One U.N for Them. Another One for Us.

In an address last Monday before the U.N. Security Council, China's Ambassador Li Baodong told the body that China "welcomes and supports all measures that help break the deadlock of Palestinian- Israeli negotiations and restart their dialogue. The Palestinian-Israeli question is the core issue of the Middle East peace process, which needs continued attention and assistance from the international community" He went on to state that "China always maintains that the parties concerned should resolve their disputes through political negotiations under the relevant UN resolutions, the principle of 'land for peace', the Arab Peace Initiative and the Middle East Road Map for Peace with the goal of ultimately establishing an independent Palestinian state and two states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace."  He added that the Israeli settlement is a major obstacle for the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiation. 

Naturally, the U.S. balked at the notion. The idea of U.N. resolutions binding Israel is one the U.S. has consistently refused to accept. We have even threatened to take our ball and go home as when we threatened to cut our support for the U.N. (the same body that created the state of Israel) when it proposed to take up the issue of Palestinian statehood. There have been nearly one hundred resolutions passed by the U.N. in regard to Israel. Israel, with the help of the U.S., has successfully evaded them all. If you have a few hours to kill you can look them up for yourself. They are not secrets.

The U.S. regularly vetoes sweeping resolutions concerning Israel, such as those calling for the right of Palestinians to return to land occupied by Israel and a return to the 1967 borders. But there are many more resolutions vetoed by the U.S. concerning issues of absolutely no threat to Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Resolution 518, for example, demands "that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". That was vetoed. Israel has repeatedly been cited by the U.N. for violating the sovereignty of its neighbors. Resolutions on that topic have failed.  Resolutions condemning Israel for the deaths and deportation of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of Palestinian property have been thwarted. Israeli military attacks consistently avoid censure with U.S. help. When, after Israel bombed the Palestinian headquarters in Morocco, a motion was put forward to condemn the attack, the U.S. blocked it. On numerous occasions, the U.N has "deplored" Israeli actions such as when it refused a U.N. call to return civilians it abducted in Lebanon and admit a U.N. delegation to investigates its activities there. Those resolutions, while not blocked, were adopted over the objections of the U.S. Some of the U.S. vetoes have been on resolutions bordering on the trivial. One resolution vetoed by the U.S. called on Israel to refrain from holding a military parade in Jerusalem. True, a distinction can and should be made on scale. A military parade should not be equated with building a nuclear weapon. But there is a principle involved: a principal that is frequently appealed to by the U.S. That principal is that no nation is above, or removed, from its obligation to adhere to U.N. resolutions and international law.

There are at least one hundred U.N. resolutions concerning Israel. They range from expressions of concern to condemnations. Israel has ignored them all. It is easy to imagine the concern in Tel Aviv and Washington when China calls for the resumption of negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis under "relevant U.N. resolutions." Even with the latitude provided by paring the long list of resolutions down to the "relevant" ones, China's proposal is an impossible one for Israel and the U.S. to swallow. China is too astute a nation not to recognize that. It is simply staking out its position in the region.

China has no allies in the Middle East. It has no enemies. As they say here in Texas, China has no dog in the fight. It has no one to protect and nothing to defend. It is free to come and go as it pleases.  It brings with it a fresh set of eyes and what it sees in Israel is a nation that has defied the U.N. and flouted nearly every resolution passed concerning it since it was founded. In that, it sees an opportunity for diplomacy. China's main concern is stability in a region that is increasingly important to its economy. As an outsider to the region, China has decided to start at the beginning. By qualifying its statement and calling for negotiations under "relevant" resolutions China has shrewdly given itself room to maneuver. China is being pragmatic. It has staked out no position and committed itself to nothing. It has simply called for the enforcement of U.N. resolutions that currently exist. With a very few notable exceptions, Israel has scorned the U.N. as a biased organization that persistently seeks to undermine its legitimacy. In fairness, aside from the U.N.'s action to establish it, they have ample reason to feel that way. The U.S., on the other hand, has repeatedly turned to the U.N.and sought it's imprimatur whenever possible. The U.S. should be sensitive to the appearance of arbitrariness in its reliance on the U.N. if it wishes to continue to play the role of arbiter in world affairs.

