that effect. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held which shall ask the question "Shall _______ be retained as a member of the appropriate house?". If the answer of a simple majority of the voters of the district or state shall be no, then the member of the House of Representatives or of the United States Senate shall be removed from office, and shall not be eligible to again serve as a member of the Congress of the United States.
2) The complete membership of Congress, both House and Senate, may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of the United States that a petition has been presented signed by at least fifteen percent of the persons who voted in the last general election for congress. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held throughout the United States asking "Shall the Congress of the United States be recalled from office?" If the answer of a simple majority of the votes cast is in the affirmative, then all members of Congress, both House and Senate, shall be removed from office, and shall never again be eligible to serve in the United States Congress.
Section D. Compensation and Pension.
1) Congress shall not have the authority to grant to itself or its members any privileges not specifically granted in this Constitution, and specifically, shall not have the authority to grant to themselves a pension for service in the Congress of the United States.
These are somewhat drastic. However, given that neither party is interested in the welfare of the people of the United States any more, isn't it time that we throw them all out, make sure that the people in Washington are people like you and me, and that we are truly a representative democracy rather than a nation governed by business interests?
Amendment:
Section A. (To the provisions for the House of Representatives)
1) Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every 4 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the House of Representatives.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-half of the members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within two years of the passage of this amendment.
Section B. (To the provisions for the Senate of the United States)
1) Members of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every 6 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the Senate of the United States.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-third of the member of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within 2 years of the passage of this amendment.
Section C. (To the Recall of Members of Congress)
1) A member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of that state that at least ten percent of the persons who voted in the past general election have signed a petition to that effect. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held which shall ask the question "Shall _______ be retained as a member of the appropriate house?". If the answer of a simple majority of the voters of the district or state shall be no, then the member of the House of Representatives or of the United States Senate shall be removed from office, and shall not be eligible to again serve as a member of the Congress of the United States.
2) The complete membership of Congress, both House and Senate, may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of the United States that a petition has been presented signed by at least fifteen percent of the persons who voted in the last general election for congress. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held throughout the United States asking "Shall the Congress of the United States be recalled from office?" If the answer of a simple majority of the votes cast is in the affirmative, then all members of Congress, both House and Senate, shall be removed from office, and shall never again be eligible to serve in the United States Congress.
Section D. Compensation and Pension.
1) Congress shall not have the authority to grant to itself or its members any privileges not specifically granted in this Constitution, and specifically, shall not have the authority to grant to themselves a pension for service in the Congress of the United States.
These are somewhat drastic. However, given that neither party is interested in the welfare of the people of the United States any more, isn't it time that we throw them all out, make sure that the people in Washington are people like you and me, and that we are truly a representative democracy rather than a nation governed by business interests?
Monday, February 14, 2011
St. Valentine - Not the Saint of Love?
Whomever St. Valentine was, its fairly certain that St. Valentine was not the Saint of Love. There are at least 14 saints whom are named Valentine. The one whose feast day is February 14 is something of an enigma. It is known that he was buried at the Via Flaminia, north of Rome, but nothing more is really known about him. He is said to have been a martyr, but nothing is known about the circumstances of his martyrdom. Various lists of martyrs include him as a priest in Rome, a Bishop in what is modern Terni, or a faithful martyr in Roman Africa.
In 1493, the Nuremburg Chronicle included a story about a priest of Rome who was martyred during the reign of Claudius II. If this is true, it would put the date of his martyrdom between A.D. 268-270, as Claudius II was not in power for long. According to the Chronicle, he was a Roman priest who was marrying Christians, despite Roman edicts forbidding the practice. After being arrested, he refused to recant, and was eventually beaten, stoned, and beheaded. However, there is no evidence on where the Chronicle obtained its information, and again, this story, while a possible source of the legend of St. Valentine being a patron saint of lovers, has no verification and cannot be seriously considered.
The earliest mention in historical records of February 14 being connected with lovers comes in Chaucer's Parliament of Foules, published in the late 1300's. This is the first mention of romantic traditions being associated with February 14, and/or with the commemoration of the feast of St. Valentine. It has even been argued by some that this feast was coopted as a Christian holiday from the pagan holiday of Lupercalia, a springtime cleaning and purging festival that happened about this time of year. While this is certainly possible, and the early Church was not above such things, (i.e. Christmas conveniently being held about the same time as the Roman Saturnalia), there isn't any direct evidence of this either.
