The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut left twenty children, six adults, and the shooter himself dead. Adam Lanza, the young shooter, left a grieving nation, a shattered town, and a weeping President in his wake.
This incident was the latest massacre in the past couple years in which terrible incidents such as this occurred with seeming greater frequency than in years past. Immediately, people across the nation cried out for answers and action. Such reactions have become the norm as current events are sent instantly to our phones, computers, and televisions literally the minute they occur. Some of the loudest and most prominent voices in this most recent outcry have been calling for greater restrictions on private ownership of firearms in America. Such calls for more gun control are commonplace after such horrific incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, but this most recent example seems to be prompting President Obama, Congress, and state governors to take action.
For proponents of gun control, the most common argument that they use (which to them is unquestionable) is that fewer guns and the elimination of more powerful and “dangerous” guns means that we’ll be safer as a society. At first glance, this argument seems to hold water. After all, private gun ownership and violent gun-related crime in America are the highest among first-world Western nations. Therefore, gun control advocates call for the United States to mirror their European and Australian cousins: fewer guns, no “assault weapons”, and more regulation of the people who do legally own the guns that people will be allowed to own.
However, the most common arguments in favor of gun control do not hold up against closer inspection and reasoning. They do not satisfactorily demonstrate that fewer guns in the hands of private American citizens will make us safer. Here are some of the most common arguments in favor of gun control:
1) “Fewer guns would mean fewer gun deaths.”
This argument contains a true fact, but is inappropriately applied to the gun control conversation. In the West, countries with heavily-restricted private gun ownership do generally have lower deaths from firearms proportionally according to their populations. However, has the prohibition of private gun ownership in those Western nations truly made their populations safer?
2) “Fewer guns in society would make us safer.”
In the United Kingdom, which has been called the gold standard of gun regulation by gun control advocates, private firearm ownership was heavily restricted in 1997 after the Dunblane massacre (which is reminiscent of the Sandy Hook shooting). The rate of firearms-related deaths did seem to fall after the ban. Despite this seemingly-promising statistic, in the years following the 1997 legislation, the UK Home Office reported that crimes involving firearms increased every year. By 2005 and 2006, 6,000 more gun-related crimes were recorded than in 1998. The UK murder rate in 2002 was the highest in a century. Another study as reported by The Telegraph demonstrated that, in 2001, Great Britain “had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime.”
Home burglaries in the United Kingdom was another crime statistic that rose dramatically after the 1997 gun control legislation, which makes sense, since criminals no longer had to worry about homeowners being armed when they broke into their houses to steal from, rape, or harm the inhabitants.
In Mexico, private gun ownership is all but completely prohibited, and even carrying a knife on your person can land you in jail for years for possession of a deadly weapon. Despite this, in 2010, 24,374 people were killed by firearms. Some people may claim that these high numbers are due to the ongoing war between drug cartels and the Mexican government, but there are numerous reports of dozens of unarmed civilians at a time being killed execution-style. This is because the law-abiding Mexican citizens no longer have any means of defending themselves and their loved ones from those who wish to do them harm.
All these examples demonstrate that while strict gun control may lower the number of firearms-related deaths in developed countries, it does NOT guarantee people’s safety. And in the examples of Mexico and the United Kingdom, such gun control actually makes it easier for criminals to commit violent crimes against the unarmed citizenry.
3) “People being able to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines causes more deaths and mass murders.”
This is an argument made by gun control advocates who most likely do not know anything about firearms, and who have probably never even held a real gun before, much less used one.
Anyone who has fired a fully-automatic gun knows how notoriously difficult such weapons are to control and shoot accurately. A person with little to no skill in shooting can empty an entire 30-round magazine at a crowd and maybe kill only a few people. On the other hand, a person who is skilled with firearms can have a revolver or a bolt-action rifle, and with no one else around him armed and ready to challenge him, can kill just as many (and most likely more) people than the novice with the full-auto “assault weapon”.
Firearms are just tools. Tools require skill to use effectively. Banning certain types of firearms that look scary to people with no clue about how guns work may sound appealing to those people, but there is absolutely no evidence that banning “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons”, and high-capacity magazines will prevent future massacres like the Sandy Hook and Aurora theater shootings.
None. Zip. Zero.
On the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre, a man in China ran into a school and slashed over twenty schoolchildren with a knife. I heard an argument from a gun control advocate that such an incident isn’t comparable to the Sandy Hook massacre because no one died in that incident, whereas 28 people died at Sandy Hook Elementary “because guns were used”.
Does this mean that gun control advocates would be less outraged over the Sandy Hook massacre if none of the students had died from their gunshot wounds? Would they be more outraged at the incident in China and calling for the banning of knives if the Chinese schoolchildren had died?
They most likely would not, but such logical fallacies and porous arguments highlight the emotional, non-fact-based nature of gun control advocates’ arguments.
4) “No one needs an assault weapon because no one in America will overthrow the government or stop a dictator.”
The spirit of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution was most likely written to ensure the right of the citizenry to protect their lives and liberty against a tyrannical government, as was the case of the colonists revolting against the British Crown and their Redcoat soldiers.
While it may be technically correct that we as Americans are not fighting to overthrow the totalitarian rule of an autocratic dictator thousands of miles away, this is a bad argument. If the federal government were to ban private ownership of so-called “military-style weapons”, do gun control advocates really believe that a) there will NEVER be a case in which Americans have to defend themselves and their families against a tyrannical government, and b) that, if so, Congress and the President will suddenly give Americans their Second Amendment rights back so that they CAN fight them?
Of course not. The Redcoats banned private ownership of guns by the colonists so that they could oppress them at will, without redress. Almost every single example of violent dictatorship in modern history has first outlawed private ownership of firearms, because it’s a lot easier to oppress a people if they’re unarmed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Most major studies on the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence do make it seem like more guns automatically equals more gun violence. But NO study has ever found a causal link between the two. Not only is it difficult to control for such a study, but there are gun statistics that gun control advocates like to ignore which tell the real story.
It is somewhat difficult to determine exactly how many people in the United States legally own firearms, and statistics vary by the source, but most data provided by the US government estimate that somewhere between 70 and 150 million people in the US own firearms that were legally purchased.
Let’s take the conservative end of that number (100 million). Compare it to the number of gun-related homicides in 2007 (12,632), and assume for the sake of argument that each homicide was committed by a different gun owner who only killed one person. That still comes out to 0.00013% of gun owners committing violent crime. The crime statistics will actually show that the number of people killed in each violent incident varies, and that some of the offenders killed multiple people multiple times. This means that the actual percentage of people who legally own firearms and who commit violent crimes with those guns would be even less.
Massacres such as the Sandy Hook incident are considered by the FBI to be spree killings, which is defined by the FBI as "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders". However, the National Post writes in a July 2012 article that such spree killings account for less than 1% of all gun-related deaths in the US and only 12% of all shooting incidents in the US from 1900 to 2009.
This means that gun control advocates are using mere statistical anomalies to make an emotional, illogical argument to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and make it harder for the other 99.9% of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves however those citizens see fit.
For me, the Second Amendment is non-negotiable. All the other rights that so many people have fought and died for the great history of this country become moot if law-abiding citizens can no longer defend their lives, the lives of their loved ones, and their liberty.
Arguments in favor of gun control are emotional arguments that cherry-pick facts and statistics in order to support the government taking away all the scary-looking guns so that they and their children will be safe. But the actual data and the logical analysis thereof demonstrates that the only thing that further gun control (specifically the prohibition of certain types of firearms) will accomplish is the disarming of law-abiding citizens and the endangerment of the innocent.
