Tag Archive for ron-paul at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Tag Archive for 'ron-paul'

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.

When Extremism Becomes Mainstream

Published by Colin September 8, 2008 in Essays, Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 7 Comments

Would anyone born into an extreme society be aware of the exact nature of that society relative to history? For example, if there was a bubble thrown around Soviet Russia (in many ways there was) - wouldn’t the people of that society view ideas like free-will, free-markets and free-speech as extremes? The norm might be long lines for basic necessities, rampant crime, neighbours, friends and family disappearing and never returning.

In many ways, the centre of mainstream society can be measured by what ideas are considered extreme. We look back in hindsight at societies such as Hitler’s Germany and Soviet Russia as though these movements became mainstream by magic. We ignore the history and conditions which made certain ideas, leaders and philosophies popular. We see images like this and this (warning: graphic) and assume that this guy is soley to blame. We fail to realize that perhaps the most important explanation of these images is this one. We presume that extremism will come into our society announcing itself with nazi flags, poverty or honest people being locked up right away.

So many American Christians are terrified of such boogey men. Take fighting radical Islam - which is often compared in mainline conservatism to a war against “fascism“and Iraq is compared to World War II. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Islamic Law, radical Islamic repression, widespread Islamic Terrorism and Christian persecution at the hands of Islamic elements in government will never become a reality in the US.

Extremism Doesn’t Look Like Extremism
I suspect that Sinclair Lewis is a little closer to the mark: “when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” This is not a statement to be ignored - it is backed by historical patterns that are repeated over and over again. Extremism rarely comes from outside a society, but it cultivated, embraced and implemented from within. Adolph Hitler wasn’t released on the world until he had secured power in his own society using tradition, religion and philosophy that Germans were familiar with. In other words, we must be more fearful of internal extremism gradually overtaking those historically accepted and mainstream “Americanisms” - the constitution, freedom, Christianity, security, prosperity, capitalism and “democracy.”

American Extremism will look like patriotism. It will be embraced by the dominant religious elements: Christianity in this case. It will be described as traditional American values such as free-enterprise, democracy and security.

Because extremism moves into the mainstream culture, language and political system - the best measure is historical context. For example, “liberal” is used today as a cuss-word against left-wing democrats. I accepted this as the historical definition until, when I was twenty, I visited a memorial to Meriwether Lewis and was shocked to see Thomas Jefferson use the term to describe Lewis:

Of courage undaunted, possessing a firmness and perseverance of purpose which nothing but impossibilities could divert from its direction, … honest, disinterested, liberal, of sound understanding and a fidelity to truth…

I looked into it and found that the mainstream definition is relatively new, and in fact completely the opposite of what it had meant for hundreds of years. If it weren’t for the word “libertarian” - we might not have a word that summarises something close to the definition of liberal.

Case in Point: GOP Primary
But this has happened with so many things. Conservatives in the past eighteen months have been calling Ron Paul a radical and a fringe candidate. And he is - in that his positions aren’t mainstream in the slightest nor are they what is now called “conservative.” There is a radical gulf between Paul’s view and the conservative movement.

But that is what should scare us - and if conservatives would stop marching forward and question their orders for a moment, they might get a glimpse of where they are going. For example, “county first” was plastered all over McCain’s convention - is that phrase responsible? Is it biblical? Is it actually patriotic? Should that be the moral and political priority of conservatives and Christians? If that is an acceptable idea, is a rally worth $16 million in money taken from the country, celebrating one man, in one political faction a genuine articulation of that ideal?

How Extremist Leaders Win the Support of Otherwise Principled Men
What does it mean when those voices calling for objective morality and the rule of law are considered extreme in favour of embracing those solutions with “reasonable,” “common-sense” and short-term sacrifices to solve problems that were first created by such measures? Conservatives don’t like Paul because a purer form of traditionally conservative ideals comes out so different than the practices of what is now called conservatism. Conservatives would rather align themselves with men who share almost none of the deeper convictions, morals and ideals of their own movement, but who will still give lip service and token support to popular conservative causes (abortion, family, military). They will support unprincipled extremists who are promising that they will ignore their nature. This is foolishness - but a familiar path that humanity has taken in placing reckless, unprincipled men in power.
Continue reading ‘When Extremism Becomes Mainstream’

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part III

Published by Colin July 17, 2008 in General. 19 Comments

Over the past year, especially because of the effect of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, many honest questions (and many baseless accusations) have been flying around about libertarianism, foreign policy and Christianity. I wanted to take the time to answer a few of these questions from my own perspective.

The past two instalments explained why libertarian foreign policy is neither right wing or left wing. But that isn’t good enough - is it biblically compatible?

Is libertarian foreign policy biblical? / I’m all for leaving places like Iraq, but we broke it so we bought it. It would be unChristian of us not to be using our military to save the world from evil and promote democracy and freedom!

As has been stated several times by multiple members of this blog, the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy. This is not a big “oopsie” by God - he clearly was very deliberate about what he wanted in there.

However, the bible is chalk-full of moral philosophy and higher principles. As for me, I believe this is because God doesn’t really want Christians thinking politically. What I mean by that is, that God wants us to be consistent, principled, moral people - like Christ - not wishy-washy consequentialists like Saul or Aaron. He doesn’t want us ignorant about the means we use to achieve our ends.

