General archive at Zeal For Truth

« Older

Loading Newer »

Less

Excerpts Headlines Full Length

Archive for the 'General' Category

Links: Gimmie, Gimmie Bailout Money

Published by Colin November 21, 2008 in General. 0 Comments

Bailing out the Big 3

EndTheFed.us - Protests against the Federal Reserve Kick off this week

The fervour over Obama in Namibia

Taliban leader says: We have no faith in Obama

Mission Accomplished?

Iraq’s cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces from the country by the end of 2011. The cabinet’s decision brings a final date for the departure of American troops a significant step closer after more than five and a half years of war.

Perhaps the surge worked? Victory in Iraq Day.

All Apologies

I Sometimes find strangers’ manners so lacking that I have started engaging in an odd kind of activism. I call it reverse etiquette: I supply the apology that they should be giving me.

American doctors hate their work

What Happens If You’re on Gay Rights’ ‘Enemies List’

An animated map of religions over time. History of Religion

Star Trek as Ethics

Published by Colin November 18, 2008 in General. 30 Comments

Since my last post on War and Veterans, I had the opportunity to watch some Star Trek. I am a huge fan of The Next Generation and watch at least three episodes a week. I could probably write a book about the ethics of Star Trek, but I thought that the one I watched yesterday had a particularly relevant dilemma to the discussion we’ve been having on the nature of sacrifice, collateral damage and war.

In this episode, machines called “exocomps” have been proven to be very handy in fixing problems on a mining station. Data, however, has determined that he believes the exocomps are alive - and that it is wrong to force them to labour on the station. A problem eventually occurs where Picard and LaForge are trapped on the station and it becomes possible to send the exocoms out into space and blow them up to free the trapped officers. The following situation takes place:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iJVsTyauvw

Commander Riker is the utilitarian and the consequentialist - he wants to do the greatest good, even if it means sacrificing others. He believes it is “less evil” to sacrifice the exocomps for the trapped officers than to pursue a more ethically pure path. Data (often personified as a pure logical being), however, acknowledges that it is unethical to sacrifice any innocent life by force, and is required to make a choice - insubordination to his superiors or acting to preserve innocent life. Eventually, they argue and determine that it is best to try and ask the exocomps if they would freely try and save the trapped officers.

In axiomatic thinking - which is the type of thinking we are dealing with here - the examples don’t exist to prove or dispove the theory, but to illustrate it. Empiricism presumes that a theory is only as good as its ability to work in consequence - but this ignores the possibility of any knowledge, ethics or morality outside of human experience (such as Christianity) and even ability (such as communism or anarchism). In other words, because no human is capable of performing the ethically pure action of saving the exocomps, it does not “disprove” or “nullify” the ethical principle. In the same way, just because humans are incapable of keeping God’s law and living up to his moral standard in practice, it does not mean that God’s law is nullified or unbinding. We are still judged by this standard, even though it is “unrealistic.”

This example illustrates my point to some degree. It is wrong, and always wrong, to sacrifice innocent life as part of a “greater good.” It does not suddenly become less wrong because of a given situation or for given consequences (”reality”).Morality is above reality - reality must be derived from the purity of reason, logic and morality - not the other way around. Even though Data’s actions are impractical, radical and unrealistic (only he, as personified logic, can chose to save the exocomps - no human was willing or able to do it) they are correct. Ethics is not on a sliding scale based on how able we are to work them out or how “realistic” they are. The failing is not with the theory or the ethical axiom - it is with humanity’s inability to adhere to the greater principle.

Links: We Got Some

Published by Colin November 14, 2008 in General. 2 Comments

The Economy
GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track by Ron Paul

U.S. Shifts Focus in Credit Bailout to the Consumer

The Treasury Department on Wednesday officially abandoned the original strategy behind its $700 billion effort to rescue the financial system, as administration officials acknowledged that banks and financial institutions were as unwilling as ever to lend to consumers.
…
The program, still in the planning stages, would for the first time use bailout funds specifically to help consumers instead of banks, savings and loans and Wall Street firms.