Conservatives and libertarians must use the arguments I have laid out here to calmly and logically counter the emotional, tear-filled arguments of liberal gun control advocates. Our most important constitutional right hangs in the balance. And no matter how many crocodile tears President Barack Obama sheds and how many times legislators like Senators Dianne Feinstein and Ben Cardin pound their limp-wristed fists while calling for more control over your lives, those of us in (and on) the right must be there to stop them.
After all, evil thrives when good men and women stand idly by.
December 19, 2012
December 21, 2011
Ron Paul and the Role of the Republican Party
Ron Paul is probably not going to win the nomination for the Republican Party for president in 2012.
As a disclaimer, I’m an ardent Ron Paul supporter, and have been since 2006. I believe he is the best choice for our party and our country among the other choices in the field right now. So writing the above line was hard. But as much as I hate to say it, it’s probably true.
Even though Paul’s support has been climbing steadily in Iowa and New Hampshire in the past couple weeks, there is little evidence to show that the climb is being mirrored among all sects of the GOP. “Values voters” and “national security conservatives”, both of whom are perfectly comfortable with big government so long as a Republican on “their” side is in charge, will not give Paul their vote because of Paul’s libertarian leanings. If Ron Paul is not going to define marriage at the federal level or fight preemptive, aggressive wars against multiple nations around the world, then the above groups of Republicans will not support him.
Ron Paul’s supporters, on the other hand, lambast the other candidates for their flip-flopping on the issues (Gingrich, Romney), their questionable conservative bona fides (Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman), and/or their comprehension of the core facts of the issues (Cain, Bachmann).
This GOP infighting threatens to divide the vote and give Obama a second term if one of the non-nominees chooses to run as an Independent. Therefore, Ron Paul’s critics are quick to claim that Paul’s mere presence in the race threatens to give Obama four more years in office.
OK, maybe. But then what purpose does the Republican Party serve? Do Republicans stand for anything on principle anymore? Does it matter? Do Republicans exist only to oust Democrats from office? Is American politics really that much like a football game?
With these questions in mind, there are some worrisome contradictions coming from Paul’s detractors that need to be illuminated.
The main goal of this group of Republicans is to get Obama out of the White House. A secondary goal is to undo Obama’s main legislative victories, namely Obamacare. A large majority of American voters say that the most important issues in 2012 will be the economy and job growth.
Seeing as how Romney seems to be the national frontrunner still, this means that Republicans are supporting Romney because they believe that he’s the best chance the GOP has to retire Obama from his current post. When these people are questioned about Romney’s flip-flopping, they can look past it, saying basically that “he may not be perfect, but he’s a million times better than Obama.”
Well, fine; that may be true. But what would happen if Romney did get the nomination and beat Obama in the general election? Do these Republicans believe that a President Romney will actually govern completely differently than President Obama?
The evidence suggests that no, he probably would not. The evidence instead suggests that a Romney presidency would be extremely similar to George W. Bush’s. Seeing as how the past several presidencies have been back-and-forth between the Democrats and the Republicans, this would most likely mean that we’d have at least four years of the status quo in Washington, with the Democratic political machine rallying their rapidly-growing voter base to oust the Republican from the White House. And since a Romney presidency would not significantly alter the economic or social situation in the US, those Democratic efforts will work when people’s lives do not improve for the better.
Romney would not radically change tax policy. He will perpetuate aggressive wars abroad. He won’t touch the Federal Reserve or the power that institution has over our currency and American’s purchasing power. The border probably won’t be secured, and the 12+ million illegal invaders currently residing here will probably be given a “path to citizenship” (amnesty). Health care and education costs will continue to soar. When Romney makes good on his promise to stop Iran from (maybe) obtaining a nuclear weapon, America will enter one of the most destructive and horrifying wars the world has seen since World War Two, and Americans will be less safe at home.
But Republicans will still be celebrating the ouster of Obama. And to what end? So Republicans can put the bumper sticker that says “Don’t blame me! I voted for [the other guy]!” on their car?
Republicans have a lot of soul-searching to do. If they’re being honest that their main issue in 2012 is the economy and job growth, then Ron Paul is the clear choice, since his voting record on those issues has been stellar, especially considering the fact that Gingrich, Romney, and Rick Perry all supported TARP and the subsequent bailouts of the private industry by the Federal Reserve. And yet, many Republicans refuse to even consider Ron Paul as an option because Paul will not do “anything possible” to prevent Iran from (maybe) getting a nuclear weapon, which is a stance that automatically implies that they’ll go to war with Iran to stop this.
Translation: “I’ll support a candidate who is weaker on my most important issue because I support his stance on a lesser issue.”
So, Republicans, please ask yourselves this as 2012 approaches: Is the economy still the most important issue? If so, are you willing to sacrifice your most important issue for a lesser one? And if so, why? How do you explain this huge contradiction?
If the economy is the most important issue for Republicans, then Ron Paul is the clear choice, as many anti-Paul people will still admit that they agree with Paul on his economic stances. If you support any of the other candidates, not only are they weaker on the economic issues, but their penchant for perpetual war will dig us trillions of dollars deeper in the debt hole in which America currently finds herself.
It. Doesn’t. Make. Sense.
If the Republican Party’s only purpose is to keep Democrats out of public office, then there does not appear to be much hope for America. This is no exaggeration. The Democrats have shown that they have lofty Utopian left-wing principles that they can and will fulfill through the Legislature. If the Republican Party abandons all principles of limited government in favor of just beating Democrats, then the Party is soulless and baseless. We may see the rise of a third party as a serious contender in American politics, or we may see the complete domination by Democrats in public office.
So, Republicans: either put your money where your mouth is and vote for Ron Paul, the man most capable and willing to bring our country back on track economically, or stubbornly sacrifice your fiscal principles in favor of someone who may or may not respect the Constitution and who will almost certainly keep America in a perpetual state of war that will further drain our nation’s coffers and kill off more of my generation in needless police actions around the world.
The time for business-as-usual is over.
As a disclaimer, I’m an ardent Ron Paul supporter, and have been since 2006. I believe he is the best choice for our party and our country among the other choices in the field right now. So writing the above line was hard. But as much as I hate to say it, it’s probably true.
Even though Paul’s support has been climbing steadily in Iowa and New Hampshire in the past couple weeks, there is little evidence to show that the climb is being mirrored among all sects of the GOP. “Values voters” and “national security conservatives”, both of whom are perfectly comfortable with big government so long as a Republican on “their” side is in charge, will not give Paul their vote because of Paul’s libertarian leanings. If Ron Paul is not going to define marriage at the federal level or fight preemptive, aggressive wars against multiple nations around the world, then the above groups of Republicans will not support him.
Ron Paul’s supporters, on the other hand, lambast the other candidates for their flip-flopping on the issues (Gingrich, Romney), their questionable conservative bona fides (Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman), and/or their comprehension of the core facts of the issues (Cain, Bachmann).
This GOP infighting threatens to divide the vote and give Obama a second term if one of the non-nominees chooses to run as an Independent. Therefore, Ron Paul’s critics are quick to claim that Paul’s mere presence in the race threatens to give Obama four more years in office.
OK, maybe. But then what purpose does the Republican Party serve? Do Republicans stand for anything on principle anymore? Does it matter? Do Republicans exist only to oust Democrats from office? Is American politics really that much like a football game?
With these questions in mind, there are some worrisome contradictions coming from Paul’s detractors that need to be illuminated.
The main goal of this group of Republicans is to get Obama out of the White House. A secondary goal is to undo Obama’s main legislative victories, namely Obamacare. A large majority of American voters say that the most important issues in 2012 will be the economy and job growth.