Libertarian foreign policy is defensive-only. It does not invade, aggress, occupy, challenge, bully, provoke, obtain vengeance or pursue lust for resources. Libertarian foreign policy does allow individuals, families and (if you think they are legitimate) states to protect their property and lives.

This is obviously very compatible with biblical morality, where we are given almost the exact same commands. Although libertarian foreign policy may not be radical enough! The bible also argues that we should be so adverse to violence that we allow ourselves to suffer, and to turn the other cheek. While this is an important argument, it is probably best to have it another day as it is quite a long rabbit trail.

Many Christians justify prolonged nation-building wars and occupations (such as Iraq) by clichés and popular proverbs such as:

We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don’t pick something off the shelf I can’t afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is a stake.

It is true that if you break someone’s property, you need to pay for it. However, it hardly follows that if you destroy someone’s infrastructure, kill tens of thousands of people, blow up their cultural and historical relics and induce a civil war by these actions you must continue to do so. The Christian thing to do would be to repent, that is to change your ways, and stop killing, wounding and destroying.

This is the kind of compromise that Christians have made to try and serve both country and God - but these two are often mutually exclusive:

…for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:20 NKJV).

The moral imperatives of the bible are not removed from Christians when they put on a uniform. If I went over to another country on my own, decided I wanted something, and killed the people who owned it - would I not be a murderer? Just because I have a flag behind me, and a uniform on does not change this. In the same way, if I defended by house from a robber, I would be justified - as would a group of people from an invading foreign army. Similarly, the bible doesn’t change just because a Christian is acting on behalf of a government:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV).

Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honour, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:7-11 NKJV).

A Christian should view foreigners and strangers with hospitality and compassion. Obviously if one of them tries to injure, kill or steal from you - you can defend yourself. But only then. Christianity is not a call to global paranoia - where every tanned-skinned person from the middle east is out to blow us up. Even if they are - as Christians, it is not our job to join a crusade against those who have not directly harmed us. We are not going to change these people by warring with them, but by evangelizing them. Again, the wise James:

Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:1-4 NKJV).

A Christian view of foreigners and conflict is radically opposed to a secular view - especially to current foreign policy. This is the main reason why libertarian foreign policy and Christianity are compatible - libertarianism proclaims the freedom of men to practice what they will by voluntary consent. It allows and even encourages a Christian view of human relations.

McCain and Obama both Clueless on Patriotism

Published by Colin July 7, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 4 Comments

I never read Parade Magazine in the Sunday paper for the same reason I don’t read something like People or Time - in short, it’s total crap. I am generally not interested in celebrity gossip, oversimplified political analysis or to know how much people make. However, I couldn’t help but see Barack Obama and John McCain on the cover with the question “What is Patriotism?” below.

Upon turning to the articles that each of them “wrote” (most likely someone wrote these letter for them), I was not surprised to see identical rhetoric from both of them. Essentially - patriotism is submission to the state and the total suppression of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

John McCain
The lead answer for McCain was: patriotism is “putting the country first.” Specifically, this means:

…it is the sacrifices of so many Americans, at home and abroad, in times of peace and times of war, that give meaning to all of us. We are blessed to be Americans, and blessed that so many of us have so often believed in a cause far greater than self-interest, far greater than ourselves.

McCain looks immediately to the military, war and militarism to sell his point. Americans need to support the American Empire because it is killing foreigners in their own countries which keeps us free and “give meaning to all of us.” Actually, McCain is right on this account. It was Randolph Bourne, after four years of this principle put into action in World War I (ironically, the “war to end all wars”) who wrote that “war is the health of the state.” McCain’s potential presidency, the careers of politicians and the constant expansion of government power in the name of never-ending emergencies or crises is sustained by drumming up and redirecting the fear of Americans from their own government towards some external threat - be it Iran, global warming or gas prices.

If the revolutionaries had this view, they would have gladly yielded to the British Empire and submitted to the taxes, trade restrictions and suppression of liberty (mild compared to the modern US Government). They would have fought for Britain in more foreign wars, personally submitted to its king and docily handed over their wages and wealth with a smile because they “put the country first.”

Barack Obama
Obama’s short answer was not so terrifying as McCain: “Faith in one another as Americans.” But it doesn’t take long for Obama to start praising war and welfare as the health of the state:

…true patriotism also means a willingness to sacrifice for our common good. For those who have fought on the battlefield under the Stars and Stripes—for the young veterans I meet at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or those like John McCain who endured physical torment while serving our nation—no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. Those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands inspire me…

When politicians say “sacrifice” it means us, not them. In times of “sacrifice” the government itself is increased and benefited while individuals are trampled upon, stolen from and killed. In other words, patriotism means that more individuals readily give up their lives, liberty and property with diminishing resistance.

For Obama, who would use the power of the state to dramatically interfere with economic liberty, this is especially true. So that insurance companies can have a state-enforced monopoly, American’s should sacrifice their their little-remaining rights to choice and freedom in healthcare. Perhaps we should also sacrifice to the special interests that both Obama and McCain would give our tax money to in the name of “fighting global warming.”

What Patriotism Is

I have never heard a more inspiring message of patriotism than one given on the house floor last year. A short excerpt barely does it justice:

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state…

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax…

Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

Ron Paul outlines patriotism in a nutshell: it is unwavering resistance to collectivism and an authoritarian state.