The U.S. has recognized the authority of the U.N. to resolve disputes and mediate conflict. We have demonstrated a willingness to use the international chain of command when possible. But we have always reserved the prerogative to act where, when, and how we see fit due to our economic and military dominance. Should that dominance end we will find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to rely on diplomacy and persuasion to achieve our ends. Much of the world, however reluctantly, yields to the U.N. out of necessity. Due to its economic and military power the U.S. has been immune to U.N. pressure. Because of that, Israel has had the same luxury. This is not unnatural. Still, even though the U.S. would never yield to international resolutions deemed hostile to our interests, we continually take umbrage when other nations do.

The U.S. is special. Israel is special to the U.S., therefore Israel is special. But you cannot have it both ways. If the U.S. is going to rely on the U.N. to keep the peace, enforce international laws and uphold resolutions, it should acknowledge that all nations are bound by them, even us. To selectively disregard international law and the U.N. when it becomes inconvenient is to upend the very concept of international law. Either the U.N. has the authority to bind nations, or it does not. If it is up to individual nations to decide which U.N. resolutions to recognize and which ones can be dismissed then the U.N. has no authority. It is little more than a scold and tool to advance the interests of those able to bend it to their purposes.

The U.S. has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security council. It has ample opportunity to shape and affect policy at the U.N., especially in regard to the Middle East. What it doesn't seem to understand is that you cannot always get your own way. If you insist on the authority of international law and recognize the U.N. as the arbiter of that law you are obliged to adhere to it even if it adopts measures you disagree with. At least you should be if that authority is to carry any real weight.

Despite its reliance on the U.N over the years to validate its agenda, it should not be construed that the U.S. in any way feels obliged by it. U.N laws and resolutions evidently only bind those too weak to escape them. Israel has consistently ignored U.N. resolution over the years with the support of the U.S. The majority of those resolutions were passed long after Israel's existence was no longer in jeopardy.

If nations are allowed to ignore laws and resolutions at their pleasure then there is really no such thing as international law and resolutions are meaningless as long as you are powerful and influential enough to ignore them. If we insist on the authority of the U.N. to resolve disputes we should insist that all nations be obliged to follow them. We did not allow South Africa, Rhodesia, Serbia, or Iraq, to cherry pick which resolutions they would adhere to and which they would disregard. We should not allow other nations do do so, even if they are our allies. 

Below is a partial list of U.N. statements and actions taken in regard to Israel. Which are the relevant ones and which aren't I leave for you to decide.

*****************************************

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 was passed on December 11, 1948, near the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The resolution expresses appreciation for the efforts of UN Envoy Folke Bernadotte after his assassination by members of the Zionist ultra-nationalist Lehi (group), headed by Yitzhak Shamir. Resolution 194 deals with the situation in the region after the majority of the Palestinian Arab population fled from Israel-controlled areas and the surviving Palestinian Jewish population in Arab-occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank had been expelled by the (Trans)Jordanian Arab Legion. The resolution called for the return of refugees to their homes and defined the role of the U.N. United Nations Conciliation Commission as an organization to facilitate peace in the region.

*************************
Arab Peace Initiative (2002)

The Council of the League of Arab States at the Summit Level, at its 14th Ordinary Session

- Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab Countries, to be achieved in accordance with International Legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli Government.

- Having listened to the statement made by His Royal Highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in which his Highness presented his Initiative, calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land for peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

- Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.
2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:
a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.
b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
c. The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
3. Consequently, the Arab Countries affirm the following:
a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.
b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.
4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.
5. Calls upon the Government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab Countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability, and prosperity.
6. Invites the International Community and all countries and Organizations to support this initiative.
7. Requests the Chairman of the Summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the Secretary General of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim States and the European Union.

Resolution 673: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.