Seeing as how Romney seems to be the national frontrunner still, this means that Republicans are supporting Romney because they believe that he’s the best chance the GOP has to retire Obama from his current post. When these people are questioned about Romney’s flip-flopping, they can look past it, saying basically that “he may not be perfect, but he’s a million times better than Obama.”
Well, fine; that may be true. But what would happen if Romney did get the nomination and beat Obama in the general election? Do these Republicans believe that a President Romney will actually govern completely differently than President Obama?
The evidence suggests that no, he probably would not. The evidence instead suggests that a Romney presidency would be extremely similar to George W. Bush’s. Seeing as how the past several presidencies have been back-and-forth between the Democrats and the Republicans, this would most likely mean that we’d have at least four years of the status quo in Washington, with the Democratic political machine rallying their rapidly-growing voter base to oust the Republican from the White House. And since a Romney presidency would not significantly alter the economic or social situation in the US, those Democratic efforts will work when people’s lives do not improve for the better.
Romney would not radically change tax policy. He will perpetuate aggressive wars abroad. He won’t touch the Federal Reserve or the power that institution has over our currency and American’s purchasing power. The border probably won’t be secured, and the 12+ million illegal invaders currently residing here will probably be given a “path to citizenship” (amnesty). Health care and education costs will continue to soar. When Romney makes good on his promise to stop Iran from (maybe) obtaining a nuclear weapon, America will enter one of the most destructive and horrifying wars the world has seen since World War Two, and Americans will be less safe at home.
But Republicans will still be celebrating the ouster of Obama. And to what end? So Republicans can put the bumper sticker that says “Don’t blame me! I voted for [the other guy]!” on their car?
Republicans have a lot of soul-searching to do. If they’re being honest that their main issue in 2012 is the economy and job growth, then Ron Paul is the clear choice, since his voting record on those issues has been stellar, especially considering the fact that Gingrich, Romney, and Rick Perry all supported TARP and the subsequent bailouts of the private industry by the Federal Reserve. And yet, many Republicans refuse to even consider Ron Paul as an option because Paul will not do “anything possible” to prevent Iran from (maybe) getting a nuclear weapon, which is a stance that automatically implies that they’ll go to war with Iran to stop this.
Translation: “I’ll support a candidate who is weaker on my most important issue because I support his stance on a lesser issue.”
So, Republicans, please ask yourselves this as 2012 approaches: Is the economy still the most important issue? If so, are you willing to sacrifice your most important issue for a lesser one? And if so, why? How do you explain this huge contradiction?
If the economy is the most important issue for Republicans, then Ron Paul is the clear choice, as many anti-Paul people will still admit that they agree with Paul on his economic stances. If you support any of the other candidates, not only are they weaker on the economic issues, but their penchant for perpetual war will dig us trillions of dollars deeper in the debt hole in which America currently finds herself.
It. Doesn’t. Make. Sense.
If the Republican Party’s only purpose is to keep Democrats out of public office, then there does not appear to be much hope for America. This is no exaggeration. The Democrats have shown that they have lofty Utopian left-wing principles that they can and will fulfill through the Legislature. If the Republican Party abandons all principles of limited government in favor of just beating Democrats, then the Party is soulless and baseless. We may see the rise of a third party as a serious contender in American politics, or we may see the complete domination by Democrats in public office.
So, Republicans: either put your money where your mouth is and vote for Ron Paul, the man most capable and willing to bring our country back on track economically, or stubbornly sacrifice your fiscal principles in favor of someone who may or may not respect the Constitution and who will almost certainly keep America in a perpetual state of war that will further drain our nation’s coffers and kill off more of my generation in needless police actions around the world.
The time for business-as-usual is over.
January 10, 2011
The Arizona Blame Games
I figure I’d throw my hat into the Tucson attack discussion ring while the conversation is fresh.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, truthers and non-truthers, and all other political enemies are pointing fingers at one another, attempting to assign blame for the six dead people and the many injured (including Congresswoman Giffords) to entire political parties and movements. While no one should be surprised at this, I still find myself woefully amused by America’s response to the tragedy in Arizona.
I’ve been reading blogs, op/ed pieces, and news articles since the shootings happened. “Damn,” I remember thinking to myself, “If I took what everyone has been saying and writing to be true at face value, then my only conclusion would be that EVERYone is to blame!”
At first, my thoughts were just facetious. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that I was actually spot-on.
It seems that heated rhetoric on both sides of the political aisle can be potentially read so as to imply violence. Tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists are just as aggressive with their political messages as the Kool-Aid-drinking sheeple are with their blind complacency. Loony, gun-obsessed conservatives are just as guilty as the radical revolutionary anti-American Leftists. Search long enough, and you’ll find enough evidence to blame everybody.
It’s becoming clearer as we learn more about Jared Loughner that his actual political inclinations were much more complex (or insane) than simple left-right politics. The guy listed both Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto as favorite books, so he’s a…Nazi Communist? A fascist leftist? A liberal conservative? What next? He professed deep mistrusts of both elected politicians and mainstream media. He divided his political philosophy between nihilism and conspiracy theories in addition to both extreme leftist and extreme rightist politics. Can any one political party or movement then claim ownership of or blame for the murders in Tucson?
Watching Loughner’s YouTube videos and reading some of his posts, one could tell that his thought processes were too abnormal and fringe to be blamed on just Sarah Palin and conservatives or just Barack Obama and the Democrats. However, as much distaste as we claim to have for partisan politics, we Americans still love to play blame games.
Loughner’s actions are indicative of a much more sinister reality, though: things are not honkey-dorey in America anymore. People are becoming more and more fed up with the state of affairs of the nation, and the aggressive political atmosphere is the fault of all those involved in the political process. People on both the left and the right can agree on one thing: the status quo in the United States is not working.
We will probably see politics becoming less and less civil as Americans start drawing lines in the sand. Most people are taking this time to plead for civil discourse (when they’re not blaming their political opponents), but as for me, don’t expect moderation anytime soon. The things for which I fight don’t come cheap. And remember, sometimes people are just crazy.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, truthers and non-truthers, and all other political enemies are pointing fingers at one another, attempting to assign blame for the six dead people and the many injured (including Congresswoman Giffords) to entire political parties and movements. While no one should be surprised at this, I still find myself woefully amused by America’s response to the tragedy in Arizona.
I’ve been reading blogs, op/ed pieces, and news articles since the shootings happened. “Damn,” I remember thinking to myself, “If I took what everyone has been saying and writing to be true at face value, then my only conclusion would be that EVERYone is to blame!”
At first, my thoughts were just facetious. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that I was actually spot-on.
It seems that heated rhetoric on both sides of the political aisle can be potentially read so as to imply violence. Tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists are just as aggressive with their political messages as the Kool-Aid-drinking sheeple are with their blind complacency. Loony, gun-obsessed conservatives are just as guilty as the radical revolutionary anti-American Leftists. Search long enough, and you’ll find enough evidence to blame everybody.
It’s becoming clearer as we learn more about Jared Loughner that his actual political inclinations were much more complex (or insane) than simple left-right politics. The guy listed both Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto as favorite books, so he’s a…Nazi Communist? A fascist leftist? A liberal conservative? What next? He professed deep mistrusts of both elected politicians and mainstream media. He divided his political philosophy between nihilism and conspiracy theories in addition to both extreme leftist and extreme rightist politics. Can any one political party or movement then claim ownership of or blame for the murders in Tucson?
Watching Loughner’s YouTube videos and reading some of his posts, one could tell that his thought processes were too abnormal and fringe to be blamed on just Sarah Palin and conservatives or just Barack Obama and the Democrats. However, as much distaste as we claim to have for partisan politics, we Americans still love to play blame games.