McCain and Obama clearly would move the government in a more authoritarian direction. They are both anti-patriots, who triumph the suppression of individual rights and expansion of power (and the inevitable resulting abuse) of the state.

Ron Paul a Racist?

Published by Colin January 14, 2008 in Current Events. 84 Comments

The following is an editorial and represents the author’s opinion and not any views of this site, its other authors or contributors.

Both the left and right political establishment are salivating over a rare opportunity to knock around a man who has had no scandals, no marital issues, no political waffles, no changes of heart, no demagoguing and represents the most constitutional, conservative approach to enter the mainstream of politics since Senator Robert Taft. There has literally been no ammo whatsoever for the neo-socialist liberals or the big government conservatives who are terrified of what Ron Paul represents - a man of integrity, whose personal life and principles are nearly as pure as the gold standard which he advocates.

The best they could do up until this point were the logical fallacies of middle-school cliques: ad hominem attacks on him (he’s “crazy,” or a “kook”), his supporters (Ron Paul is supported by prostitutes and white supremacists, therefore he must be bad) or his ability to win (Ron Paul isn’t “electable” - therefore we don’t have to pay attention to the truth he speaks).

When Ron Paul began to actually gain traction, proving that he was no kook, his supporters are mostly normal, mainline Americans and that he was indeed electable - the establishment and their hacks stood in frozen panic for a couple of months. When he raised the most money in the fourth quarter of 2007, there was nary a whisper in the media.

The Blessing and Curse of Grassroots Support
Ron Paul has always been supported by a grassroots effort. The only inherent disadvantage of this is that supporters get a larger say in representing a candidate. If you have even one supporter who has radical, immoral or unethical views and gets his hand on the mic, then you have a moment of discomfort. However, if you happen to represent even a slightly credible threat to the establishment and the acolytes of the “lesser of two evils” then you will be the victim of muckraking.

And so the major media and blogosphere alike, especially those invested in the same old story of every other candidate, have jumped on the first so called “scandal” associated with Ron Paul. When Paul was out of office in the eighties and nineties, newsletters were published under his name, edited and written by supporters - but most of which the congressman never read, wrote or even really cared about.

The Muckrakers
In every election he’s ever ran in since, the remarks of those supporters became “breaking news” rehashed over and over again. The apologies from Ron Paul, for remarks he never wrote or read have been quick and proficient every time. The man has every right to come out swinging against the muckrakers who dig it out every election, but instead, like a true leader and ethical man of integrity, he apologizes again and again - despite having nothing to do with it except his name.

But this doesn’t stop so called conservatives (where the majority of the attacks come from) from acting like children and bored old women, suspending their high and mighty preaching about morals and values to churn out negative gossip-columns before even doing the most basic research on the issue.

Ron Paul has never been seen or heard saying anything racist. In fact, he has the most support among blacks in the Republican party. His individualist message is the most open and tolerant concerning issues of race, and has always been. There is no evidence whatsoever that he has any racist leanings - yet the witch hunt goes on.

The NAACP itself has come to Paul’s defense. Yesterday, Austin President Nelson Linder, who has known Paul for over 20 years, maintained that Paul was being attacked because he represents a threat to “the establishment.” He remarked further:

Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that….so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that’s what I’m hearing

The Real Kooks Reveal Themselves
Ironically, the major media have been the first to admit their mistakes in this whole joke of a story. Wolf Blitzer had Ron Paul on right away and finished his interview declaring, “You and I have talked a lot… and I was pretty shocked, because it certainly didn’t sound like the Ron Paul that I have come to know, and our viewers have come to know.” Fox News, who has been blatantly anti-Ron Paul, didn’t even bring it up in their most recent debate.

Tucker Carlson told the author of the story that it was “right over his head” when he accused Ron Paul of speaking in “racist code” as part of his covert racist agenda. Ironically, many of the conservatives who openly dismiss Paul as a “kook” are jumping on an anti-Ron Paul bandwagon driven by a man who thinks Paul is speaking in “racist code” as a “transmitter.” The author also admitted he “had no evidence” of Ron Paul actually saying racist things.

But the so called “conservative” under-media continue to revel in their hypocrisy. Like all self-righteous entities, they boldly proclaim themselves, their candidates and their causes moral and just - sounding the biblical trumpet of pride as thy announce their moral superiority - while simultaneously exposing their ignorance and unabashed hostility towards the closest embodiment of true conservative principles in the modern era. Many who use this example of yellow journalism will call Paul a kook, and base this accusation on a man who thinks Paul is a “neo-confederate transmitter” of “racist code.”

Even the left-leaning New York Times printed a retraction on a story from last year accusing Paul of being tied with white supremacists. It will be interesting to see if the conservative media and their followers will bear even a shred of the integrity the Times has, and retract their ungrounded accusations.

The Blowback Generation of Conservatives
The false conservatives publications, authors and pundits, many paying lip service to the free market, strong national defense and the constitution, have been revealing their true colors the past few elections. This incident has now proven that they are desperate and the era of big-government conservatism will likely not endure. The moral “majority” soon will have a choice - make the full transition to Huckabee and Hillary-style moral socialism, or repent and return to the way of freedom, limited government and individual responsibility.

