To the indignation of many, the Boy Scouts of America continues to resist lifting its ban on openly gay and lesbian adults being scout leaders. However, with the decision by two high level scouting commissioners, James Turley and Randall Stephenson to oppose the policy, Gay activists are encouraged. The wall is cracking.
Much of the opposition to gay (open or otherwise) service in scouting is framed in terms of morals. Advocates on keeping the ban in place frequently point to the requirement that scouts be "morally straight". Others cite the right of private groups to determine who is eligible to be a member of that group and who is not. As opponents to gay scout leaders are finding out, both of those are losing arguments. Privacy is a flimsy argument for a group as large and as public as the Boy Scouts of America. Morals are seen as too subjective and too capricious to carry any weight in public. By the lights of these arguments, the BSA's ban on gay scout leaders is doomed. It is only a matter of time and money before they yeild. Interestingly, the most potent argument for keeping the ban in place is the one most frequently ignored: the argument based on common sense.
Even the most cursory of glances across the public landscape reveals a distinction that is so common it is rarely, if ever noticed. Mixed gender groups and activities involving children go to great lengths to restrict and regulate the interaction between adults and children of the opposite sex in any potentially intimate situation. As a society we have concluded that in many circumstances it is unsuitable for adults of one gender to supervise children of another because of the sexual ramifications apart from simple biology. We refrain from allowing adults and children to shower with each other or sleep alongside each other if they are of opposite sex and not related, even then we place restrictions on it. We do not allow adult men to escort young girls into the restroom or change alongside them at the swimming pool. It is usually a matter of policy to segregate the sexes where there is the opportunity for mischief. As history has shown time and again, scouting is an opportunity for mischief.
Keeping adults and children apart where there is an enticement to abuse is common sense. To do otherwise would be reckless. Naturally, gay activist groups bristle at the notion that homosexuals are more inclined to child abuse than any other group. Statistics bear them out on this. However, sexual orientation should not be the Scouts primary concern, abuse should. The occurrences of adult men, of any sexual orientation, molesting children are few. Nevertheless, they do occur with alarming frequency. Even if the odds of any particular man being a sexual predator are small, it is significant enough that the possibility must be taken into account. The occurrences of adult women molesting children, while spectacular
when they occur, are so statistically rare as to be hardly worth
mentioning. Nevertheless, it too does occur and because of that, provisions have to be made
The issue is not whether gays and lesbians are capable of being scout leaders. Of course they are. One does not have to be heterosexual to teach someone how to build a good Soap Box Derby racer or start a campfire. It is about the close quarters and the
intimacy of scouting life. The prospect of sharing a shower, a
room, or a tent with someone who may be attracted to you and find you
sexually appealing can be uncomfortable and unpleasant, especially for a child. How many women (even liberal
women) would feel comfortable letting their daughter dress, shower, and sleep among
men even if the chance of molestation were negligible? Very few I imagine. That is why men and women have separate
showers, bathrooms, dressing rooms, and barracks. When it comes to our children, thoughts and glances can be as alarming as anything else.
Wanting to avoid intimate situations involving children and adults who might find them appealing is not prejudice. It is prudence. The fundamental problem is that is is easy to make accommodations for gender. It is near impossible to do so for sexuality. Such concerns will naturally be brushed off by those in favor of lifting the ban. As far as they are concerned, guidelines and policies will be enough to keep everything above board and the children safe. It is believed that reason and rules will be enough to keep human inclinations in check. Even the Catholic Church has failed to quash human nature. It is unrealistic to believe that the Scouts will do any better.
The issue is not about the Scouts banning gay people from leadership positions . It is about banning openly gay people from leadership positions. There is a difference. If the kids don't know their scout leader is gay, their scout leader's sexuality is not an issue. The issue is about what kids should be taught about homosexuality. Many feel that openly gay scout leaders would be a valuable "learning opportunity" for kids. That may be. But the peculiar nature of the scouting experience due to the opportunities it provides for intimacy along with the importance of role models and bonding make it ill suited for a class on human sexuality.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Finding the Center
When Americans Elect recently folded its tent, the hopes and dreams of many disenchanted pundits and voters found themselves once again on the curb. The collapse of Americans Elect is just the most recent in a long line of sometimes distinguished, sometimes comical, sometimes disturbing, but always failed, third party attempts. Its collapse is especially disillusioning to those who embraced it. Unlike other third party attempts, Americans Elect was not born of bigotry, ideology, or spite. It was born out of disillusionment and hope. It arose from the disillusionment of many with the "partisan gridlock" in Washington and the hope that politics in America could somehow transcend the egos and ambitions of politicians and overcome the dominance of special interest in Washington. It was not just an unrealistic dream. It proved to be a futile one.