Loughner’s actions are indicative of a much more sinister reality, though: things are not honkey-dorey in America anymore. People are becoming more and more fed up with the state of affairs of the nation, and the aggressive political atmosphere is the fault of all those involved in the political process. People on both the left and the right can agree on one thing: the status quo in the United States is not working.
We will probably see politics becoming less and less civil as Americans start drawing lines in the sand. Most people are taking this time to plead for civil discourse (when they’re not blaming their political opponents), but as for me, don’t expect moderation anytime soon. The things for which I fight don’t come cheap. And remember, sometimes people are just crazy.
December 21, 2010
The TSA Won't Save You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfqc04&feature=share
The above video is intended to be comical, of course, but I’m sure it’s not too far away from reality.
The incompetent Underwear Bomber of Christmas 2009 prompted the Transportation Security Administration to upgrade its security measures at airports. We now have two new hurdles to jump over when trying to travel by airplane: the full body X-ray scan, and the “enhanced pat-down”:
This issue has been coming up repeatedly in the news since the new security measures were implemented in November, so I won’t belabor my readers with the details of each measure. The point is that TSA staff are either ogling your genitalia or are touching them with rubber-gloved hands, all in the name of keeping us safe.
Oh, really? (O RLY?)
The aim of the new measures is to prevent another Underwear Bomber-type incident, which was not caught by the old security measures of metal detection. However, so far, the new measures seem to do two things: 1) they embarrass travelers, especially those travelers with medical conditions or past histories of abuse that are revealed to the public upon being scanned and/or “patted down”, and 2) they aren’t keeping us safe.
Various reports and articles on the new TSA security measures have shown glaring failures, with some airports failing to detect dangerous items a shocking 70% of the time. Just recently, a businessman named Farid Seif managed to board a plane in Houston, Texas with a .40 caliber handgun “accidentally” stowed in his carry-on bag. This is no small, Derringer-type weapon; it can put a good-sized hole in a person fairly accurately. You’d think the TSA would detect that. Another passenger got on a different plane with a six-inch hunting knife. Whether these weapons were accidentally or purposefully carried on the planes is a moot point, because the fact is that the über-invasive new security procedures did not work.
Let’s say that the new measures did work, though. Let’s say that the success rate was nearly 100%, or even 100% exactly. Is it worth it?
Many people would say “yes”, because it could indeed prevent a person from detonating a bomb contained on their person. Such an incident would kill hundreds of people, bring our air travel to a grinding halt, and have a very significant economic impact, along with frightening the public into not traveling at all, compounding these effects. However, the new measures probably couldn’t detect a bomb planted IN a person, either surgically, anally, orally, or otherwise. Think that’s far-fetched or ludicrous? Terrorists don’t think so.
Beyond that, terrorism can take place in more locations than 30,000 feet above the ground. Will the TSA measures protect against a Mumbai-style attack in which gunmen go into a densely-populated location with military-grade assault rifles and hand grenades, and kill people until they themselves are killed and captured? Such an attack could easily kill as many (or more!) people than a plane blowing up in mid-air, and yet there is almost no protection against an attack that the government can offer short of martial law.
So as the government expands its power and infringes upon your rights further and further in the name of protecting you and making you feel (key word: FEEL) safer, think about their track record. Think like a terrorist, even. If you couldn’t hit the air travel industry, are there other targets of opportunity? Of course there are.
The best way to protect you and your family from terrorism? Self-defense. Of course, on an airplane, everyone can’t be armed. A stray bullet could breach the wall of the plane and cause massive depressurization of the cabin, even bringing down the plane in its entirety. But pepper spray? Knives? Stun guns? These could be easily used by everyday passengers to subdue someone trying to blow up their shoes or their crotch, or someone trying to commandeer the plane, without endangering the entire flight. However, just like in schools, colleges, and other public places, laws preventing basic self-defense will not keep unlawful people from trying to hurt you. In addition, taking away nail files, nail clippers, and pens from lawful passengers (including old ladies and small children) is even more asinine. On top of that, tack on a healthy dose of humiliation and trauma for passengers subjected to the new full body scans and “enhanced pat-downs”, and we officially have stupid government by our elected leaders who feel the need to act on every poor nitwit’s cry for help and protection by Big Brother.
The TSA won’t save you from terrorism, no matter how invasive their procedures get. And by yielding to these new security procedures at the airport, we are surrendering our Fourth Amendment right to protection against unwarranted search and seizure without reasonable cause.
The above video is intended to be comical, of course, but I’m sure it’s not too far away from reality.
The incompetent Underwear Bomber of Christmas 2009 prompted the Transportation Security Administration to upgrade its security measures at airports. We now have two new hurdles to jump over when trying to travel by airplane: the full body X-ray scan, and the “enhanced pat-down”:
This issue has been coming up repeatedly in the news since the new security measures were implemented in November, so I won’t belabor my readers with the details of each measure. The point is that TSA staff are either ogling your genitalia or are touching them with rubber-gloved hands, all in the name of keeping us safe.
Oh, really? (O RLY?)
The aim of the new measures is to prevent another Underwear Bomber-type incident, which was not caught by the old security measures of metal detection. However, so far, the new measures seem to do two things: 1) they embarrass travelers, especially those travelers with medical conditions or past histories of abuse that are revealed to the public upon being scanned and/or “patted down”, and 2) they aren’t keeping us safe.
Various reports and articles on the new TSA security measures have shown glaring failures, with some airports failing to detect dangerous items a shocking 70% of the time. Just recently, a businessman named Farid Seif managed to board a plane in Houston, Texas with a .40 caliber handgun “accidentally” stowed in his carry-on bag. This is no small, Derringer-type weapon; it can put a good-sized hole in a person fairly accurately. You’d think the TSA would detect that. Another passenger got on a different plane with a six-inch hunting knife. Whether these weapons were accidentally or purposefully carried on the planes is a moot point, because the fact is that the über-invasive new security procedures did not work.
Let’s say that the new measures did work, though. Let’s say that the success rate was nearly 100%, or even 100% exactly. Is it worth it?
Many people would say “yes”, because it could indeed prevent a person from detonating a bomb contained on their person. Such an incident would kill hundreds of people, bring our air travel to a grinding halt, and have a very significant economic impact, along with frightening the public into not traveling at all, compounding these effects. However, the new measures probably couldn’t detect a bomb planted IN a person, either surgically, anally, orally, or otherwise. Think that’s far-fetched or ludicrous? Terrorists don’t think so.
Beyond that, terrorism can take place in more locations than 30,000 feet above the ground. Will the TSA measures protect against a Mumbai-style attack in which gunmen go into a densely-populated location with military-grade assault rifles and hand grenades, and kill people until they themselves are killed and captured? Such an attack could easily kill as many (or more!) people than a plane blowing up in mid-air, and yet there is almost no protection against an attack that the government can offer short of martial law.
So as the government expands its power and infringes upon your rights further and further in the name of protecting you and making you feel (key word: FEEL) safer, think about their track record. Think like a terrorist, even. If you couldn’t hit the air travel industry, are there other targets of opportunity? Of course there are.
The best way to protect you and your family from terrorism? Self-defense. Of course, on an airplane, everyone can’t be armed. A stray bullet could breach the wall of the plane and cause massive depressurization of the cabin, even bringing down the plane in its entirety. But pepper spray? Knives? Stun guns? These could be easily used by everyday passengers to subdue someone trying to blow up their shoes or their crotch, or someone trying to commandeer the plane, without endangering the entire flight. However, just like in schools, colleges, and other public places, laws preventing basic self-defense will not keep unlawful people from trying to hurt you. In addition, taking away nail files, nail clippers, and pens from lawful passengers (including old ladies and small children) is even more asinine. On top of that, tack on a healthy dose of humiliation and trauma for passengers subjected to the new full body scans and “enhanced pat-downs”, and we officially have stupid government by our elected leaders who feel the need to act on every poor nitwit’s cry for help and protection by Big Brother.