Ron Paul will not win this election, but he if he maintains his status as a fund raising, conservative magnet, then the next election will move a little closer to the right. Politicians are predictably eager to go where the wind blows, and a significant gust is brewing in the form of Ron Paul republicans. For the first time in my lifetime, the mainstream media is broadly and openly questioning the federal reserve, the constitutionality of previously sacrosanct government programs and the war on drugs. Paul is educating and inspiring a new generation of conservatives, armed with the moral and political principles that the current generation has either forgot or abandoned. We will never vote for a faux conservative again. We are the generation of their blowback. And the siren song of their big-government pundits is wasted - gradually decreasing into baseless accusations, and the whining of a faded empire.

Education Reform & Republican Presidential Candidates

Published by Sadie January 9, 2008 in Politics. 8 Comments

I am a teacher in the public school system with an M.Ed from the University of Oregon. Over the last several years, I have seriously studied the American educational system and worked in it as a kindergarten and first grade teacher. These are my thoughts on the educational policy statements made by some Republican Candidates for President. I wanted to include all candidates in this article, however after three weeks of researching and writing it, I have decided to publish it as is.

Parents and teachers alike should look closely at candidates statements on educational policy. Many candidates make “feel good” statements offering little or no solution as to how they actually plan to implement their grand ideas for improving the state of public education. Additionally, candidates often have track records in other areas that set a precedent that suggests how they might handle or implement their educational policies. It is also important to remember that most people view education in one of two ways:

Education is the role of the state: the government is ultimately responsible for educating children, and as such is also responsible for the quality and regulation of education across the board: public schools, private schools, home-school laws. Thus, because the state has total authority, secular state values supersede parental values.

Education is the role of parents: a child’s guardians or parents are ultimately responsible for educating children, and as such are also responsible for the quality and regulation of their children’s education regardless of if they attend private, public, or home schools. Thus, because the parents have total authority, parental values supersede secular state values.

Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani claims he wants to reform the public school system by allowing parental choice via vouchers or charter schools (which are publicly funded and thus government controlled schools). These are not subject to the same regulations as other public schools, and there are a number of problems with them. For example, most students are unable to enroll in such a school as there are long waiting lists and the state controls how many charter schools can be created.

Real Actions: He recently created an “Educational Advisory Board” to work on school choice, although he claims that parents should be the ones making the choice on how to educate children. Creating an advisory board (such is the function of the Dept. of Education) is relatively harmless, although I fail to see how this board full of government people is a step towards parental choice and control (seems like creating more government bureaucracy to me.)
Guiliani has proposed to open schools on weekends for remedial students to catch up. This idea sounds a little backwards, especially considering how poor the schools were to begin with in New York. If the schools were not working for children attending them Monday through Friday, how will sending them for an additional day using the same methods make a difference?
He started a Charter Schools Initiative.
Guiliani also sought greater power and control over Schools. This means greater government and less local control as the legislation would have given power over to mayors instead of school boards, yikes!
Guiliani also created the Bilingual Education Task Force. This move also maintains the idea of reform coming down from the top levels of government, i.e. more centralized government control is the solution to failing schools. However, Giuliani does appear to at least be consistent in his statements.
He views education as a “civil rights” issue. This is NCLB language by the way, but, I’ve got to hand it to him on opposing the teachers unions, that takes some guts. In all, Guiliani talks some semi-interesting talk, but his actions or attempted actions don’t always match up in the end.

Mike Huckabee
Huckabee wants to release “Weapons of Mass Instruction” in arts and sciences and believes schools should be judged by “results” (does not say what these results should be based upon, standardized tests or what?). He takes credit for raising test scores as governor and claims to support parental choice, to want more charter schools and wants a “clear distinction” between federal and state roles in NCLB.”States must be allowed to develop their own benchmarks,” according to Huckabee. However, he is either grossly misinformed or he is just repeating republican rhetoric because states currently DO set their own standards under NCLB (that promise won’t be hard to achieve). As such, he supports NCLB as it stands today, which has significantly increased the role of the federal government in regulating and controlling schools - minimizing local control. Ultimately, NCLB will lead to federalized government schools that offer a nationally standard curriculum. Huckabee also claims to strongly support homeschoolers. He recently answered many questions regarding his educational policy. Huckabee does not believe that vouchers are practical and prefers improving public schools instead.

Real Actions: Passed the Omnibus Education Act 2003 in Arkansas which allowed the State to consolidate nearly 200 of the state’s 308 school districts as a way to afford a broader curriculum. This legislation effectively replaces local school boards and gives broader authority to the state.
Created the Smart Start, Smart Step, and Next Step programs, which put state selected facilitators in schools to help guide the principal and teachers in their professional development. From what I understand, these programs increase state control of teacher development and school wide goals as opposed to a teacher/principal himself choosing how to further their education.
He helped revise Arkansas’ public Charter School law in 1999. Charter schools are promoted as school choice, however, they are in fact a “faux choice” because of limited enrollment opportunities as well as the fact that they are public schools and cannot opt out of state control and state laws.
He supported the creation of Teacher-of-the-Year legislation which makes the teacher an ex-officio member of the state Board of Education and allows the teacher to travel across the state training others during the school year. Yes, that makes sense, if you have a good teacher, by all means pull them from the classroom to do state sponsored bureaucratic activities.
Huckabee raised teacher salaries and public school funds at the expense of taxpayers. Now, that’s nice but it is certainly not small government, nor is it supportive of true school choice as it simply reinforces the government monopoly on education.
Based on these kinds of actions, it’s really no surprise that the NEA has endorsed him. I happen to belong to this teacher’s union (as mandated by my state) and I know for a fact that this union believes that education is the role of the state, and is anti-homeschooling, anti-school choice and vouchers.
Huckabee signed and allowed Arkansas state legislature to pass new laws that were more restrictive for homeschooling families.
Huckabee opposed a legislative proposal by the Murphy Commission (a think-tank he started) to reform the education system and start a voucher system in the state of Arkansas. Huckabee may “believe” that parents should be able to make a choice, however, he certainly does not act on that belief.