The long and short of it, we don't know how the romantic link to February 14 started, and while we don't know where it started, we celebrate it to this day. Millions of dollars are spent on cards, candy, gifts and other things in the name of "love"., and many seem to believe that St. Valentine is actually behind the holiday as we know it. More likely, Hallmark and the jewelry and chocolate merchants are behind it as we have it now, but it does nothing wrong to be kind to someone you love on the feast of St. Valentine.
In 1493, the Nuremburg Chronicle included a story about a priest of Rome who was martyred during the reign of Claudius II. If this is true, it would put the date of his martyrdom between A.D. 268-270, as Claudius II was not in power for long. According to the Chronicle, he was a Roman priest who was marrying Christians, despite Roman edicts forbidding the practice. After being arrested, he refused to recant, and was eventually beaten, stoned, and beheaded. However, there is no evidence on where the Chronicle obtained its information, and again, this story, while a possible source of the legend of St. Valentine being a patron saint of lovers, has no verification and cannot be seriously considered.
The earliest mention in historical records of February 14 being connected with lovers comes in Chaucer's Parliament of Foules, published in the late 1300's. This is the first mention of romantic traditions being associated with February 14, and/or with the commemoration of the feast of St. Valentine. It has even been argued by some that this feast was coopted as a Christian holiday from the pagan holiday of Lupercalia, a springtime cleaning and purging festival that happened about this time of year. While this is certainly possible, and the early Church was not above such things, (i.e. Christmas conveniently being held about the same time as the Roman Saturnalia), there isn't any direct evidence of this either.
The long and short of it, we don't know how the romantic link to February 14 started, and while we don't know where it started, we celebrate it to this day. Millions of dollars are spent on cards, candy, gifts and other things in the name of "love"., and many seem to believe that St. Valentine is actually behind the holiday as we know it. More likely, Hallmark and the jewelry and chocolate merchants are behind it as we have it now, but it does nothing wrong to be kind to someone you love on the feast of St. Valentine.
Friday, February 11, 2011
End of an Era - The Tyrant is Gone
After 18 days of largely peaceful protest, with his people nearly universal in their demand that he leave, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt resigned on February 11, 2011. Thus ends 30 years of autocratic rule in a nation which has been, during that time, a friend of the United States. The people of Egypt deserve and deserved better.
Alas, this is another case of the United States putting its national interest ahead of the interests of world peace, and indeed, that of ultimately the United States, by aligning itself with a despot who showed little interest in true democratic reform, despite years of interest by the people of Egypt. The United States, more specifically, in the current matter, has been especially spineless. The "leadership" of President Obama has not helped the situation, and indeed, it may come back to haunt us. Mr. Obama apparently would not or could not see the writing on the walls, that as clearly as a hieroglyph, said that Mubarak would be leaving. The question was not if, but when.
Fortunately, Egypt is not Iran. The demonstrators were not led by religious fanatics, but by largely secular individuals who wanted an end to the corruption, economic malaise, and the brutal treatment by Egyptian security forces. Although the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a tangential role in the protests, they are not a majority, and their influence has been heavily discredited by their willingness to engage in negotiations with the Mubarak regime. Other parties will form coalitions, but none of the major parties in Egypt are driven by the same religious fervor which was prevalent in Iran in 1978.
Part of this is the religious difference. The majority of Egyptians are Sunni. The majority of Iranians are Shi'ite. The these two sects of Islam have different views, and more importantly, different leadership structures. The Sunni sect tends to have religious councils and meetings, and lacks a hierarchical system which would be inclined to cause the problems that have happened under Shi'ite revoluations. The Shii'a, on the other hand, have a hierarchical system where their Grand Ayatollah governs and as we can see in Iran, governs with an iron fist. It is unlikely that this will take place in Egypt.
The United States should not waste this opportunity to offer our help to the people of Egypt, as they remake their government in a way which will benefit them all. However, our help should not be to tell them how to do it, but rather, to help them build consensus and learn of the options, so that the people of Egypt decide how they will be governed. For too many years, the United States has imposed its view of democracy on other countries, and we should have learned to regret it. Let's hope that this time, the United States learns and stands in solidarity with the people of Egypt as they embark on the great adventure of rebuilding their grand and glorious nation.