The TSA won’t save you from terrorism, no matter how invasive their procedures get. And by yielding to these new security procedures at the airport, we are surrendering our Fourth Amendment right to protection against unwarranted search and seizure without reasonable cause.
August 12, 2010
The (Attempted) Political Assassination of Rand Paul
One year ago, Dr. Rand Paul, son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, made barely a blip on the American politics radar screen. Today, onAugust 12th, he aims to be the first candidate to be elected to the Senate with the support of the grassroots Tea Party movement.
It was pretty clear that the political establishment hated him from the start. He didn't have the blessing of the long-established kingpins in the GOP, and the liberal Democrats thought he was a right-wing nightmare waiting to happen. After Rand Paul applied for his official Senate candidacy as a Republican, the support from the growing Tea Party movement was immediate. Many of the Tea Partiers already supported his father, Ron Paul, and his son, while differing with his father on some policies, matched his father's dedication to constitutional conservatism. That was enough to fire up the Tea Partiers, and it quickly became evident that it was enough for Kentucky conservatives as well. Paul's message of limited government, fiscal conservatism, and balanced government budgets inspired Kentucky Republicans to elect him as the Republican Senate candidate for Kentucky over his establishment-picked opponent, Trey Grayson.
Grayson ran a dirty campaign, trying to snipe Rand Paul with false or exaggerated accusations which were supposed to demonstrate to Kentucky conservatives that he wasn't right for Kentucky or the nation. Kentuckians didn't buy it; the anti-establishment wave had begun to crest, and Grayson was too close to the big-wigs in DC for Kentucky Republicans to believe that he was anything new or improved.
Rand Paul is now poised to defeat his Democrat opponent at the polls as well, and is currently leading by several points. The holy alliance of the political establishment and the mainstream media has been doing everything in their enormous power to derail his campaign, however, and the road has been thus far bumpy. Take Rand Paul's stance on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he explained on Rachel Maddow's show. It would unleash a barrage of wicked criticism from both liberal Democrats and his fellow Republicans:
"I don't like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant, but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership."
You could almost hear the collective gasp as the left's 46-year-old sacred cow was blasphemed against. Rand Paul surely had a white robe and hood hanging in his closet, with a tool shed full of wooden crosses and gasoline. The aforementioned holy alliance had their target, and they began to take potshots.
Pretty much every variation of the "racist" charge was thrown around by both Democrats and establishment Republicans. Paul's Democrat opponent, Jack Conway, said that Paul "rejected the fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act," and that, to him, was "a rejection of the progress we've made over the last half-century." Progress, indeed.
Say or do anything that allows the political-media alliance to label you a racist, and your career is automatically in jeopardy, whether your career is in politics or not. Just look at what happened to Shirley Sherrod, who worked for the Department of Agriculture. There is no worse thing that a person can possibly be in America, and yet racism has killed fewer people than communism, pollution, and several of the Seven Deadly Sins, I'm pretty sure. So why does the term and idea of racism have so much power? Such a question is the topic for another conversation, another day.
What can be said now is that the media and Rand's political opponents used the deadliest weapon in politics against him, and failed. They may fail again if Rand Paul becomes the next Senator for Kentucky, which he very well may do. Paul backed off a bit from his initial stance, but he's a political novice, and his two-step backpedal didn't detract from his original (and reasonable) stance, nor did it hurt his credibility with Kentuckians or other conservatives.
The political assassination attempts continue, of course.Take the recent accusation by an anonymous female:
"The article in GQ quotes an unnamed woman as saying Pauland a friend once blindfolded her, tied her up, drove her to their house and tried to force her to smoke marijuana. The woman said she and Paul were teammates on the Baylor University swim team at the time, about a quarter-century ago." (Quote from AP news story: "GOP candidate Paul denies kidnapping suggestions")
Not only was the source of this claim anonymous, but there was no proof given for such a ridiculous accusation. In a time when journalistic integrity is as rare as naturally-occurring plutonium, it's no surprise that GQ ran with the story without any such proof. Rand Paul basically laughed it off, which was a pretty great reaction; most other candidates would sweat through their suits.
All of these incidents targeting Rand Paul prove that the political establishment in our nation's capital has an agenda, and Rand Paul is not part of it. Nor will any other grassroots candidate be a part of that agenda, as demonstrated by Trent Lott's recent comment that incoming GOP congressmen and Senators from the Tea Party movement need to be "co-opted" by the Republican establishment so they can fall within the acceptable party lines. Thanks for being honest, Trent.
I truly hope Rand Paul goes all the way to the Senate, and that his candidacy inspires other true, constitutional conservatives to aggressively run for office. A Senator Rand Paul would knock the political big-wigs back on their heels. We can't afford not to seize advantage of that.
It was pretty clear that the political establishment hated him from the start. He didn't have the blessing of the long-established kingpins in the GOP, and the liberal Democrats thought he was a right-wing nightmare waiting to happen. After Rand Paul applied for his official Senate candidacy as a Republican, the support from the growing Tea Party movement was immediate. Many of the Tea Partiers already supported his father, Ron Paul, and his son, while differing with his father on some policies, matched his father's dedication to constitutional conservatism. That was enough to fire up the Tea Partiers, and it quickly became evident that it was enough for Kentucky conservatives as well. Paul's message of limited government, fiscal conservatism, and balanced government budgets inspired Kentucky Republicans to elect him as the Republican Senate candidate for Kentucky over his establishment-picked opponent, Trey Grayson.
Grayson ran a dirty campaign, trying to snipe Rand Paul with false or exaggerated accusations which were supposed to demonstrate to Kentucky conservatives that he wasn't right for Kentucky or the nation. Kentuckians didn't buy it; the anti-establishment wave had begun to crest, and Grayson was too close to the big-wigs in DC for Kentucky Republicans to believe that he was anything new or improved.
Rand Paul is now poised to defeat his Democrat opponent at the polls as well, and is currently leading by several points. The holy alliance of the political establishment and the mainstream media has been doing everything in their enormous power to derail his campaign, however, and the road has been thus far bumpy. Take Rand Paul's stance on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he explained on Rachel Maddow's show. It would unleash a barrage of wicked criticism from both liberal Democrats and his fellow Republicans:
"I don't like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant, but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership."
You could almost hear the collective gasp as the left's 46-year-old sacred cow was blasphemed against. Rand Paul surely had a white robe and hood hanging in his closet, with a tool shed full of wooden crosses and gasoline. The aforementioned holy alliance had their target, and they began to take potshots.
Pretty much every variation of the "racist" charge was thrown around by both Democrats and establishment Republicans. Paul's Democrat opponent, Jack Conway, said that Paul "rejected the fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act," and that, to him, was "a rejection of the progress we've made over the last half-century." Progress, indeed.
Say or do anything that allows the political-media alliance to label you a racist, and your career is automatically in jeopardy, whether your career is in politics or not. Just look at what happened to Shirley Sherrod, who worked for the Department of Agriculture. There is no worse thing that a person can possibly be in America, and yet racism has killed fewer people than communism, pollution, and several of the Seven Deadly Sins, I'm pretty sure. So why does the term and idea of racism have so much power? Such a question is the topic for another conversation, another day.