Resolution 465: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s
settlements program"


Resolution 469: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians"

Chinese UN ambassador Li Baodong said here Monday.
Li made the statement while addressing a UN Security Council open debate on Middle East.

*****************************************
UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992

1. Resolution 106: "...‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "...‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "...‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "...‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "...‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation"
13. Resolution 259: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
15. Resolution 265: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’
31. Resolution 444: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians"
39. Resolution 471: "...‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "...‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
41. Resolution 478: "...‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’
42. Resolution 484: "...‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 520: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut"
51. Resolution 573: "...‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
52. Resolution 587: "...‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
53. Resolution 592: "...‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
54. Resolution 605: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
55. Resolution 607: "...‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
56. Resolution 608: "...‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
57. Resolution 636: "...‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
58. Resolution 641: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians
59. Resolution 672: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
60. Resolution 673: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
61. Resolution 681: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
62. Resolution 694: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
63. Resolution 726: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians
64. Resolution 799: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return. 

-Paul Findley. Deliberate Deceptions, (1998)

Getting Our Priorities Straight

Republicans in the House have set their sites on reducing the deficit. They do not have a choice. Cutting the deficit is what they ran on in 2010. It is what they will run on in 2012. Their plan is to cut $261 billion from the federal budget over the next ten years. It is also their intent that spending cuts will not be extended to the Pentagon. The $683 billion spent on defense last year, roughly 20% of all federal spending, is off limits. That is unfortunate for many Americans. On the agenda of the GOP is a plan to cut food stamps. Despite President Obama's best efforts, 46 million Americans receive food stamps, up from 33 million in 2009. The average monthly benefit for a family of four is $500. In all, the program costs the government about $76 billion a year, and that out of a budget of $3.5 trillion. That is an amount deemed extravagant enough to get the GOP's attention.

Since the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 U.S. defense spending has increased at a breathtaking rate. U.S. defense spending has increased by 81% since 2001 alone. 20 years after the demise of our greatest rival, defense spending is increasing. This is because, rather than viewing the demise of the U.S.S.R. with relief, the U.S. has come to view it as an opportunity. 45 years of frustrated ambition has to be made up for. We won the Cold War and to the victor go the spoils.

The U.S. spends more on defense than any other nation in the world. According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, world wide defense spending in 2010 was $1.6 trillion. The U.S. spent $680 billion of that. In fact. the U.S. spent six times more than our growing rival, China.  But then we have a world to defend. China only has a country.

The United States is not in jeopardy. Aside from Chinese and Russian ICBM's, there is absolutely no military threat to the nation. The only threats that exist are to our interests. This is where the problem lays. Because the U.S. has interests everywhere it must be prepared to defend everything, from Africa to Asia. That is an expensive obligation. It is growing more expensive every year. That might be one reason the U.S. is working so energetically to rid the world of enemies. We just cannot afford them.

U.S. defense spending is a byzantine array of research, weapons, and material. Rather than focus spending on proven weapons and existing technology, the U.S. continues to research and develop weapons that there is no need for. Even though our supremacy in the air is unchallenged, we continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing new aircraft. Our ability to control the oceans is unmatched yet we are spending billions on new warship designs. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone is budgeted for $11.4 billion.The Navy is planning to build 11 new destroyers every year for the next 15 years. In 2011, the defense department spent $2,2,00 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. For many republicans in Washington, that is not enough. Despite the rhetoric of a "War on Terror" the vast majority of defense spending has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. We do not need F-35s and guided missile destroyers to fight terrorists. Terrorists have neither navies or air forces.

A strong military is viewed as essential to America's interests. The world is a dangerous place, at least for us. But aside from North Korea, it is our policies and ambitions that put us at odds with the world. It is our absolute and blind loyalty to Israel that puts us in conflict with the Middle East. It is our efforts to retain our hegemony in the Pacific that will put us in conflict with China. It is our lingering distrust of Russia that still fuels our policy of containment.