The End of Wall Street’s Boom

Politics
Evangelicals and the 2008 vote - a map by Christianity Today

Catholics making a stand on abortion

Stossel writes about the road to serfdom.

More
Teenagers and TV sex (abstract to an article published in the journal Pediatrics)

How to Get Your Email Inbox to Zero Every Day

Raped 13 year old girl stoned for adultery in Somalia

Postcard from Scotland: I Heart Education

Published by cchrisr November 11, 2008 in General. 8 Comments

By popular request, I will provide an overview of the education system in the UK as compared to that of the US. Students begin their education in Primary School at around the age of 5. Primary education is much like elementary schools in the US. They go through 7 years here before going to a secondary school (i.e. high school).

Secondary Education
For those of you who have read the Harry Potter series, you’re already familiar with secondary school in the UK. Students are required to attend this for 4 years. At the end of this time, students take their Standard Grade exams (once called O-levels) in 7-9 subject areas. Once the student completes these, he is able to enter the workforce similar to a US citizen who have receive a high school diploma. In the rest of the UK, the equivalent of Standard Grade is the GCSE. Secondary schools have an optional 2 years which begin at this point. Most students stay at least another year as it is required for university-level education (1 for Scotland or 2 for the rest of the UK). Starting in the fourth year of secondary school (but not generally until the fifth), students are allowed to take “Higher” courses. In the UK, these are known as AS-levels. These courses are roughly equivalent to most intro-level college courses in the US. Students focus their efforts here If a student stays for the sixth year, he takes “Advanced Higher” and/or additional Highers. Advanced Highers are generally equivalent in the UK to A-levels. Students staying this far do so for university admissions, however the quality of education at this level is closer to that of a (good) junior college in the US as it provides a solid base for specialization in the university. Students who do not go on to university in these optional years work towards their Higher National Certificate and/or Higher National Diploma. These are scaled slightly under the bachelor’s degree and are roughly equivalent to an associate’s degree in the US.

Qualifications
With all of that said, there is still more regarding education. In the UK, education’s main goal is marketable skills. Because of this, there is a unified structure of qualification levels (SCQF in Scotland, NQF in the rest of the UK). I will be following the Scottish structure, but the national one follows it closely. Once students reach their fourth year of secondary school, they begin to gain points on the SCQF. This is a general scale for depth of education, so that basic secondary education is low and graduate degrees are high. There is also a second scale (Scottish Vocational Qualifications or SVQ) which more broadly indicates the level of competence one ought to have. SVQ is a vocational scale utilized more often in apprenticeships than in education. Because of the way secondary school is structured in that it provides means for apprenticeships to begin while still in school, the two scales do correlate weakly. By the time a student reaches SCQF level 3, he is expected to be competent in basic, routine work (SVQ 1). By the time a student has completed the mandatory part of secondary school (Standard Grades), he will be on SCQF level4 (or sometimes level 5) and this should also correlate to SVQ 2 (is able to perform a broad range of skills). A student who stays in secondary school through the 2 optional years should be on the SCQF level 7 (sometimes 6) and is expected to have competency as a supervisor (SVQ 3). A student who graduates from a university with a regular degree is considered SCQF level 9 (Honours degree is level 10). The upper SCQF levels (11 and 12) are for Master’s and doctoral degrees (respectively). Additionally, there are two levels of the SVQ which can be awarded: management (SVQ 4) and senior management (SVQ 5).

Marriage and the Law

Published by Atanamis October 27, 2008 in General. 39 Comments

I’m going to start by explaining my bias, so you can read the rest of my article through that filter.

My beliefs regarding “proper” marriage are that:
1) People ought to refrain from sex until marriage.
2) Marriage should be only between one man and one woman.
3) Marriage should be a nearly* unbreakable commitment.
4) Parents should have a wide latitude of authority and responsibility in rearing their children, with some basic criteria for sufficient care and reasonable discipline.
5) It will make a far better home for their children if the parents are highly committed to one another.
“nearly” meaning only broken in case of clear abuse or unfaithfulness.