What can be said now is that the media and Rand's political opponents used the deadliest weapon in politics against him, and failed. They may fail again if Rand Paul becomes the next Senator for Kentucky, which he very well may do. Paul backed off a bit from his initial stance, but he's a political novice, and his two-step backpedal didn't detract from his original (and reasonable) stance, nor did it hurt his credibility with Kentuckians or other conservatives.
The political assassination attempts continue, of course.Take the recent accusation by an anonymous female:
"The article in GQ quotes an unnamed woman as saying Pauland a friend once blindfolded her, tied her up, drove her to their house and tried to force her to smoke marijuana. The woman said she and Paul were teammates on the Baylor University swim team at the time, about a quarter-century ago." (Quote from AP news story: "GOP candidate Paul denies kidnapping suggestions")
Not only was the source of this claim anonymous, but there was no proof given for such a ridiculous accusation. In a time when journalistic integrity is as rare as naturally-occurring plutonium, it's no surprise that GQ ran with the story without any such proof. Rand Paul basically laughed it off, which was a pretty great reaction; most other candidates would sweat through their suits.
All of these incidents targeting Rand Paul prove that the political establishment in our nation's capital has an agenda, and Rand Paul is not part of it. Nor will any other grassroots candidate be a part of that agenda, as demonstrated by Trent Lott's recent comment that incoming GOP congressmen and Senators from the Tea Party movement need to be "co-opted" by the Republican establishment so they can fall within the acceptable party lines. Thanks for being honest, Trent.
I truly hope Rand Paul goes all the way to the Senate, and that his candidacy inspires other true, constitutional conservatives to aggressively run for office. A Senator Rand Paul would knock the political big-wigs back on their heels. We can't afford not to seize advantage of that.
June 30, 2010
The Oil Conundrum
I wanted to write an article earlier about the oily disaster that’s plaguing the Gulf of Mexico and the surrounding coastal states, but I had a hard time finding something to say that hasn’t already been covered by every news anchor and political pundit in America. The United States’ worst environmental disaster continues to surprise me as to how much worse it can actually get: just when you think nothing more can go wrong, it does.
For those people hibernating in bear caves, I’m talking about the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico which led to the destruction and eventual sinking of the entire rig itself. Eleven people are presumed to have died in the explosion, which was caused by a buildup of methane gas. This event wouldn’t nearly be as bad of a problem if the blowout preventers, which are located miles below the ocean surface and which had a leaky hydraulic system and failed batteries, actually worked. Instead, oil has been flowing (gushing, pouring, spilling, etc.) into the Gulf. More than seven million (7,000,000) barrels of oil have poisoned the Gulf’s waters and its ecosystem. To put that in perspective for those not familiar with oil barrels, that’s approximately 298 million (298,000,000) gallons of oil. Line up 298 million milk jugs filled with crude. Tens of thousands of barrels (between 1 and 3 million gallons) of oil are venting into the Gulf each passing day. Get the picture? “Disaster” is not a hyperbolic word choice.
The depth of the leaking pipes makes them extremely difficult to fix, cap, or seal. Attempts to use underwater robots have been plagued with failure: first when the robots couldn’t manually trip the blowout preventers, and most recently when a robot which was attempting to cap a pipe actually knocked a piece loose, causing even more oil to spill out. Fail much?
The oil spill has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of Gulf residents who rely on the ocean for their bread and butter, and has hurt tourism for Gulf states, whose beaches are usually crammed with people enjoying the summer. Now, with tar balls, oil sheens, and dead animals washing up on shore, no one’s looking for fun in the sun.
I’ll save you all the details of British Petroleum’s response; I’m sure you’ve all heard about it by now, except for the aforementioned cave-dwellers. Suffice to say, their response has been clumsy at least and criminal at worst.
Even more puzzling is the Obama administration’s response. The Coast Guard and other branches of the armed forces have been helping with the cleanup effort, but the administration rejected 70 offers of international assistance from 23 countries, including Iran, of all places. Until a week or so ago, Obama basically responded to all offerings of aid with a “thanks, but no thanks” sort of response. One given explanation was that the Dutch oil-cleaning ships did not clean the water to American standards of cleanliness. Quite frankly, this is no excuse to reject aid when we so clearly need every possible helping hand that is extended our way. It’s really that bad.
Obama finally kowtowed and allowed the Dutch equipment to be used, but still refuses to use Dutch ships or Dutch workers. What on earth is he so afraid of? Any act, law, or provision that’s clogging up the cleanup and relief effort with bureaucratic big-government red tape could surely be suspended, even temporarily, with one of those nifty executive orders that Bush and now Obama seem to be so fond of.
Instead, the Obama administration has busied itself with billing and questioning British Petroleum and its corporate heads, as well as placing a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling, a move that has already cost many jobs on the 33 drilling rigs affected. While one may think that such a moratorium would be prudent, considering the scope of this debacle, such a decision seems to ignore the fact that BP has boatloads more safety and environmental violations than other oil companies. The source of the problem is pretty clear. While this does not necessarily mean that the current disaster is a one-off (to use Janet Napolitano’s favorite counterterrorist term), it does mean that a six-month moratorium on all drilling from the federal government may be unnecessary. On the other hand, if a state such as California decides to nix offshore drilling, that is an entirely appropriate response. Such is a state’s right. Just don’t expect the rig workers to be happy.
Obama’s bipartisan national commission to investigate the incident and all offshore drilling projects is stacked with environmental advocates, which means that they advocate for expanded government power in order to protect the environment. We know you’re trying, Mr. Obama, but you still stacked the deck with people that are going to tell you what you want to hear: that America needs to un-invest in petroleum and embrace clean energy.
The funny thing is that such a sentiment is almost right. America does need to embrace cleaner, more efficient means of producing energy. It is one of the most worthy long-term political goals to which we as Americans can strive to achieve. In the meantime, however, it is paramount that the United States weans itself off of its dependency on foreign oil by tapping what resources we have here on our territory. When we use foreign sources for our petroleum needs, our enemies, ideological or otherwise, usually get paid. Combine that with pollution and this most recent hellish situation in the Gulf, and it is clear as day that the United States must decrease its appetite for oil. We can actually use a two-pronged approach when it comes to renewable energy and utilizing domestic energy sources; it doesn’t have to be one or the other.
So far, though, Obama and his allies have predictably used this crisis to push an agenda which only focuses on that vague notion of renewable energy. The fact is that clean and renewable energy are still in their infant stages of development. Nuclear energy is as efficient and clean as we can currently get, and even that produces some horrible waste products. Solar, hydroelectric, and wind energy are great for powering small units, not large cities and important infrastructure. Fusion energy is but a glimmer over the horizon of time. So when Obama tries to create “green” jobs and somehow pursue a cleaner energy source, he and his administration end up costing taxpayers an awful lot of money for an energy panacea that is not yet ready to be exploited.
We’re not saying that we don’t want cleaner energy, Mr. President. We want you to get that leak plugged in whatever way possible, and we want you to pursue sensible energy policies, not green dreams. Stop the crony-style capitalism that gives favors and breaks to big, wealthy oil companies that shirk their responsibilities and stop cherry-picking industries to attack. This is not the time to pursue an agenda.
For those people hibernating in bear caves, I’m talking about the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico which led to the destruction and eventual sinking of the entire rig itself. Eleven people are presumed to have died in the explosion, which was caused by a buildup of methane gas. This event wouldn’t nearly be as bad of a problem if the blowout preventers, which are located miles below the ocean surface and which had a leaky hydraulic system and failed batteries, actually worked. Instead, oil has been flowing (gushing, pouring, spilling, etc.) into the Gulf. More than seven million (7,000,000) barrels of oil have poisoned the Gulf’s waters and its ecosystem. To put that in perspective for those not familiar with oil barrels, that’s approximately 298 million (298,000,000) gallons of oil. Line up 298 million milk jugs filled with crude. Tens of thousands of barrels (between 1 and 3 million gallons) of oil are venting into the Gulf each passing day. Get the picture? “Disaster” is not a hyperbolic word choice.