Alas, this is another case of the United States putting its national interest ahead of the interests of world peace, and indeed, that of ultimately the United States, by aligning itself with a despot who showed little interest in true democratic reform, despite years of interest by the people of Egypt. The United States, more specifically, in the current matter, has been especially spineless. The "leadership" of President Obama has not helped the situation, and indeed, it may come back to haunt us. Mr. Obama apparently would not or could not see the writing on the walls, that as clearly as a hieroglyph, said that Mubarak would be leaving. The question was not if, but when.
Fortunately, Egypt is not Iran. The demonstrators were not led by religious fanatics, but by largely secular individuals who wanted an end to the corruption, economic malaise, and the brutal treatment by Egyptian security forces. Although the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a tangential role in the protests, they are not a majority, and their influence has been heavily discredited by their willingness to engage in negotiations with the Mubarak regime. Other parties will form coalitions, but none of the major parties in Egypt are driven by the same religious fervor which was prevalent in Iran in 1978.
Part of this is the religious difference. The majority of Egyptians are Sunni. The majority of Iranians are Shi'ite. The these two sects of Islam have different views, and more importantly, different leadership structures. The Sunni sect tends to have religious councils and meetings, and lacks a hierarchical system which would be inclined to cause the problems that have happened under Shi'ite revoluations. The Shii'a, on the other hand, have a hierarchical system where their Grand Ayatollah governs and as we can see in Iran, governs with an iron fist. It is unlikely that this will take place in Egypt.
The United States should not waste this opportunity to offer our help to the people of Egypt, as they remake their government in a way which will benefit them all. However, our help should not be to tell them how to do it, but rather, to help them build consensus and learn of the options, so that the people of Egypt decide how they will be governed. For too many years, the United States has imposed its view of democracy on other countries, and we should have learned to regret it. Let's hope that this time, the United States learns and stands in solidarity with the people of Egypt as they embark on the great adventure of rebuilding their grand and glorious nation.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Hypocrisy All Around
This post is addressing the hypocrisy of both the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives in American politics when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty. It will not address whether abortion or the death penalty should become public policy, simply the fallacies in both these groups ideology.
Many conservatives, especially the most active, pride themselves on supporting the right to life. Whether they believe life should be protected for religious or legal reasons is irrelevant. Their fundamental belief that all life should be protected is what matters. Now, for the vast majority of conservatives the right to life extends to unborn children. Because of this belief abortion should be illegal so life is ensured, and anyone who does this act is committing murder. However these very same people who believe unborn children have the right to live disregard those values when it comes to the issue of the death penalty.
When conservative activists who support the death penalty were asked the question, “[w]hy do you favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, the top answers included punishment fits the crime, they deserve it, and saves tax payers money. Only four percent picked to serve justice. The fact is the death penalty is murder; something most conservatives do not seem to understand. A life is being taken when the act is not necessary. Convicted murders can and are thrown in prison for the rest of their lives each and every day. They are no longer a threat to society behind bars. If one’s belief is that all life is sacred or should be protected by law it should not only be when it suits their best interests. The fact is a life is a life, whether they are convicted of murder or not. This reason is why extreme conservatives are hypocrites.
Conservatives are not the only ones who have contradictions in their beliefs when it comes to pro-choice and the death penalty. Liberals do as well. Most liberals are pro-choice. This does not mean they are for killing unborn children, simply that they believe it is a personal choice. Their hypocrisy exists because a majority of liberals also believe the death penalty is wrong. One of the most profound answers as to why liberals are against it is the death penalty is murder. The fact is they are right. Whether the death penalty is carried out for retribution, justice, or financial reasons, it still is taking a life needlessly. Following this logic neither people nor the government should take a life. Yet, many liberals support the right for individuals to make such a decision every day when they support pro-choice. The fact is life exists prior to birth in the eye of the law. If a pregnant woman who is three month pregnant is murdered by a robber, that person will be charged not with one murder but two, in most states. Ergo, life exists before birth in the eyes of the law. Roe vs. Wade (citation needed) established that life began before birth, although the actual time when it began is still subject to legal interpretation. Politics is not perfect and every belief and decision is not always correct, moral, or legal, but this article shows the inconsistencies in many people’s beliefs when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty.
Many conservatives, especially the most active, pride themselves on supporting the right to life. Whether they believe life should be protected for religious or legal reasons is irrelevant. Their fundamental belief that all life should be protected is what matters. Now, for the vast majority of conservatives the right to life extends to unborn children. Because of this belief abortion should be illegal so life is ensured, and anyone who does this act is committing murder. However these very same people who believe unborn children have the right to live disregard those values when it comes to the issue of the death penalty.