Continue reading ‘Education Reform & Republican Presidential Candidates’

Liveblog: The Iowa GOP Debate

Published by Colin December 12, 2007 in Politics. 8 Comments

For the first time, we are going to liveblog today’s GOP debate (before the blog, a long time ago, there was this, this and this). It is the final debate before the Iowa Caucuses. The debate starts at 1:00 EST. Stuck at work? No cable? You like hacks like us? We’re going to bring the action live, with commentary. Tune back here around 2:00pm EST.

1:55 - Welcome everyone. Looking forward to getting this thing started.

1:57 - I wonder if John Cox is still ticked off that he isn’t invited to these debates.

1:59 - I’ll be watching via the fox news stream, where all the candidates seem to be practicing at being statues before the cameras come on. What terrible audio!

2:02 - Thank goodness, no discussion on Iraq.

2:03 - They seem to have a grip on the applause. Another positive. A well disciplined audience gives a lot more time to the candidates.

2:06 - Giuliani says that economic crisis is not a issue of national security - thank goodness. Ron Paul says it is, and ties it to foreign policy.

2:09 - Tancredo miraculously does not tie this question to immigration.

2:09 - Thompson speaks truth - the debt is going to really hurt future generations. Romney decides to sound upbeat and polished. His breathing and pacing is quite measured.

2:10 - Huckabee speaks to his socialistic/protectionst roots: a country is responsible for feeding itself, fueling itself and fighting for itself.

2:11 - Keyes argues to abolish the income tax, replace it with a sales tax.

2:12 - excellent question: what sacrifices should the American people make to relieve debt. Giuliani says its not the American people, it is the government. “Rather than relying on government as a nanny government, we should rely on people to make their own choices”

2:14 - Paul goes to foreign policy again… wow. “No need to sacrifice… we need more liberty!”

2:14 - Huckabee calls current healthcare model “intervention based” - is this a rip off of Paul. Are these geeky libertarian words becoming cool again?

2:16 - The tenor of this debate is so different than other debates. All the candidates sound like radicals compared to their former selves at the start of the campaign. They are demanding to “follow the constitution” and seeking to radically cut taxes and spending. Tancredo right now “don’t ask the government for womb to tomb protection.”

2:18 - Thompson says he’ll run debts for military and infrastructure. The guy that a lot of conservatives loved before he entered, is the biggest left-winger on the stage right now.

2:19 - Question: who is paying more than their “fair share” in taxes?

2:20 - the interviewer tries to interrupt Alan Keyes while he’s bouncing back and forth like a muppet - bad idea.

2:21 - Thompson is quite witty - would like to be rich like Romney so he doesn’t have to care about taxes.

2:22 - Ron Paul talks about the “inflation tax” as the “most evil of all taxes.” Iowa republicans say “wha?”

2:23 - free statement time! Wasn’t this supposed to be a debate. And now a round of commercials from the candidates…

2:25 - Paul asked about keeping foreign markets open while protecting American jobs. Paul talks about opening individual trade agreements, and fixing monetary problems. Again, probably over everyone’s head.

2:27 - Huckabee with another “three things” speech. How simple all our problems are! I’m surprised Huck doesn’t pull out the chalkboard.

2:28 - McCain - “I’m the biggest free-trader” Ha! But then makes a bold point about eliminating subsidies for farms. Guy has gusto!

2:30 - Tancredo: “NAFTA is a disaster” - here he goes on immigration now. Hits up on national sovereignty also. Duncan Hunter, peaked eyebrow and all, “trade deals are business deals between nations” - awesome!

2:32 - Paul: “We have no chance if we don’t restrain the government.” Thomspson talks about how afraid we all should be about terrorists.

2:33 - Thompson fights the host and wins some applause. Anarchy has now broken out. Everyone talks about global warming at once.

2:34 - Giuliani: climate change is real. Everyone else doesn’t want to answer the question, but they all want to speak. Such are the quandries of politicians.

2:36 - Keyes started out with a great moment after the anarchy… then goes on a rant unrelated to global warming. He’s waddling again. He’s unstoppable. Thompson just makes fun of him. Best debate ever!

2:38 - Huckster: “We don’t own this earth.” I think someone just started humming “Imagine.”

2:39 - Huck: “Let the government be the marketplace and we’ll create the demand that lowers the price.” This guy is insane.

2:40 - Tancredo makes the best statement of the season on global warming - the government has no idea how to set mandates, they have no clue what they are doing. I trust the market ore than the government.