The depth of the leaking pipes makes them extremely difficult to fix, cap, or seal. Attempts to use underwater robots have been plagued with failure: first when the robots couldn’t manually trip the blowout preventers, and most recently when a robot which was attempting to cap a pipe actually knocked a piece loose, causing even more oil to spill out. Fail much?
The oil spill has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of Gulf residents who rely on the ocean for their bread and butter, and has hurt tourism for Gulf states, whose beaches are usually crammed with people enjoying the summer. Now, with tar balls, oil sheens, and dead animals washing up on shore, no one’s looking for fun in the sun.
I’ll save you all the details of British Petroleum’s response; I’m sure you’ve all heard about it by now, except for the aforementioned cave-dwellers. Suffice to say, their response has been clumsy at least and criminal at worst.
Even more puzzling is the Obama administration’s response. The Coast Guard and other branches of the armed forces have been helping with the cleanup effort, but the administration rejected 70 offers of international assistance from 23 countries, including Iran, of all places. Until a week or so ago, Obama basically responded to all offerings of aid with a “thanks, but no thanks” sort of response. One given explanation was that the Dutch oil-cleaning ships did not clean the water to American standards of cleanliness. Quite frankly, this is no excuse to reject aid when we so clearly need every possible helping hand that is extended our way. It’s really that bad.
Obama finally kowtowed and allowed the Dutch equipment to be used, but still refuses to use Dutch ships or Dutch workers. What on earth is he so afraid of? Any act, law, or provision that’s clogging up the cleanup and relief effort with bureaucratic big-government red tape could surely be suspended, even temporarily, with one of those nifty executive orders that Bush and now Obama seem to be so fond of.
Instead, the Obama administration has busied itself with billing and questioning British Petroleum and its corporate heads, as well as placing a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling, a move that has already cost many jobs on the 33 drilling rigs affected. While one may think that such a moratorium would be prudent, considering the scope of this debacle, such a decision seems to ignore the fact that BP has boatloads more safety and environmental violations than other oil companies. The source of the problem is pretty clear. While this does not necessarily mean that the current disaster is a one-off (to use Janet Napolitano’s favorite counterterrorist term), it does mean that a six-month moratorium on all drilling from the federal government may be unnecessary. On the other hand, if a state such as California decides to nix offshore drilling, that is an entirely appropriate response. Such is a state’s right. Just don’t expect the rig workers to be happy.
Obama’s bipartisan national commission to investigate the incident and all offshore drilling projects is stacked with environmental advocates, which means that they advocate for expanded government power in order to protect the environment. We know you’re trying, Mr. Obama, but you still stacked the deck with people that are going to tell you what you want to hear: that America needs to un-invest in petroleum and embrace clean energy.
The funny thing is that such a sentiment is almost right. America does need to embrace cleaner, more efficient means of producing energy. It is one of the most worthy long-term political goals to which we as Americans can strive to achieve. In the meantime, however, it is paramount that the United States weans itself off of its dependency on foreign oil by tapping what resources we have here on our territory. When we use foreign sources for our petroleum needs, our enemies, ideological or otherwise, usually get paid. Combine that with pollution and this most recent hellish situation in the Gulf, and it is clear as day that the United States must decrease its appetite for oil. We can actually use a two-pronged approach when it comes to renewable energy and utilizing domestic energy sources; it doesn’t have to be one or the other.
So far, though, Obama and his allies have predictably used this crisis to push an agenda which only focuses on that vague notion of renewable energy. The fact is that clean and renewable energy are still in their infant stages of development. Nuclear energy is as efficient and clean as we can currently get, and even that produces some horrible waste products. Solar, hydroelectric, and wind energy are great for powering small units, not large cities and important infrastructure. Fusion energy is but a glimmer over the horizon of time. So when Obama tries to create “green” jobs and somehow pursue a cleaner energy source, he and his administration end up costing taxpayers an awful lot of money for an energy panacea that is not yet ready to be exploited.
We’re not saying that we don’t want cleaner energy, Mr. President. We want you to get that leak plugged in whatever way possible, and we want you to pursue sensible energy policies, not green dreams. Stop the crony-style capitalism that gives favors and breaks to big, wealthy oil companies that shirk their responsibilities and stop cherry-picking industries to attack. This is not the time to pursue an agenda.
June 4, 2010
Much Ado About Israel
If you haven’t heard the news about Israel and the Gaza “Freedom Flotilla” by now, then do a quick search for the latter term, and you’ll get a slew of news stories, blogs, and blogs about how news stories are getting the story wrong. There’s a wealth of opinions and perspectives, and I don’t intend to take one side or the other here, mainly because I wasn’t there. I’ll stick to the basics: a large flotilla of ships loaded with aid and supplies was bound for the Gaza strip when it was intercepted by Israeli military forces. Israeli commandos rappelled onboard the ships, and somewhere along the way, non-lethal riot control methods turned into live ammunition, and nine passengers on the ships were dead by the time the flotilla reached Ashdod.
If you dispute any aspects of that short rendition, send me some mail about it, and we’ll chat. I’m eager to hear all sides of any issue. But that’s the bare bones of it, as far as I can tell.
The United Nations quickly scolded Israel for its actions. Turkey called the incident a “bloody massacre” and held memorial services for the slain Turks who were onboard the ships in the flotilla. The United States more or less backed the United Nations’ wrist-slapping. Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel’s unwavering dedication to national security and reaffirmed its right to self-defense. Public opinion is split along similar lines, particularly in the United States, with one side backing Israel’s right to defend itself, and one side lambasting Israel for brutality, overaggressive action, et cetera.
In actuality, both sides are right. If Israel is to be considered a sovereign nation, they must have the right to defend themselves against any and all aggression within their territory or on their borders. If a nation cannot defend its borders or fight its enemies, then it is not sovereign, and it will not survive. That being said, however, Israel cannot board a flotilla of foreign cargo ships in international waters using commandos and military equipment and shoot nine people without expecting international backlash. Israel does not deserve and cannot receive special treatment than the rest of the world if we’re going to pretend that Woodrow Wilson’s lofty dreams of international cooperation mean anything.
Of course, the international response essentially amounted to finger-wagging. The most crucial diplomatic wound that Israel received was the harsh response from Turkey, mainly because most (if not all) of the dead from the raid were Turks who died on a ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was flying Turkish colors. Turkey is probably Israel’s strongest Muslim ally in the region, and deteriorating relations with Turkey doesn’t help Israel’s strategic or geopolitical situation.
So, did Israel have a right to board the ships and search them for contraband and weapons? Of course. Any nation has a right to do so when a vessel enters their territory. Should Israel have waited until they were out of international waters? Yeah, probably, if not only for political and diplomatic reasons. Were weapons found on the ship? Aside from some blunt objects (such as pipes and bats), knives, and some construction tools, no. No weapons caches or rocket-building equipment were found.
Israel has a right to defend itself, but this is clearly a case of overkill. The Israelis must have expected some resistance when they started rappelling armed commandos onto the decks of the ships, and the activists on the ships must have expected the Israeli soldiers to defend themselves from attack in turn. Both sides were itching for a fight, but in this case, the activists on the flotilla of ships accomplished their goal: they were the underdog the entire time, and their cause was supported by this incident, even though nine of their people were killed.