When conservative activists who support the death penalty were asked the question, “[w]hy do you favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, the top answers included punishment fits the crime, they deserve it, and saves tax payers money. Only four percent picked to serve justice. The fact is the death penalty is murder; something most conservatives do not seem to understand. A life is being taken when the act is not necessary. Convicted murders can and are thrown in prison for the rest of their lives each and every day. They are no longer a threat to society behind bars. If one’s belief is that all life is sacred or should be protected by law it should not only be when it suits their best interests. The fact is a life is a life, whether they are convicted of murder or not. This reason is why extreme conservatives are hypocrites.
Conservatives are not the only ones who have contradictions in their beliefs when it comes to pro-choice and the death penalty. Liberals do as well. Most liberals are pro-choice. This does not mean they are for killing unborn children, simply that they believe it is a personal choice. Their hypocrisy exists because a majority of liberals also believe the death penalty is wrong. One of the most profound answers as to why liberals are against it is the death penalty is murder. The fact is they are right. Whether the death penalty is carried out for retribution, justice, or financial reasons, it still is taking a life needlessly. Following this logic neither people nor the government should take a life. Yet, many liberals support the right for individuals to make such a decision every day when they support pro-choice. The fact is life exists prior to birth in the eye of the law. If a pregnant woman who is three month pregnant is murdered by a robber, that person will be charged not with one murder but two, in most states. Ergo, life exists before birth in the eyes of the law. Roe vs. Wade (citation needed) established that life began before birth, although the actual time when it began is still subject to legal interpretation. Politics is not perfect and every belief and decision is not always correct, moral, or legal, but this article shows the inconsistencies in many people’s beliefs when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Truth about the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
Several different blogs have recently gone into hysterics over HR 3, which was introduced into the US House of Representatives with 173 sponsors. Let's discuss several of its provisions which have been the subject of debate, and compare them with what is actually meant. To see the full text of the bill, (it is actually fairly short), click HERE
I might note that this bill violates one of the Republican and Tea Partiers' first rules, in that there is nothing in the bill indicating where in the constitution that Congress is authorized to pass this legislation . Of course, Congress IS authorized to do this by the powers vested in Article I, Section 8. But, at the beginning of this term of Congress, the Republicans and Tea Partiers made it clear that they were going to require every bill to have a clause which establishes its "constitutional legitimacy", and this bill does not do so. Perhaps that requirement only applies to bills that are sponsored by Democrats?
Sections 301, 302 and 303 of the bill speak about prohibiting the use of federal or public funds, including trust funds, to fund abortions. Simply put, this means that no government subsidized program, including any program such as medicaid or medicare, can fund an abortion. If a woman wishes to have an elective abortion, she must pay for it out of her own pocket. It also states that the woman cannot have a tax benefit for self-funding an abortion.
Section 305 and 306 allow for insurance companies to offer separate plans to women that will cover abortions, and I presume that an insurance company could also offer a separate abortion policy if it so desired. It also states that taxpayer funds are not to be used to buy such insurance. Again, this is in keeping with the desire that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, that she pay for it out of her pocket, and not have the taxpayer pay for it in any way.
Section 309 is the section which seems to bring certain people almost to the point of hysteria. This section has two parts. One part states that Section 301, 302 and 303 shall not apply when there is a case of forcible rape. This has been seized upon by some, perhaps with agendas of their own, to imply that force would be necessary to be proven, and that somehow, the Republicans are "redefining" the crime of rape. That is complete hogwash. Rape, at the common law, had 5 elements to make it a crime. Those were: penetration, force or resistance, non-consent, absence of a marital relationship, and mens rea. Modern statutes have evolved considerably from that. A handful of states allow for a prosecution without proof of force, but this is not the prevailing view in the United States. However, what counts as force has changed considerably, to include intimidation, psychological force, and other non-violent means of forcing the act. A review of state statutes reveals that in all states under this law, no changes will need to be made to the rape classifications in order for a woman to seek an abortion after being raped.
Section 309 also has a provision for incest where the victim is a minor. Incest is a completely separate crime versus rape. In the case of a minor, there may be an underlying rape charge, especially if it is shown that the victim was coerced into sex with someone prohibited by family relationship. An adult, however, is presumed to be able to give consent. If the woman did not give consent, or was coerced into the sexual act, then again, it may be rape, and the statement above about Section 309(a) would apply. An incestuous relationship where the woman is of legal age, and freely consents to the sexual act, should not be treated any differently than any other case of a sexual relationship where the woman finds she is pregnant and then has second thoughts. I realize that abortion up to a certain point is legal in the US, whether I like it or not, and if it is going to remain legal, the government has a right to refuse to pay for it.