Separating the civil and religious concepts of “marriage”:
Despite this “conservative” view on marriage, it is my belief that government ought to get out of the marriage business. “Marriage” as a term has long held religious connotations, and in my opinion it is undesirable and even dangerous for government to be responsible for forming or recognizing religious distinctions. Personally, I feel that the concept of marriage has been massively cheapened in our culture. By allowing government to define marriage, we have also allowed government to define divorce and for it to heavily influence how a marriage should look. When I got married, I made an unbreakable commitment to my wife. No matter what happens in our lives, I will sacrificially make decisions for her best interest. This is the commitment I think “Biblical marriage” calls for from a man. Biblically, I don’t think gay marriage is appropriate (another discussion), and definitely don’t think things like a marriage of convenience for the sake of citizenship or tax benefits makes sense. The problem is that as soon as we equate “religious marriage” with legal rights, protections, or perks people will “fake it” to get those benefits.

The concept of “separation of church and state” is a political theory, and not the law in the US. That said, I do think separation is a good idea for the protection of religion. Allowing government to define religion has only weakened that definition. Far better if government did NOT define marriage, but allowed religious organization to produce their own definitions. A religious group can then base its definition on its holy books, and not have to worry about a civil government infringing on their definition. Properly, religious organizations should already be doing this, rather than allowing the government to define what ought to be a highly sacred agreement between two parties. What would be far better would be to split marriage into legal “civil union” system and a religious “marriage” system. Such a system would allow a single man to form a “civil union” with his elderly mother, making her his “partner” as considered by insurance companies, medical decisions, and for property ownership. Two brothers would be able to for a “civil union” if they wanted to merge their finances. If I wanted to sponser my buddy in Mexico becoming a US citizen, I could form a “civil union” to help him get citizenship (though likely with a “pre-nup” protecting my financial assets). This system would be preferable for both the religious and the non-religious citizen.

As a result, I support a civil union that:
1) Allows any two non-minors citizens to form a legal bond with pre-determined exit clauses.
2) Allows those entering into the bond to establish rules for mutual property ownership / death benefits.
3) Allows those entering the contract to file taxes jointly.

I also support laws that ensure that biological parents have the right to raise their children (with possible court supervision if the parents disagree or are determined to be unfit) and a responsibility to support their children (again with court enforcement in case of disagreement or improper conduct).

Opposing gay marriage:
Given the above, one might suppose that I support gay marriage. In fact, these positions do not make limiting the legal expectations of “marriage” to people of opposite genders legally or logically unsupportable. The above claim of making “civil unions” as a not a morally based institution really only makes sense if no limits are applied (as described above) or when restricted to people with biological children. Any other position is not “ignoring morality”, but rather imposing a new set of moral imperatives. If we allow “gay marriage”, but do not also allow the marriage of close relations and complete strangers seeking a tax or immigration benefit, we are implying that “legal marriage” is more than just a contractual state. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to file taxes jointly with any random person I choose to file with? Why should I not be allowed to change my “next of kin” list at will, or choose to add my elderly mother to my insurance policy as my partner? Sure, this is the way things HAVE been done, and is an entirely legal way to do them, but does it make sense from a non-moral position? I fully support “special” legal protections for the biological parents of a child, and the expectation that they will financially support their child. I support allowing churches to refuse to marry couples that are same sex, or couples that have pre-marital sex, or even couples that have tattoos if they choose. That’s freedom of religion. I see no reason though to restrict tax filing methods or “next of kin” modifications at will though.