Americans Elect was predicated on the notion that the great majority of Americans occupy what is commonly called the political "center" and that that "center" is being trammeled under the influence of special interests and political ideology. It is believed that what is keeping the U.S. government from running smoothly and preventing it from reaching its true potential is the "gridlock" caused by the clash of political extremes. Instead of a march toward prosperity and harmony, we are stuck with a football game where the ball is only moved back and forth between the 30 yard lines and instead of touchdowns we have to settle for field goals. Americans Elect wants to end the game and replace it with a new one in which everyone wins because everyone is on the same team. In such a game, the ball moves endlessly forward .This is as unrealistic an idea as it was when it was first put forward by the Founding Fathers. They too abhorred partisanship and faction. Even in a time when the reach of the federal government was by today's standards unbearably limited, bipartisanship was rare and compromise hard to come by. Some of the greatest political minds and most reasonable men that the U.S. have ever had did the best they knew how to prevent partisanship, and they failed. In a nation many times larger and more diverse, we should not expect better success.
The central premise that underlay Americans Elect and every "middle of the road" movement is that there is a middle ground that the majority can live with. This might be true, but it greatly depends on where the "middle" is and what it is between. You might be able to find an agreeable middle on the budget, but where is the agreeable middle on the abortion issue? Where is it on gay marriage or prayer in schools? That middle has not been found yet. What are the odds that Americans Elect will be able to find it?
What really rankles those with great ambitions and grand designs is the grinding nature of politics. The political process in Washington is designed to remove the sharped edges of policy through a slow and tedious policy of debate and compromise. It is a process that has come to frustrate those who desire swift and grand results. That is a good thing for as hard as it is to enact policy and pass laws, it is a hundred times more difficult to repeal them.
If you want to reduce partisanship in Washington you have to curb its reach. If you insist that the federal government has a role to play in matters such as marriage, health care, and prayer in schools, if you demand that the federal government ensure that everyone believes and behaves in a manner that suits your sensibilities, you will never find a middle ground. People compromise over where they are going to eat. They do not compromise over what they believe or how they raise their children.
Government in Washington is no longer a place where policy is deliberated. The stakes are too high for gentlemanly agreement. It has become become a political arena. You do not find compromise in an arena. You find winners and losers. Jim Hightower once famously said that the only thing you find in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos. He didn't like the middle of the road because he was a man of vision. You do not compromise on visions. You might make concessions, but you do not compromise.
If you want to restore comity in Washington you have to lower the stakes. It is that simple. To lower the stakes you have to limit the power of government. It is that difficult.
Americans Elect was predicated on the notion that the great majority of Americans occupy what is commonly called the political "center" and that that "center" is being trammeled under the influence of special interests and political ideology. It is believed that what is keeping the U.S. government from running smoothly and preventing it from reaching its true potential is the "gridlock" caused by the clash of political extremes. Instead of a march toward prosperity and harmony, we are stuck with a football game where the ball is only moved back and forth between the 30 yard lines and instead of touchdowns we have to settle for field goals. Americans Elect wants to end the game and replace it with a new one in which everyone wins because everyone is on the same team. In such a game, the ball moves endlessly forward .This is as unrealistic an idea as it was when it was first put forward by the Founding Fathers. They too abhorred partisanship and faction. Even in a time when the reach of the federal government was by today's standards unbearably limited, bipartisanship was rare and compromise hard to come by. Some of the greatest political minds and most reasonable men that the U.S. have ever had did the best they knew how to prevent partisanship, and they failed. In a nation many times larger and more diverse, we should not expect better success.
The central premise that underlay Americans Elect and every "middle of the road" movement is that there is a middle ground that the majority can live with. This might be true, but it greatly depends on where the "middle" is and what it is between. You might be able to find an agreeable middle on the budget, but where is the agreeable middle on the abortion issue? Where is it on gay marriage or prayer in schools? That middle has not been found yet. What are the odds that Americans Elect will be able to find it?