The situation in Gaza is a dire one, and even the staunchest American supporters of Israel cannot deny that. Since the blockade of the territory by Israel in 2009, aid and supplies have slowed to about one quarter of the aid received before the blockade was put in place. The blockade was meant to put political pressure on Hamas, the ruling political force in Gaza. The blockade also prevents Palestinians in the region from accessing clean water, shelter, medical supplies, and other essentials. Such circumstances breed terrorism and insurgency instead of stopping them. So what is Israel’s endgame in Gaza? As of the writing of this article on June 4th, 2010, another aid ship is on its way to the Gaza Strip, and Israel has already vowed to prevent it from reaching land.
I know it’s taboo for American conservatives to question Israel’s actions, especially among evangelical Christian Americans, who see support for Israel as something more akin to religious piety instead of strategic or political benefit. Our imbalanced support for Israel makes us a lot of enemies in the Middle East; it is one of the main reasons why Osama bin Laden ordered the attack on the United States on 9/11. Instead of reexamining America’s role in the Middle East and our relationship with Israel, however, many Americans doubled their support for the beleaguered Jewish state.
These pro-Israel Americans support an American military strike against Iran to prevent that country from gaining nuclear capabilities, which means that they supported sending other Americans into harm’s way to ensure Israel’s survival. Call me crazy, but I don’t see any political or strategic gain from opening up a third front in the Middle East against one of the largest countries in that region. As an American, I feel that Americans should fight for American interests and security, not that of other nations. And no, Iran is not a military threat to the United States, so don’t even try to stumble down that path of discussion.
Support for an ally such as Israel is one thing; kowtowing to every policy and political stance that pro-Israel lobbying forces such as AIPAC desire is quite another. Many Israeli officials have boasted of how much influence the Israel lobby has on American foreign policy. On another note, Israelis have been caught spying on the United States. Is that something a diehard ally would do? Then there was the sustained attack on the USS Liberty in June of 1967 by the Israeli Air Force and torpedo boats, which killed thirty-four of the American crew and injured over 100. This was the only maritime attack on the United States which was not investigated by the US Congress. And people who question Israel’s influence on American foreign policy are called “conspiracy theorists” and anti-Semitic?
America’s relationship with Israel has drifted in the hazy area between an alliance and a protectorate. If an American wants to become a Congressman or president, he has to pass a litmus test of his support for Israel before he or she is even considered a viable candidate. No such litmus test exists for support for any other ally, such as the United Kingdom, for example. Israel clearly has powerful lobbying forces in Washington that shape our foreign policy and influence domestic policy by essentially screening candidates for political office. It is time for the United States to take a closer look at its relationship with Israel and determine whether or not American and Israeli interests are one and the same.
If you dispute any aspects of that short rendition, send me some mail about it, and we’ll chat. I’m eager to hear all sides of any issue. But that’s the bare bones of it, as far as I can tell.
The United Nations quickly scolded Israel for its actions. Turkey called the incident a “bloody massacre” and held memorial services for the slain Turks who were onboard the ships in the flotilla. The United States more or less backed the United Nations’ wrist-slapping. Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel’s unwavering dedication to national security and reaffirmed its right to self-defense. Public opinion is split along similar lines, particularly in the United States, with one side backing Israel’s right to defend itself, and one side lambasting Israel for brutality, overaggressive action, et cetera.
In actuality, both sides are right. If Israel is to be considered a sovereign nation, they must have the right to defend themselves against any and all aggression within their territory or on their borders. If a nation cannot defend its borders or fight its enemies, then it is not sovereign, and it will not survive. That being said, however, Israel cannot board a flotilla of foreign cargo ships in international waters using commandos and military equipment and shoot nine people without expecting international backlash. Israel does not deserve and cannot receive special treatment than the rest of the world if we’re going to pretend that Woodrow Wilson’s lofty dreams of international cooperation mean anything.
Of course, the international response essentially amounted to finger-wagging. The most crucial diplomatic wound that Israel received was the harsh response from Turkey, mainly because most (if not all) of the dead from the raid were Turks who died on a ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was flying Turkish colors. Turkey is probably Israel’s strongest Muslim ally in the region, and deteriorating relations with Turkey doesn’t help Israel’s strategic or geopolitical situation.
So, did Israel have a right to board the ships and search them for contraband and weapons? Of course. Any nation has a right to do so when a vessel enters their territory. Should Israel have waited until they were out of international waters? Yeah, probably, if not only for political and diplomatic reasons. Were weapons found on the ship? Aside from some blunt objects (such as pipes and bats), knives, and some construction tools, no. No weapons caches or rocket-building equipment were found.
Israel has a right to defend itself, but this is clearly a case of overkill. The Israelis must have expected some resistance when they started rappelling armed commandos onto the decks of the ships, and the activists on the ships must have expected the Israeli soldiers to defend themselves from attack in turn. Both sides were itching for a fight, but in this case, the activists on the flotilla of ships accomplished their goal: they were the underdog the entire time, and their cause was supported by this incident, even though nine of their people were killed.
The situation in Gaza is a dire one, and even the staunchest American supporters of Israel cannot deny that. Since the blockade of the territory by Israel in 2009, aid and supplies have slowed to about one quarter of the aid received before the blockade was put in place. The blockade was meant to put political pressure on Hamas, the ruling political force in Gaza. The blockade also prevents Palestinians in the region from accessing clean water, shelter, medical supplies, and other essentials. Such circumstances breed terrorism and insurgency instead of stopping them. So what is Israel’s endgame in Gaza? As of the writing of this article on June 4th, 2010, another aid ship is on its way to the Gaza Strip, and Israel has already vowed to prevent it from reaching land.
I know it’s taboo for American conservatives to question Israel’s actions, especially among evangelical Christian Americans, who see support for Israel as something more akin to religious piety instead of strategic or political benefit. Our imbalanced support for Israel makes us a lot of enemies in the Middle East; it is one of the main reasons why Osama bin Laden ordered the attack on the United States on 9/11. Instead of reexamining America’s role in the Middle East and our relationship with Israel, however, many Americans doubled their support for the beleaguered Jewish state.
These pro-Israel Americans support an American military strike against Iran to prevent that country from gaining nuclear capabilities, which means that they supported sending other Americans into harm’s way to ensure Israel’s survival. Call me crazy, but I don’t see any political or strategic gain from opening up a third front in the Middle East against one of the largest countries in that region. As an American, I feel that Americans should fight for American interests and security, not that of other nations. And no, Iran is not a military threat to the United States, so don’t even try to stumble down that path of discussion.
Support for an ally such as Israel is one thing; kowtowing to every policy and political stance that pro-Israel lobbying forces such as AIPAC desire is quite another. Many Israeli officials have boasted of how much influence the Israel lobby has on American foreign policy. On another note, Israelis have been caught spying on the United States. Is that something a diehard ally would do? Then there was the sustained attack on the USS Liberty in June of 1967 by the Israeli Air Force and torpedo boats, which killed thirty-four of the American crew and injured over 100. This was the only maritime attack on the United States which was not investigated by the US Congress. And people who question Israel’s influence on American foreign policy are called “conspiracy theorists” and anti-Semitic?
America’s relationship with Israel has drifted in the hazy area between an alliance and a protectorate. If an American wants to become a Congressman or president, he has to pass a litmus test of his support for Israel before he or she is even considered a viable candidate. No such litmus test exists for support for any other ally, such as the United Kingdom, for example. Israel clearly has powerful lobbying forces in Washington that shape our foreign policy and influence domestic policy by essentially screening candidates for political office. It is time for the United States to take a closer look at its relationship with Israel and determine whether or not American and Israeli interests are one and the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