2:42 - Huckabee cites the founding fathers. Yes, they really would have loved that last statement on making the government the market.

2:42 - Going to education now. Let’s see if anyone can tie it to terrorism. Go!

2:44 - Giuliani calls current education model a “government command” model. Duncan Hunter tells campfire stories about education as a response. “Let’s inspire them to reach for the stars.”

2:47 - Romney wants the fed to be like his state program - give free tuition to students in the top 25% of graduate exams.

2:48 - Huck says that education should be a state issue, and then says that the federal government. Huckabee says to release “weapons of mass instruction.”

2:49 - Keyes is fighting the host and wins. Get’s 30 seconds, and demands one minute. This lady is going to get fired. Claims he’s being ignored. He uses his time to preach. There goes the bobbing. This guy should never be at another debate again.

2:50 - Back to Paul, who politely waited for Keyes to stop babbling. Wants to get rid ofDept. of Education and give tax credits to teachers and encourage homeschooling. Wants parents to have control again. Very strong answer - first for Paul on the night.

2:52 - Thompson calls out the NEA. Have fun swimming with the fishies!

2:53 - Tancredo gives a strong answer and gets applause attacking Huckabee. Nice one! Huckabee gives back cool word-twist: “communicator in chief.”

2:55 - Romney attacks the Union too, but he’s got an army of Mormons to fight for him. Thompson only has a bunch of actors on his team.

2:57: Duncan Hunter: “The sky is falling!” Talks about all the potential enemies we could have and how we should strengthen the military.

2:58 - Paul, in one year, would end the war and reestablish diplomatic relation.

3:00 - first mention of “radical Islam” - took a whole hour. Astounding!

3:01 - Romney is ready for universal health care. Huck says that the president should be “a president of all the united states.” Does this guy ever say anything of substance?

3:02 - Keyes is probably the only motivational speaker that can hold a flame to Huckabee. Talks over the host again. Still going… Still going…

3:05 - Keyes plugs his “political army of america’s revival.” Only has to be reminded to shut-up once.

3:07 - Video time.

3:09 - Keyes attacks Romney about flip-flopping. Then says that our creator is more important than the constitution. Attacks Giuliani. Is asked to shut-up twice.

3:12 - Thompson says that the intelligence and military has been “neglected” and that is why no one trusts their reports. Says we need to rely on other country’s intelligence.

3:13 - More videos.

3:14 - Huckabee asked about examples in healthcare and education. Guy is quick witted. Takes the golden rule and applies it to health care. Missed the last bit - as my internet broke and is restarting.

3:19 - Tancredo grilled on foreign policy. Says debate can be narrowed to the idea that we can’t leave Iraq, but we can stop being the police-force in Iraq.

3:20 - Paul grilled on how in the world he’s going to do all this stuff. Other candidates laugh. “Freedom is unifying,” says Paul. Claims that he has the ability to unify congress. Me thinks not.

3:23 - New years’ resolution time. Keyes dodges it. McCain asks for unity. Huck says he’ll be careful about what he says. Romney, wants to “come together.” Thompson wants to be a better man. Tancredo actually answers, by saying Huckabee is poor on immigration, Paul says follow the constitution, Hunter says to buy american, and Giuliani says we should have a sense of optimism.

3:25 - Debate is over.

Giuliani is from Mars, Robertson is from Venus

Published by Ornot the Majestic November 21, 2007 in General, Religion, Politics and Current Events. 21 Comments

Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison. Turner and Hooch. Mutt and Jeff. America sure loves the odd couple - it’s obvious. No further proof was needed that opposites indeed attract than when on Nov. 7th, amongst a storm of celebrity presidential endorsements (most non-plussed nor surprising), Pat Robertson announced his support for “America’s Mayor”, Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today…

If the thrice-divorced, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights former mayor of New York being backed by the founder of the Christian Coalition of America is something you find a bit odd, well, you should….and not just from the narrow angle of Pat Robertson.

Considering Rudy Giuliani’s rather scathing remarks to Republican Congressman Ron Paul during the South Carolina Republican debate regarding the reasons for the 9/11 attack, five months later he accepts endorsement from a man suggested we invited the 9/11 attacks due to moral degradation (Pat Robertson Quotes).

We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our society. …..We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say ‘why does this happen?’ Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting His protection from us.

Giuliani’s aide reported that the two have “shared goals” despite “minor differences”.

The overriding issue before the American people, is the defense of our population against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists,” Robertson told the National Press Club audience. “Our world faces deadly peril…and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead.”Robertson said Giuliani is “a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans … It is my hope and prayer that he will lead the Republican Party to victory in November of 2008.”

“Minor Differences”? My experience with Christian “values voters” often placed abortion at the forefront of the important topics driving vote. Often, pulling hibernating voters from their four-year slumber to sluggishly waddle to the booths, without a hesitant dangling chad to be found in the crowd. But now abortion is a “minor difference”? This article sheds some light on this change:

Abortion is a low priority among Democratic-leaning voters (38 percent) and even Republican-leaning ones (43 percent). Voters overall rate the economy and the war in Iraq as leading issues.

Among Republican-leaning voters, the top issue important to their vote is terrorism with 77 percent marking it as very important. For Democratic voters, the leading issue is health care with 82 percent indicating so.