In short, HR3 is a bill which seeks to make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions. If a woman chooses this drastic end to a human life, she should pay for it out of her pocket, and the taxpayers should not be complicit in assisting her in doing so.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Dictatorships, Oligarchies, and Theocracies Beware
“The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.” - Machiavelli
Beginning in January, 2011 the Islamic world has witnessed grassroots movements calling for more political and economic freedoms in the states of the Republic of Tunisia, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It first started in Tunisia when protestors, hard hit by the economy, began protesting in the streets. This phenomenon has become known as the Jasmine Revolution. This largely unexpected and sudden movement resulted in the resignation of the authoritarian president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, and a new interim government consisting of oppositionist leaders.
Only days after this shocking event rang through the Islamic world protesters took the street in the Arab Republic of Egypt calling for the resignation of President Mubarak and new political elections to be held. President Mubarak, known as an authoritarian leader in the Middle Eastern world and violator of political freedoms for almost thirty years, attempted to use once again heavy handed measures to stop the protests. His order to send police and military forces to stop the massive protests were futile and only seemed to encourage them even more. On February 1, CNN reported that President Mubarak would not run for reelection in the next scheduled election in September. But such a statement is too little too late for the vast majority of Egyptians. They want him out of power and most likely he will be within a matter of weeks.
The Kingdom of Jordan too is seeing civil unrest. Jordan, a relatively modern Islamic country and important ally to the United States is experiencing massive protests largely due to economic reasons. On February 1, 2011, King Abdullah II of Jordan fired his government after a demand from protesters in the country for more democratic government and accountability. New Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit has been given the task to implement “real political reform in the king’s vision of comprehensive reform, modernization, and development.” Other countries in the region are witnessing talk of civil unrest – Syria, and Yemen.
Let these recent phenomenons in the Middle East be a warning to dictatorships, oligarchies, and theocracies around the world. The famous saying from Machiavelli’s The Prince,” it is far safer to be feared than loved...,” does not necessarily hold true. If these events in the Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan, teach us anything it is that repressive regimes are not immune to revolutions.
Suddam Hussein, the former evil dictator of Iraq, was able to hold onto power due to his practical nature. He knew the importance of keeping enough of Iraqi people happy. That is why Iraq boasted a strong economy and a decent size middle class. Members of important families including those in the middle-class were even allowed to leave the country for vacation.
The technocrat oligarchy that rules the People’s Republic of China have given many economic freedoms to its’ citizens; they understand the importance the economy has on peoples’ opinion about the government in power. China’s pragmatic economic policies for the last 30 years have allowed the communist party to stay in power and kept many Chinese’ minds off political freedoms.
These examples of authoritarian leaders understand the limits of their authoritarian power over their people; something many leaders in the Middle Eastern world seem to forget. Whether a country is a democracy or an authoritarian regime, it ultimately stays in power at the will of the people. The leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Syria continue to repress their citizens at their own peril.
Beginning in January, 2011 the Islamic world has witnessed grassroots movements calling for more political and economic freedoms in the states of the Republic of Tunisia, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It first started in Tunisia when protestors, hard hit by the economy, began protesting in the streets. This phenomenon has become known as the Jasmine Revolution. This largely unexpected and sudden movement resulted in the resignation of the authoritarian president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, and a new interim government consisting of oppositionist leaders.
Only days after this shocking event rang through the Islamic world protesters took the street in the Arab Republic of Egypt calling for the resignation of President Mubarak and new political elections to be held. President Mubarak, known as an authoritarian leader in the Middle Eastern world and violator of political freedoms for almost thirty years, attempted to use once again heavy handed measures to stop the protests. His order to send police and military forces to stop the massive protests were futile and only seemed to encourage them even more. On February 1, CNN reported that President Mubarak would not run for reelection in the next scheduled election in September. But such a statement is too little too late for the vast majority of Egyptians. They want him out of power and most likely he will be within a matter of weeks.