The advocates of American global dominance contend that any ebb in U.S. power will create a vacuum that will quickly be filled by others. But what they ignore is that an economic collapse will cripple U.S. power far more dramatically than any proposed cut in defense spending. Without the lure of financial assistance much of the world would soon fall away.  Despite the self serving rhetoric in Washington, apart from those seeking to overthrow their governments or preserve their regimes, the U.S. has little appeal for much of the world.

Throughout the history of the U.S. our power has been measured by our economy. We triumphed in WWI and WWII not through the strength of our deterrence but through the strength of our economy. A technologically and economically ascendant U.S. would be a deterrent far more fearsome than a few hundred fighter planes and a few dozen submarines will ever be. As it stands, a protracted conflict would strain the U.S. military greatly, particularly if we were to suffer significant losses in men and material. Without the economic resources to replenish our forces, any real war would be a risky adventure. Our economy is at the breaking point keeping the military we have. China could ruin the U.S. without firing a shot.

U.S. spending is going to go down eventually either by choice or by necessity. It is up to us. We just cannot afford to spend money as we have been spending. When the time comes that we will have to actually balance the books we will have to set priorities. One choice will be between a strong military and a strong country. Many nations have viewed their military as a source of strength. Some might recall the old days where Soviet leaders stood proudly as a near endless array of tanks, soldiers, and missiles paraded before them and swarms of fighters flew overhead. Those days ended when the Soviet Union collapsed in destitution. All the military might the Soviets could muster could not compensate for a crumbling economy and an increasingly impoverished population.

The strength of the U.S. has always lain with its economy. Through out most of its history, the U.S. has maintained a modest standing military. Instead it relied on its ability to create an army and the industrial capacity to equip it with quality weapons on short notice.The Japanese learned that lesson the hard way in WWII. It is that ability that we are putting in jeopardy with our ruinous financial policies.

As the U.S. mulls the idea of a war with Iran we should must not forget that there is a larger world out there. An increasingly stretched U.S. military and tightening financial circumstances will not be to our benefit. The last century ended with the U.S. on top. There are still  88 years to go in this century. Unless we get our priorities straight, the way things are going we will be lucky to finish the century in the top five.

The poor do not vote in large numbers and, when they do, they do not vote Republican. 46 million hungry Americans and a sagging economy will do little to help maintain America's edge in global affairs. But to the armchair strategists and global theoreticians in Washington the real game is geopolitics. The poor are going nowhere. The debt is still a largely abstract issue. True adventure is only found off shore.

In their efforts to tackle the deficit, Republicans in the House want to cut food stamps by $8 billion over the next year. $34 billion over the next decade. The question we should be asking is whether shaving that $8 billion from a $680 billion defense budget would be better for the nation. I guess that depends on who you ask. On the other hand, if we were able to do something about the $211 billion we paid in interest on the debt last year you wouldn't have to ask anyone. We could just write a check for both and build a school or two with the change.

What's Wrong With Bigamy?

The Dallas Morning News regularly runs a column called Crime Stoppers. In the column, a list of people wanted by the Dallas police department is published along with a photo of the person and the charge they are wanted on. The crimes typically cover a wide range of offenses, from public intoxication and burglary to armed robbery and murder. (I have not yet discerned how or why particular people are chosen for an appearance in the column.) Some time back, there was a listing I had not seen before. Sean Block, age 30, was wanted for bigamy.

It is surprising that in this enlightened age of homosexual marriage that there are still laws against bigamy. Certainly the idea of traditional marriage as one between one man and one woman is not a barrier. If two men decide they want to get married, many demand that the state accede to their request. Many courts have upheld the legitimacy of gay marriage and conferred upon it the same rights and privileges accorded to traditional marriage. Any encroachment on that right  must be able to withstand a high level of scrutiny and be based upon something more tangible than moral or religious sentiments.