But wait…terrorism? But Mr. Robertson, I thought you agreed that such evils as pornography and abortion led to 9/11…I guess that core base has shifted. So have you. Irony? Considering the large backlash against John Kerry during the 2004 election over him being a “flip-flopper” and “waffling” on issues, I guess if you flip-flop in all the right directions, it’s not such a bad thing! Either that, or modern-Republicans have a short attention span.

Then again, maybe this is what Thomas Jefferson feared when he wrote this letter in 1802:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

As they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows. And compromises. Is this what was envisioned years ago? Perhaps the implications was to not only keep religion out of the state (for freedom of religion purporses), but to also keep the politics out of the church. For if once grievous abominations in the eyes of the moral majority can now become a minor difference, if those pushing for a return to a “Judeo-Christian baseline” will support the perceived “morality” more than the man, whom will the masses follow? Who has become their God now? Is it chasing after power? Is it honoring morality as equivalence to righteousness? Or has the self-proclaimed holy-water been muddied by the hands of agenda. For as power corrupts, are we so blind as to believe that the lust for such power is absent in the holy hands of the politically motivated Christian leader? For this nation, let’s hope history hasn’t been devoid of its lessons.

The Dangers of Political Pragmatism

Published by Colin November 7, 2007 in General. 39 Comments

Generally in presidential elections, voters really aren’t ecstatic over either candidate A or B (yes, even if there were a C and a mythical third party, people still could care less). Instead, they cast their vote based on who will likely not screw it up the most.

This election is no different - if Clinton and Giuliani win out, we will see republicans likely tossing out more than half of their major ideals to vote for a guy who, relative to the emblematic republicans of old - looks like Chairman Mao.

Why in the world do they do this?

The answer is pragmatism. Republicans see Clinton as a rabid, feminist, socialistic… well, Clinton. So even though they are actually voting for an anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-taxer, big spending, illegal immigration supporting, big-government politician - it’s ok because the pragmatic alternative is supporting Hillary. Forget the fact that, for all intents and purposes, they are voting for a democrat in everything but name.

Ironically, these people openly talk about why they are sorely disappointed with George W. Bush’s big-government legacy, as though they totally forgot that Bush openly ran as a big-government conservative. His immigration stance, spending-philosophy, government health care and big-government education program were all out in the open in both 2000 and 2004 - but republicans were terrified of Al Gore and John Kerry. Again, pragmatism.

Where Strategic Thinking Goes to Die
This is the ultimate danger of such a voting philosophy - pragmatism is only good for one battle - one moment in the thousands of moments of A versus B. When we elect a president, for example, we aren’t picking a winner and then everyone goes home. They stay in office for at least four years - and they do all the irresponsible things that we ignorantly hoped they wouldn’t do, but blatantly indicated they would.

As it has been said before - the lesser of two evils is still evil. And pragmatism is not a strategy -it’s suicide. Death by hanging or by jumping off a cliff?

Genuine strategy, the kind that is above base pragmatism, takes into account total wins and losses in each battle, and attempts to gain victory in the end. In other words - it’s not the end of the world if one battle is lost!

The candidate that a voter actually likes may be in tenth place, or in some obscure party which has no chance of winning. Of course, the battle will certainly be lost and the candidate will be soundly defeated - but that is one less person choosing not to play the game when the rules are stacked against them. It’s one more kid picking up their ball, and going home. Eventually, the only ones left are the bullies and thugs, and their threats and lies are exposed for the world to see.

That is the moral victory - and yes, even in amoral politics there are moral victories - the size of both A and B’s electorate and donation base just got smaller. Eventually, and maybe it takes twenty years, the politicians realize that a good number of people are actually voting on principles and not pragmatism and adjust accordingly. Now that would be real change!

The Motivation for Pragmatism is Fear
Are pragmatists afraid? Yes. They get caught up in every election - which is built up by both A and B - that this is the defining battle between the two sides. They and their pundits will say that compromise is essential, because there is just too much at stake. If you don’t vote for A, B will raise your taxes, socialize your health care and make you use lightbulbs that cost $400 a piece. But if you don’t vote for B, A will instate a draft, round up the Muslims and start arresting you for jaywalking.

It’s fear people. The heart of pragmatism exposed.

How to Break the Cycle
In choosing pragmatism, the only safeguard built into the plurality system is neutered: idealism. When democrats, for example, who overwhelmingly oppose the war, pick Clinton who has no qualms about keeping troops in Iraq another five years - they are saying that they don’t really care about ending the war. In the next congressional election, democratic candidates are going to be more moderate on that issue because they know they can win without being an ideologue. Eventually, ending the war gradually fades from the platform.

However, if Giuliani gets elected, then the democrats in the congressional elections react strongly against the war - and win - because that’s what the democratic electorate really wants. In other words, even though it’s only in baby steps, the parties are gradually shaped back into what people actually want them to be, and not what they are willing to settle for to prevent that other crazy party from getting power.

Is all of this even realistic? Probably not. People will go on, voting for their own destruction, until the whole thing breaks (if it isn’t there already). But the vision should be held, because even when this country finally breaks beyond repair, a new one is going to have to be built from scratch.