Any “just add gays” kind of approach that does not make “civil unions” an unrestricted contract between ANY two adults is STILL making moral judgments (against cousins or siblings). If we are basing the legal definition of marriage on our personal morality, I am in opposition of gay marriage. A legal contract shouldn’t carry any expectation of a “sexual relationship” anyway. Prohibiting a “civil union” made entirely for tax purposes or to gain citizenship is again imposing one’s morality on others. The fact that others believe that sibling marriages are wrong, disgusting, or even harmful to society doesn’t change my opinion, because I believe the same things are true about gay marriage. Either we agree not to enforce personal morality by law (civil unions for any pair of people), or we wait until they have a majority that agrees with their personal morality before we change the laws. We either agree that the legal contract does NOT impose morality, or we all fight for OUR definition of “proper” marriage. Nobody is likely to change what I think marriage ought to be here, and I’m not going to try to change what others think it should be. Either we agree not to impose morality (and therefore allow close family members to form “civil unions” to protect property or for tax purposes), or we agree to impose “majority morality” (in which case I continue to vote against gay marriage until I’m in the minority).

Note regarding terms:
I do think it would be valuable to use a separate term for the government contract to clarify that we aren’t telling religions what to do, but words aren’t what I’m arguing about. What I am saying is that we need to make it clear that the legal arrangement is separate from the religious arrangement. There are two main reasons why religious groups strongly oppose “gay marriage”. The first is that they believe (as I do) that gay partnerships are undesirable for society. That said, most religious people I have spoken with do not wish to forcibly prevent such partnerships. The second reason they oppose “gay marriage” is that they are concerned about the increasing dilution of the term “marriage”. 50 years ago, it was expected that a marriage would be more or less permanent, and that it would only be broken as a result of good cause (abuse or unfaithfulness). Today, we have a high divorce rate which I (and others) believe it hurting children and society. By splitting the terms, we can allow religious groups to define “marriage” as they see fit while not restricting legal relationships between consenting adults.

My intent is to make VERY clear the distinction between the religious ritual and the legal contract. Look through this thread for the people who support “marriage” for gays but not for siblings. There is no legitimate reason for this aside from the moral judgment of the poster. The term “marriage” implies a relationship that should not be needed for a purely contractual arrangement. If you agree that any two consenting adults should be allowed to “marry(1)” and that a religious body should be fully allowed to define its own terms for who it will “marry(2)”, we are probably fundamentally in agreement. I still think that separate terms for marry(1) and marry(2) though would help others understand the distinction better though, and am unwilling to support marry(1) for same sex couples so long as ANY other restrictions are placed on it.

Links: Back on Track

Published by Colin October 17, 2008 in General. 0 Comments

Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed

Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks

Politicians want special protection from the DMCA law they created

Alaska Inquiry Rules on Palin

Public School Children taken on “field trip” to see teacher’s lesbian wedding

Overcoming Faith, Part III

Published by Chris A October 8, 2008 in General. 0 Comments

As previously discussed in this series, the spirit of faith is demonstrated by the use of words. It is verbal agreement with God. As a result of what we believe, we speak. Fortunately for us, the Bible is replete with examples of how people believed God in the face of adverse circumstances. Though their trials were very real, they were no match for faith in God. One of the most complete narratives in the Old Testament about faith is the story of Abraham. Abraham was promised he would be a father when he was an old man and his wife was an old woman (Genesis 17:2-5). There are a number of faith lessons we can learn from this biblical example of how all things are possible with God, and all things are possible to him that believes in God.

Lessons from Romans 4

17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did.

There is a lot in this verse. First, notice that God says that has made Abraham (past tense) the father of many nations. When did this occur? It occurred the moment the promise was given, before Sarah was pregnant. How do we know this? The verse says plainly that God “calls into being that which does not exist.” This illustrates the creative power of God’s word, which has the ability to alter history – whether spoken through the mouth of a prophet by inspiration of the Spirit or the mouth of anyone who dares to believe and apply what is written.

In some peoples’ minds, it is foolish to believe something that cannot be seen. Even among those who profess to believe that Christ rose from the dead, scarcely will one speak as though something has changed before the evidence materializes. Yet this is exactly what Abraham did, when he received his new name from God. What would people think if an old childless man began to call himself Father of a Multitude? They would think he was nuts, of course, because he is childless. Just as God called that into being which did not exist, Abraham essentially did the same by agreeing with God and saying the same thing about himself that God said.