Laws against miscegenation, adultery and fornication have long gone by the board. So why are laws against bigamy, to say nothing of polygamy, allowed to stand? It is not a matter of public health. There is no evidence that bigamy is any more of a threat to public health than monogamy. Is it because bigamy undermines the idea of marriage as a union between one man and one woman? That cannot be it. That barrier has been breached. Could it be because polygamy is contrary to what is written in the Bible? That is a laughable proposition. Since when have the courts cared what is in the Bible? Could it be because polygamy is seen to undermine the morals of the community? Certainly that is not the case. Morality we are told is simply a subjective set of beliefs that do not bind anyone but the person who holds them.  Moreover, as is often chanted by the left, you cannot legislate morality. Essentially, the reason bigamy is illegal is because most people, liberal and conservative alike, (albeit for very different reasons), object to it. So strong are the feelings against bigamy that any religion that embraces it or group that advocates for it is scorned. Tolerance, religious or otherwise, does not extend to bigamy.

It can, (and likely one day will), be argued that bigamy hurts no one. Where bigamy is the result of coercion or involves minors it becomes a matter where the law is obliged to step in. If a bigamous marriage is the result of deceit there is already a legal remedy. It is called divorce. If the problem lay in the legal tangle that might arise from a polygamous marriage, that is what lawyers and courts are for. Where bigamy involves consenting adults, there is no basis for legal interference, especially if it is rooted in religious tradition. Simply put, bigamy is illegal because most people object to it. It is an institution that runs contrary to Christian tradition and the moral sensibilities of an overwhelming majority of Americans. But why should it matter what most people or particular religions think? As we have been told time and time again, just because something offends people or violates a religious tenet is no basis to make it illegal.

Often in the U.S., when it comes to moral issues it doesn't matter what the public thinks. As far as the law is concerned, public opinion is not important. Why should it matter how Americans feel about polygamy? By the standards of modern relativism, traditional marriage is simply one of the last remnants of an antiquated notion of religion and moral propriety. If we are to keep making progress towards the ideal society, cobwebs such as bourgeoisie notion that marriage should be confined to a union between two consenting adults must be swept away. If Jane can marry Betty, why can't Robert marry Sarah and Ruth?

Custom, tradition, and moral sensibilities have been steadily eroding as foundations of law. Without them, we are left with only reason to guide us. Reason alone is not a sufficient basis for drafting law. It never has been. This is because simply following a line of reasoning can lead not only to places one doesn't want to go, but also to places one never imagined to go.

How Much is Enough?

President Obama recently slammed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for embracing the $3.5 trillion budget proposal put forward by Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. He even accused Romney of being a radical. An odd accusation for Obama to make when you consider that Obama has spent the last three years trying to remake the U.S. "Reactionary" would have been a more appropriate word coming from the president's mouth. Ryan's proposal calls for cutting the size of government and reducing spending. The details are long, and I must say boring. There is nothing overly dramatic in his proposal. It is a long list of adjustments and shifts that is only alarming in its scope. It touches on almost every social program in America. By most accounts the budget proposal has little chance of passing. That is because it is a long list of adjustments and shifts that touches upon almost every social program in America. What stands out is that the president can condemn a $3.5 trillion budget as miserly.

Everyone in Washington agrees that something has to be done over the deficit. They disagree over what. Some say revenue has to be increased. Others say spending has to be cut. There is a middle ground between the two.You could hold government spending flat and wait for the economy to catch up. But that is the least likely scenario of all. If you simply freeze spending and taxes, no one in Washington would win. No one could boast of how they cut spending or increased funding. There is not a revenue problem in Washington. There is a spending problem. How much does the nation need to spend in a year? That depends on who you ask. According to President Obama and his allies, more than $3.5 trillion. How much debt can the U.S. afford to carry? That too depends on who you ask. According to President Obama and his allies, more than $13 trillion.

President Obama can point to Reagan all he likes but that doesn't change a thing. Just because Reagan and Bush spent us into a hole does not give Obama a license go on digging. You can talk of trickle down and priming pumps all you like but at some point the red and black lines have to meet if disaster is to be avoided. Revenue will never catch up if you keep digging. The looming financial meltdown is not a sudden crisis. It is a slow moving and entirely avoidable disaster. It has been coming for years. Reducing deficits will do nothing to stop it. It will only slow it down. It is absolutely pointless to talk about reducing the debt until you can pass a balanced budget. If you cannot or will not pass a balanced budget, do not even talk about the debt. It is like an alcoholic telling the bartender about all the wonderful things he is going to do after he gets sober. In the mean time he will take another drink.