Iran and the US: The Shared Goal

Published by Colin September 13, 2007 in General. 39 Comments

Aside from the US war in Iraq, the next most pressing foreign policy question is the developing conflict with Iran. Many on both the right and left have put forth proposals outlining everything from sanctions to a preemptive nuclear strike. What makes Iran so dangerous?

They are clearly a radical fragment of the global Islamic movement

they are developing nuclear technology, which, according to most analysts, could be ported to weapons in as soon as ten years
they actively fund and support insurgents fighting against the US in Iraq (more so than any other state, they are “the other side” in the War on Terror)
They have declared that Israel should be removed from statehood, by force if necessary

Primarily due to these reasons, many Americans are naturally a little worried about Iran. At the very least, they are hostile towards the idea of Iran continuing on their present course. American officials (including the candidates for president in both parties) are presenting the country with the idea that the worst case scenario is a very realistic possibility. In fact, just yesterday, it was announced that plans to bomb Iran are now in the works.

Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever… The Bush administration “has just about had it with Iran,” said one foreign diplomat.

From the Other Side
However, in the eyes of Iranians, the US is not exactly seen as their buddy. Not including direct US meddling in Iran since the 50’s, the typical Iranian is going to fear the US for the following reasons:

They are engaging in a global “War on Terror”, which up to this point has only been against member of their religion and in their geography
They have nuclear weapons and some of their leaders and potential leaders have threatened to use them
They have actively supported Iran’s enemies in the region and even rebuilt entire nations in their area. They actively fund hostile regimes, even supplying them with weapons and training
They took Islamic land by force and created a belligerent Jewish state right in their midst

It not surprising that many Iranians, who were on the verge of toppling their own extremist regime (with a pro-diplomacy, pro-capitalist one), have now decided that, while they hate their own government, the US and it’s policy are much more dangerous to their way of life. Likewise in the US, where congress and the president have approval ratings at historic lows - people are clearly more afraid of terrorists than of the US government.

The Shared Goal
Both governments, ironically, have a common interest - fighting each other. If the US government is able to preserve the spectre of a global Islamic terrorist threat, then, despite the infringement of liberties associated with the “sacrifice” for war, the current status quo will survive and even prosper. If the Iranian regime can convince it’s people that the US is out to both directly and indirectly fight against their religion and nation-build in their region, then the people will not turn on them.

Naturally, the only requirement of these governments is not to change policy, but to balance an escalation of conflict with the quenching of dissent. This is not by way of a conspiracy or a unified agenda, but just like any issue which transfers into votes (gas prices, abortion, homosexual marriage), it is naturally in each politician’s best interest to drum up problems that government needs to fix. The perception of an aggressive Iran is as good as gold in an election year.

For example, after announcing his candidacy for President, former Sentor Fred Thompson has declared:

…if we look weak and divided in this country, we’re going to pay a heavy price for it in the future. We’re living in the era of the suitcase bomb, and they’re not going to go away. They’re here now, they’re armed and dangerous, and they’re trying to get weapons of mass destruction… Iran is becoming more and more obvious, a major, major problem for the United States of America. They are killing our people… they’ve got 3,000 centrifuges now and basically reprocessing that uranium enough to get fissile material within the next few years and most experts think well on their way to making a nuclear weapon and, of course, they’ve threatened Israel… I don’t know how much more stark the situation can be. They perceive us as being weak. They perceive us as being divided, and they think they can get away with anything.

The same is true for the Iranian leaders, only their situation is much more dire, as they were near radical change towards moderation. Everyone has heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats and strong language, yet even a cursory look into the economic and military condition of Iran shows that they have no muscle to back this up. However, this desperation has bred the same kind of dissent quenching language. Take Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks in March:

The only way to oppose and react to such aggression and coarseness is to preserve our national unity… [The Americans] are determined to divide us. That’s why all the political parties must stand together under the banner of the imam... Under the pretext of sectarian feelings, religious inclinations and gild orientations, the enemies are bent on destroying unity of the Iranian nation or fan religious differences in the world of Islam and draw a wedge between the Iranian nation and the rest of the Islamic community by inciting war between Shiites and Sunnis …In God’s assistance, all people of every sect or religion will expedite their hopeful move towards their bright future, at the same time all Muslim nations will demonstrate their unity by promoting Islamic solidarity and fraternity.

The Hype Factor
Like most complicated issues (it’s not really complicated, but too complicated for talking points) this common interest has been generally missed in the smaller (and more emotional) issues like nuclear technology and anti-Israel statements. However, the essence of the debate was most recently captured on the Factor when Ron Paul and Bill O’Reilly squared off on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdpkOg4q-3c

O’Reilly has a vested interest in a conflict (or at least the hype thereof) because it gives him something to rant about. Dr. Paul’s “history lesson” which “may or may not be true” (so let’s exchange talking points all day on it) is boring and calms people down when they should be fired up. Otherwise they are not terrified of the major catastrophe brewing in the Middle East (unless America is over there kicking butt).

The reality is that just as the current unpopular leadership of Iran and the US share a common goal, the citizens of these countries will be the ones who pay for any conflict in taxes and with their lives. As in every war, the leaders of both countries will demonize the other side while simultaneously speaking of the necessary sacrifice involved to “win” the conflict. While it may be in the leadership’s best interest to promote conflict, it is obviously in everyone else’s interest to seek peace.

Zeal For Truth