18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb.

Contrary to the natural expectation, which would have been to die without ever having a son, Abraham believed what God said and expected to become the father of a multitude. Verse 19 holds one of the most unrecognized mysteries about faith. It says that Abraham did not consider his aged body, nor did he consider the “deadness of Sarah’s womb.” Therefore Abraham was not in denial about his natural circumstance, he just did not give it any consideration. This is difficult for most people to grasp because, whether they say so or not, their human limitations dictate the extent to which they believe. To them, physical evidence and the ability to understand are paramount. They have failed to realize that faith is the evidence of things not seen – it is incomprehensible both to the human eye and human reason.

20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform.

What does it mean to waver? It means to be unstable or inconsistent in one’s faith or in the expression thereof. The person who prays for something, and loses hope before he physically possesses the thing he once believed for, should not expect to receive anything from the Lord (James 1:6-8). How can one guard himself against an attitude of doubt or unbelief? I believe the answer is found here in verse 20 where it reads, “He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.” Abraham gave glory to God. I’m sure he was tempted to doubt just like we all are, but he refused to be overcome by the influence of the temporal world, and rather glorified God. When a thing has been requested in prayer and the person praying has believed he has received when he prayed as Jesus taught in Mark 11:24, the only thing left to do is glorify God for the answer. This too is an expression of faith.

Identifying the Promises of God
We have already established that faith is based on the knowledge of God. When knowledge is revealed, there is an opportunity to believe. This is a personal acknowledgement of the truth and worth of the knowledge of God as revealed in his holy word. In examining the story of Abraham, we see that his faith was specific to the promise he was given. By the narrative account and the passage in Romans 4, we can see exactly what he believed and why.

The New Covenant, although superior to the old one, is established on promises. Christians, like our father Abraham, have received promises from God – promises that he will no doubt bring to pass if we believe and take possession of them. But if we are content neither to learn the promises nor apply them in our lives, they are just as ineffective as if they had never been promised. The promises of God must be obtained by the faith of those to whom the promises apply (Hebrews 11:33). If we lack knowledge of the promises, we of necessity lack faith concerning them, because faith is the result of knowledge. Therefore anyone intent on living by faith, as the Bible commands, must take an active role in learning the promises, personally applying them to their lives, and acting in accordance with the beliefs established by the promises.

Lessons from 2 Peter 1

1Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

2Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;

Grace contains the capacity of faith. Grace is multiplied to us when the knowledge of God is revealed, thus making a way for faith, by which grace is accessed. Therefore, the more knowledge of God the greater opportunity for faith.

3Seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.

4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

The vast reservoir of grace made evident by the promises of God toward New Covenant believers is revealed in this statement: “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness.” Just as in the case with Abraham, when God promises a thing he has granted it. So as far as God is concerned his provision for his children has already been made, secured for us through the grace of Jesus Christ. It is now up to us to inherit the promise through faith and patience (Hebrews 6:12).

When Peter said “having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust” he was contrasting that to the divine nature. These are two contrary forces: the earthly nature of the flesh and the divine nature of the spirit. Many Christians struggle with the concept of faith because their consciousness is filled with earthly concerns. They have yet to realize the means by which they may take flight from the mental imprisonment that arises from base human imaginations. The remedy is a steadfast magnification of the knowledge of God above everything that exalts itself above it, and a subsequent escape from the limitations of sense knowledge to the limitlessness of God and faith.

20My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings.
21Do not let them depart from your sight;
Keep them in the midst of your heart.

Proverbs 4:20, 21

Yea and Amen

19For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us–by me and Silvanus and Timothy–was not yes and no, but is yes in Him.

20For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.

2 Corinthians 1:19, 20

There are no promises which God has made to his people at any time throughout history that do not apply to his present-day believers, insomuch as they have to do with “all things that pertain to life and godliness.” In other words, the essence of any promise God has made that reveals his will for his people is unchanged in those who are in Christ. There can be no loss of privilege to those who are in Christ in comparison to those who lived out the shadow of things to come (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1). If we believe that our covenant is a better covenant established on better promises, we must also believe that it has progressed beyond its predecessor – not to exclude the promises of the past, but to see them fulfilled in Abraham’s seed, who is Christ.

16Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

Galatians 3:16; 26-29

Links: Three is Company

Published by Colin October 2, 2008 in General. 3 Comments

Economists ask Congress to wait on bailout

Financial Socialism? No Thanks

Reports that Obama was using totalitarian measures were greatly exaggerated

Links: Ron Paul is Right and Always Has Been Right About the Economy

Published by Colin September 26, 2008 in General. 5 Comments

While we all should try and maintain our sense of respect and professionalism during a time of crisis, I need to say it at least once: Ron Paul told you so. So many laughed at him during the debates (literally) when he warned that this would happen.

But it’s not just that Ron Paul, the man, is right - Paul studies libertarian, Austrian free-market economics, the adherents of which have predicted every major bust period in the past century. Economics is not the knowledge of complicated sets of mathematic formulas and equations - but an understanding of logic and human action. It is not about pragmatism, “common sense” or making accounting changes to meet challenges - but a philosophy of reason which explains everything from the growth of government to the disputes of children over toys. Even Jesus dying on the cross can be explained by economic logic. A failure to understand this fundamental truth is going to lead to fear, panic and vast quantities of destruction.

I have been ridiculed here, and in other place because free-market capitalism is really just this funny idea that never works in real life, and should be abandoned in favor of market “stabilization” measures such as price controls, anti-trust regulations, legislated morality or mercantilism. As if capitalism is just a “textbook thing” or an unworkable theory which never leaves the pages. But capitalism is in the textbook in the same way that gravity is - you might not agree with it, or believe it, but it is there and you can be aware that it is all around you as the natural order. Trying to fight it will always be a losing battle because you are fighting a force like gravity - but refusing to acknowledge the omnipresence of the natural economic order will result in a harder fall as ignorant explanations remove one father from it.

I encourage everyone to go back and watch the GOP debates with Ron Paul. Watch how he says that the economy is going to falter, how our credit rating with our debtors (China) is falling, how the Fed will inflate deliberately, how our military will be called home because of a lack of funds, how Fannie and Freddie will fail, how the housing market will fail. But Paul does not merely outline and accurately predict the problems, he knows the solutions - not because he’s a god (although to those deceived by economic ignorance, it may seem like strange magic) but because he’s read a few books on the subject. I would recommend everyone read this one to start.

So, the weekly links on the economy read like Ron Paul’s debate answers in 2007 and speeches from as early as 2003:

The Empire Strikes Out - The US Economic Crisis

China Rumoured to Cease Lending to US

Ron Paul confronts Ben Bernake

Ron Paul’s CNN front page article

The U.S. has slipped markedly in economic freedom since the year 2000:

Economic freedom around the world remains on the rise but it has declined notably in the U.S. since the year 2000, according to an authoritative study released today by the Cato Institute and Canada’s Fraser Institute.

In 2000 the U.S. was the second-freest economy listed in Economic Freedom of the World, an annual report written by James Gwartney from Florida State University and Robert Lawson from Auburn University. This year the U.S. has fallen to 8th place, behind Hong Kong (ranked in first place), Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and Canada.

More significant than the U.S.’s drop in the rankings is its fall in the freedom ratings: on a scale of 0-10, the U.S. fell from 8.55 in 2000 to 8.04, according to the Economic Freedom of the World Report: 2008 Annual Report. Only five countries have experienced a greater decline over the same time period: Zimbabwe, Argentina, Niger, Venezuela, and Guyana.

Army to begin patrolling American cities in October

In Foreign Lands
Satellite images show ethnic cleanout in Iraq:

Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.

“By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left,” geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.

“Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning,” said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.

“Our findings suggest that the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for a process of ethno-sectarian neighborhood homogenization that is now largely achieved,” Agnew’s team wrote in their report.