A $3.5 trillion budget reactionary? How can that be? That does not even take into account the two and a half trillion dollars spent by state and local governments last year. The federal government collected $12,292 for every person in the U.S. last year. If you throw in state and local governments, the amount collected in taxes goes up to $19,998 per person. Total government spending, including state and local governments in 2010 was $5.8 trillion. That is over $18,500 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. Surely a few hundred more dollars from every American won't matter much. Even if some can't come up with it, there are plenty who could pick up the slack. But consider this: there are over 313 million Americans. What if every American took just $1,000 of what they paid in taxes and went shopping with half of it and saved the rest. Just imagine what the economy would look like. That would still leave the government with a couple of trillion to spend, more if you consider how much revenue would increase with the explosion of economic activity that a hundred million in consumer spending would generate. In 1991 the government took in $1,055 billion. In 2001 it took in $1,991 billion in current dollars. In 2011 it took in $2,173 billion. Not bad. Unfortunately, it spent $3.6 billion. That is bad. Federal revenue has steadily climbed over the years. The problem is that federal spending has increased at a higher rate.

You can disagree over what obligations the government has and to whom. You can argue the merits of policy.  You can question the extent to which government should regulate commerce. But you cannot say that such policies and the need to fund them are not justifiable attempts to meet the concerns of the public. The same cannot be said of the debt. Payment on the debt feeds no one. It shelters no one. It does not build a single bridge or library. It does not fund a single policeman or fireman. It buys not one bullet or tank. It is simply sent out the door. The $164 billion dollars paid in interest on the debt benefited no one but our lenders. That is the burden of the national debt. That is the burden that will only get worse until we steel ourselves to do what is necessary to address it.

Central to the problem of addressing the debt is the cost, benefit time line. The pain of spending cuts would be felt immediately. The benefits would take years, perhaps even decades, to materialize. Adults should know that sacrifice and patience are integral parts of success. They have to consider the bigger picture. They choose a goal and make a plan. They determine what will have to be done and what will have to be avoided, what will be retained and what discarded. Then they brace themselves and set out. Children do not care about the future. They have no interest in the consequences of their behavior. They want a bike and they want it now. The future does not exist for children. They live in the present.

Very few politicians are willing to run for office on a platform of how little money they will bring home if elected. Even fewer would run on a platform of what services they will curtail and deny their constituents. That is because we wouldn't vote for them. Until people are willing refuse money from Washington there will be no such thing as too much government spending.

Meanwhile on the Eastern Front

For those of you who have been following the news from the Middle East you are no doubt familiar with the growing tension between the West and Iran. But what is not given as much attention is that Iran has another side that faces east. Things are very different on that side. The alarm at Iranian activities on the part of the West is largely absent in the East. While China has expressed its reservations concerning Iran, it has so far been unwilling to follow the West's lead in increasing pressure on Tehran. Where the West is issuing threats, China is expressing concern. Meanwhile, China and India continue to do business with Iran.

Most notable in this regard is China's recent deal to develop energy sources and increase trade with Iran. Iran has oil. China needs oil. China needs stability in the region if it to have a reliable supply. War in the Middle East, particularly a war with Iran, would jeopardize that, as would an attack, deliberate or otherwise, on Chinese developments in the country. But this news is rarely reported in the U.S. When it is mentioned it is usually in passing. Events in the region are commonly, and understandably, placed in the context of U.S. and Israeli concerns. Iran's machinations and maneuverings, being the primary issue at the moment, are viewed through the prism of our interests. While China does not neglect to cite U.S. and Israeli interests in the region, it reports the news in a very different light.