The Kingdom of Jordan too is seeing civil unrest. Jordan, a relatively modern Islamic country and important ally to the United States is experiencing massive protests largely due to economic reasons. On February 1, 2011, King Abdullah II of Jordan fired his government after a demand from protesters in the country for more democratic government and accountability. New Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit has been given the task to implement “real political reform in the king’s vision of comprehensive reform, modernization, and development.” Other countries in the region are witnessing talk of civil unrest – Syria, and Yemen.
Let these recent phenomenons in the Middle East be a warning to dictatorships, oligarchies, and theocracies around the world. The famous saying from Machiavelli’s The Prince,” it is far safer to be feared than loved...,” does not necessarily hold true. If these events in the Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan, teach us anything it is that repressive regimes are not immune to revolutions.
Suddam Hussein, the former evil dictator of Iraq, was able to hold onto power due to his practical nature. He knew the importance of keeping enough of Iraqi people happy. That is why Iraq boasted a strong economy and a decent size middle class. Members of important families including those in the middle-class were even allowed to leave the country for vacation.
The technocrat oligarchy that rules the People’s Republic of China have given many economic freedoms to its’ citizens; they understand the importance the economy has on peoples’ opinion about the government in power. China’s pragmatic economic policies for the last 30 years have allowed the communist party to stay in power and kept many Chinese’ minds off political freedoms.
These examples of authoritarian leaders understand the limits of their authoritarian power over their people; something many leaders in the Middle Eastern world seem to forget. Whether a country is a democracy or an authoritarian regime, it ultimately stays in power at the will of the people. The leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Syria continue to repress their citizens at their own peril.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
The Prestigious Doctorate of Jurisprudence: Horrible Career Prospects & Financial Ruin
Attorneys, Judges, and holders of the Doctorate of Jurisprudence (law degree) have it made. Once you get this degree you are set for life. Sit back and enjoy your $100,000 plus job, bonuses, and your brand new sports car. Wrong. That’s the view many Americans have about the legal community and the one many law schools are trying to convey. The truth is that in reality the legal market is saturated with law degrees and licensed attorneys, and in recent years the market is falling out from under them. It is all about supply and demand.
According to the American Bar Association there are currently 1,180,386 practicing attorneys in the United States. This is a huge number and to make matters worse from 2007-2008 a whooping 141,719 students enrolled in law school. These numbers are fairly constituent year to year meaning 45,000 new law degree holders enter the job market each and every year. (American Bar Association) Just think in three years time the legal profession will witness an additional 10% of the current level of practicing attorneys entering the field. Typically, according to the Department of Labor most occupations only grow 10-15 percent every ten years NOT 10-15 percent every three years.
Not only is the supply and demand of a law degree causing problems but so is the financial burden students much endure in able to obtain such a degree. Tuition even at mediocre law schools can cost anywhere from $38,000 to $45,000 a year. Then figure in cost of living, books, and extra loans while they study for the bar exam, students can easily leave school with debt ranging from $157,000 to $178,000. (Northwestern Law) Now if students think they will be just fine since they are going to land that “Big Law” job right out of law school think again. Unless they are going to a law school ranked in the top 20 and graduate in the top ten percent of their class or plan on graduating in the top three percent of their class from a lower ranked school they are dreaming. The truth is the vast majority of law students do not ever practice big law.
The American Bar Association estimates that with the increasing burden of financial debt on most law school graduates they must find jobs that pay at least $65,000 or more a year just in order to make the minimum payments on their debt. However, finding a job paying this much is no small feat either. Many firms, small, medium, and large sized are cutting back on hiring due to the recession, and many are not even hiring students who interned with them. The reality is many lawyers their first year out of school get paid $45,000-$60,000 a year. That is very hard to pay off those loans when they make that much. Law students might be committing themselves to a life of indentured servitude at least through their twenties and thirties.
That being said hope is not all lost if people know they want to be an attorney. Students don’t have to go to the best law school they can get into in order to be successful and such a decision is not necessarily wise given the current economic situation for the legal market. Several options are available that make legal education more affordable. 1. Go to a law school that has lower tuition, many state schools have relatively low tuition costs. For example, the University of South Dakota, total cost of attendance is only $24,502 for state residents and $34,907 for out of state residents a year. Other state schools that have cheaper costs of attendance include University of North Dakota, University of New Mexico, University of Nebraska, and the University of Kansas.