The Cold War II?

Cocktail of Crises

Published by Colin September 22, 2008 in General, Essays, Politics, Current Events and Philosophy. 4 Comments

I also thought about titling this post; “At least part of the reason I have chosen to leave the US and obtain other citizenship.” I do not want to rush, like many libertarians and apocalyptic Christians to hasty conclusions that the sky is falling. I don’t think we’re even near that in the civilised world. In fact, I would even argue that the whole thing is being exaggerated and perpetuated mostly by the media, politicians and business which seek to profit of people behaving like chickens with their heads cut off and reloading CNN every two minutes, asking for more government handouts/power and looking for sales in guns, oil, water, food, gas, metal, gold, silver and so on to go up.

However, having said that, I suspect that most people are missing the real crisis - the wider crisis. In the determination to focus on something like gas prices or civil liberties in detail, perhaps how these elements combine and mix in the current climate reveals the nature of the “crisis machine” that is being built. In other words, the bail-outs aren’t really a catastrophic problem in and of themselves, but combine them with say, inflation, lost civil liberties and foreign policy - and now you’ve got a little cocktail being mixed that might do some damage.

The essence of this comes from one of my few favourite quotations by one of my favourite men, Henry Hazlitt:

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

So, while various plans drawn up to solve one particular problem might stem the specific leak, these will weaken other-areas in a greater and greater ways. If we continue to pay more than what we are getting on the whole, if we borrow more from ourselves than we gain back in any given solution, then we are gaining momentum on the path to bankruptcy.

I don’t think that any one crisis would really damage the United States, but if crises are continually paid-forward with short term fixes at the expense of the aggregate, we’ll have a huge queue of multi-industrial, multi-dimensional problems bursting the seams of law and order that tie them down.

So I want to look at how some of the following areas have or may, in the future, combine to compound a larger crisis for the US:

Foreign Policy
The Domestic Economy
Immigration
Civil Liberties
Free Speech
Nationalism/Patriotism
Religion

I’m going to do my best now not to try and lose you.

Foreign Policy
Regardless of one’s view on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that we are less liked in the Muslim world today than we were on Sept 10, 2001. Terrorist groups (including non-Islamic ones) have seen their numbers swell. America, regardless of why, has a lot of enemies.

Even if we had the perfect military, intelligence and every move we have made and will make to combat this reality were perfect, the cost would be enormous - probably greater than any military effort that was ever unleashed. To stem everything from active terrorism and resistance in the middle east, to peacekeeping for US interest and allies in numerous other places, to protecting resources and trade partners, to preserving and install US-friendly regimes in places like South America and Eastern Europe would make the kind of scarcity, rationing and planning not seen since the forties.

Again, I am presuming that there is no waste, no bad intelligence, no blow-back and other bugling. Just this effort alone, in one area, might be doable if we had the savings and capital to pay for it.

However, we clearly have no capital and savings. America has been in the red for sometime. What is going to happen when all of these troops, assets and protections are pulled back from the fragile order which they are supporting? Those who have supported a planned, orderly decrease in military intervention for the past few years (heck, even the past decades) have been laughed at in favour of the idea that the current level of empire is a linear, sustainable stronghold. But as Ron Paul said as early as 2003, we will be pulling our empire back - either by planned, orderly and strategic organisation or as a reckless reaction to the bottom line that we no longer can afford it:

Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

It should now be clear that we are facing this reality. Even those of us who are staunchly anti-war will not deny the fact that there are people out there being held at bay by the military who would otherwise seek to kill Americans. When the military is forced to downsize, we will have left the gates open for these people to come in and sack our country.

The reactionary answer by conservatives (and many democrats) is to rely on the same old argument to beef up the military. But what if there is physically no money to pay for it? We are going to have an increase in terrorism at home and abroad and the accompanying cries by the population for safety in the form of increased government power in exchange for freedom and civil liberties.

Next time: discussion on what the current economic situation reveals, along with the combined problem of immigration and civil liberty erosion.

Zeal For Truth