A case in point is an article published on the China News website nine days ago. It was titled "Atrocities Committed by U.S. Soldiers in Recent Years". That right, not "crimes", or "violations", but "atrocities". In all, eight were listed. These ranged from the rape of a young girl by a U.S. marine in Okinawa and torture at Abu Ghraib, to the recent rampage by Staff Sergeant Robert Bales in which 17 civilians were murdered with the story of U.S. troops urinating on corpses in between. The decision not only to make a list, but to identify that list as a chronicle of "atrocities" is revealing. It reflects an attempt by China to recast U.S. scandals around the world, as a not as a series of incidents, but a pattern of behavior. The choice to extend the list back nearly a decade indicates that China seeks to portray the U.S. as a borderline criminal enterprise.

Ghostery has found the following on this pag

Why would China do this? The Middle East with its energy supplies is a vital region to the industrialized world. As long as China was a largely undeveloped nation, it had little interest, or need to pursue resources around the globe. That has changed. China's rapidly developing economy is drawing it into competition with the U.S. for markets and resources. At the moment, the resource in question is oil. For decades, countries in the Middle East have relied upon the West to stay afloat. By and large, nations in the region only have one commodity, oil. Being all but worthless to the nations who possess it, oil has to be sold if anything is to be gained. The only profitable market for oil has been the West. So oil is sold to the West. We need oil. The Middle East needs to sell oil. That is changing. While the Middle East still needs to sell oil, they are increasingly able to find other buyers. China has already increased imports, as has India.

It is evident that China is seeking to create a rift between the U.S. and the Middle East, however subtly. It is in its interest to do so. If the Middle East turns eastward China stands to gain mightily. It will gain access to resources that it needs and expand its influence further west to new markets and new opportunities. Should that happen, the U.S. will find itself in a very different world. When we were competing with the Soviets in the region we were confronted with a declining and brittle foe. China is different. It is a rising and dynamic opponent. It is unfortunate that through our policies we are making it easier for China to expand its influence. The new and unstable democracies being established in the Middle East will be no barrier to Chinese expansion. Indeed, their frailty will invite it. We have given Iran no place else to turn but east. That is not in U.S. interests at all. As competition between the U.S. and China grows the U.S. will need allies in the Middle East, not dependencies and clients.

The U.S. has been quick impose sanctions and drop bombs. It is also been Johnny on the spot with weapons and military support for those perceived to be acting in our interests. What is often neglected is that, no matter which side we are supporting, we are dropping bombs on Muslims. On the other hand, the U.S. has been glacial in its efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both policies have served to increase animosity toward the U.S. in the region. There is not a single government put in place by the U.S. that is not being challenged in one way or another and doesn't bear some grudge against the West. Neither is there a single government established under U.S. auspices that is not having its arm twisted to reform in a manner suitable to Western sensibilities and follow our lead in regional affairs. The one monument to U.S. efforts in the region, Egypt, is cracking. Against this you have China with a wallet full of cash, a platinum credit card, and no interest in changing your nation. It is simply seeking to buy what you are selling.

The reporting of U.S. "atrocities" over the years, particularly those that occurred in the Middle East, is an attempt by China to sully the U.S. and thereby expand its opportunities. As important, if not more so, is that the article was published by the official Chinese press, not in some tabloid or manifesto. The day is coming when the U.S. will have to take China into account throughout the world. When that day comes we will be at a distinct economic and political disadvantage. It will not be like the Cold War at all.

A Chinese frigate recently made an appearance off the Libyan coast. It is anticipated that China will launch its first aircraft carrier later this year. It is at the moment in negotiations with Seychelles about creating a naval base there, which would give it a permanent presence in the Indian Ocean. It has become active in Middle East politics and injected itself into the debate over Syria. There is a bigger picture here and we should take a little time to look at it. For better and worse, a strong and Islamic Iran is a barrier to Chinese expansion. A weak Iran in turmoil is an opportunity. If the U.S. is not careful, it might just bomb and sanction the Middle East into the open arms of China, if we don't nag it there first.