Another option is instead of attending law schools where they meet the average GPA and LSAT scores attend a lower ranked school where their scores are in the 75th percentile. There are a few benefits of doing this. First of all, many schools give merit-based scholarships to law students in the 75th percentile of the entering class, some of these scholarships are very generous. For example, the Hamline University Law School located in St. Paul Minnesota offers half tuition and full tuition scholarships to well qualified applicants. This allows students to leave law school with little to no debt. Another benefit of choosing this option is since students are attending a school they are more qualified for it might give them the edge over the other students making them more likely to graduate in the top part of their class enhancing career prospects.
The last option that will be mentioned is apply to schools that provide full-rides to public interest students or loan repayment programs. To students who are dedicated to public interest law this is the way to go. Many students who choose this option leave law school with little to no debt allowing them to practice in an area of law they really love and one that will really make a difference. Northeastern School of Law, Boston, Northwestern School of Law: Lewis & Clark, Portland, and American University School of Law, Washington D.C., are some of the best law schools for public interest law.
Warning: Students who want to practice public interest law, or for the government strongly consider these options! Many jobs in these areas of the law pay very little starting out so limiting the amount of debt is key when leaving law school.
According to the American Bar Association there are currently 1,180,386 practicing attorneys in the United States. This is a huge number and to make matters worse from 2007-2008 a whooping 141,719 students enrolled in law school. These numbers are fairly constituent year to year meaning 45,000 new law degree holders enter the job market each and every year. (American Bar Association) Just think in three years time the legal profession will witness an additional 10% of the current level of practicing attorneys entering the field. Typically, according to the Department of Labor most occupations only grow 10-15 percent every ten years NOT 10-15 percent every three years.
Not only is the supply and demand of a law degree causing problems but so is the financial burden students much endure in able to obtain such a degree. Tuition even at mediocre law schools can cost anywhere from $38,000 to $45,000 a year. Then figure in cost of living, books, and extra loans while they study for the bar exam, students can easily leave school with debt ranging from $157,000 to $178,000. (Northwestern Law) Now if students think they will be just fine since they are going to land that “Big Law” job right out of law school think again. Unless they are going to a law school ranked in the top 20 and graduate in the top ten percent of their class or plan on graduating in the top three percent of their class from a lower ranked school they are dreaming. The truth is the vast majority of law students do not ever practice big law.
The American Bar Association estimates that with the increasing burden of financial debt on most law school graduates they must find jobs that pay at least $65,000 or more a year just in order to make the minimum payments on their debt. However, finding a job paying this much is no small feat either. Many firms, small, medium, and large sized are cutting back on hiring due to the recession, and many are not even hiring students who interned with them. The reality is many lawyers their first year out of school get paid $45,000-$60,000 a year. That is very hard to pay off those loans when they make that much. Law students might be committing themselves to a life of indentured servitude at least through their twenties and thirties.
That being said hope is not all lost if people know they want to be an attorney. Students don’t have to go to the best law school they can get into in order to be successful and such a decision is not necessarily wise given the current economic situation for the legal market. Several options are available that make legal education more affordable. 1. Go to a law school that has lower tuition, many state schools have relatively low tuition costs. For example, the University of South Dakota, total cost of attendance is only $24,502 for state residents and $34,907 for out of state residents a year. Other state schools that have cheaper costs of attendance include University of North Dakota, University of New Mexico, University of Nebraska, and the University of Kansas.
Another option is instead of attending law schools where they meet the average GPA and LSAT scores attend a lower ranked school where their scores are in the 75th percentile. There are a few benefits of doing this. First of all, many schools give merit-based scholarships to law students in the 75th percentile of the entering class, some of these scholarships are very generous. For example, the Hamline University Law School located in St. Paul Minnesota offers half tuition and full tuition scholarships to well qualified applicants. This allows students to leave law school with little to no debt. Another benefit of choosing this option is since students are attending a school they are more qualified for it might give them the edge over the other students making them more likely to graduate in the top part of their class enhancing career prospects.
The last option that will be mentioned is apply to schools that provide full-rides to public interest students or loan repayment programs. To students who are dedicated to public interest law this is the way to go. Many students who choose this option leave law school with little to no debt allowing them to practice in an area of law they really love and one that will really make a difference. Northeastern School of Law, Boston, Northwestern School of Law: Lewis & Clark, Portland, and American University School of Law, Washington D.C., are some of the best law schools for public interest law.
Warning: Students who want to practice public interest law, or for the government strongly consider these options! Many jobs in these areas of the law pay very little starting out so limiting the amount of debt is key when leaving law school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)