What really rankles those with great ambitions and grand designs is the grinding nature of politics. The political process in Washington is designed to remove the sharped edges of policy through a slow and tedious policy of debate and compromise. It is a process that has come to frustrate those who desire swift and grand results. That is a good thing for as hard as it is to enact policy and pass laws, it is a hundred times more difficult to repeal them.
If you want to reduce partisanship in Washington you have to curb its reach. If you insist that the federal government has a role to play in matters such as marriage, health care, and prayer in schools, if you demand that the federal government ensure that everyone believes and behaves in a manner that suits your sensibilities, you will never find a middle ground. People compromise over where they are going to eat. They do not compromise over what they believe or how they raise their children.
Government in Washington is no longer a place where policy is deliberated. The stakes are too high for gentlemanly agreement. It has become become a political arena. You do not find compromise in an arena. You find winners and losers. Jim Hightower once famously said that the only thing you find in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos. He didn't like the middle of the road because he was a man of vision. You do not compromise on visions. You might make concessions, but you do not compromise.
If you want to restore comity in Washington you have to lower the stakes. It is that simple. To lower the stakes you have to limit the power of government. It is that difficult.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Don't Worry. They Will be Fine.
The repercussions of the recent debacle on Wall Street are still being felt by those involved. JP
Morgan announced that its Chief Investment Officer Ina Drew, one of the
highest-paid
executives at the bank, had decided to "retire from the firm." Despite
her impressive resume, neither she nor JP Morgan can explain how the company lost
over $2 billion. Some predict that it could lose up to a billion more
before the year is out. She will
be succeeded by Matt Zames, a long time trader who has considerable
experience with
risky financial bets. He was formerly employed at Long-Term Capital
Management, a hedge fund whose 1998 collapse plunged the world into
economic turmoil. Despite his uneven performance in the recent past,
Zames has an impressive record in generating profit. Fumbles are not
counted as much as touchdowns on Wall Street. It might be a fall from
grace but not much else. Even though Drew lost her job, she is not going
to have to do without, No one on Wall Street will.
When Wall Street CEOs or Chief Investment Officers lose their job in the wake of poor performance, i.e. massive financial loss or mismanagement, they do not face financial uncertainty. Their egos might be bruised but their lifestyles are not in jeopardy. When Peter Kraus was pushed out of Merrill Lynch after spectacular losses, he received $25 million. When Martin Sullivan, CEO at AIG was let go he took $47 million with him. Stanley O'Neal left Merrill Lynch in 2007 after losing $8 billion when the sub prime mortgage market collapsed, he took $160 million with him. When former AIG executive Joe Cassano was pushed out in 2008 he took $315 million with him along with another $34 million in bonuses. The $1 million in monthly pay he was offered as a "consulting fee" was eventually cancelled in the resulting backlash. The rest of the money he kept. Like other CEOs and financial officers, Cassano lost vast amounts of money during his tenure.
The list of CEOs, chief financial officers, and top level executives who have lost their jobs in the wake of huge financial losses is as impressive as it is long. Equally impressive is the amount of money they took with them when they left. Despite their blunders and miscalculations, despite their grim countenance and statements of contrition, despite their noble admission of error and lapsed judgement, none of them are going to have to do without. None of them are going to have to sell their homes or sweat paying the bills. Don't worry. Unlike millions of other Americans, the executives and bankers that lose their jobs will be just fine.
As long as a person is perceived to be capable of making other people money, they will always be in demand. People like money. They like easy money even more.Wall Street is easy money. Best of all (or worst of all depending on your perspective) to the extent that brokerages are used, it is also money gained without effort. Indeed, it is almost magical. Therein lies the problem. People invest in the belief that the money they put up will be increased. Many investors have come to expect quick and large returns on their money. Many brokers strive to meet those expectations and are willing to go to almost any length to do so. After all, the better they meet those expectations, the richer they become. I would have written "limit" but there really are no limits, not yet anyway. An investment officer might lose his job. He might even lose a few million in bonuses and options, but he will not lose his lifestyle.
Until brokers and investment officers have more on the line than their egos, any barrier erected to curb their activity will be flimsy. You do not have to threaten them with prison. All you have to do is make it necessary for them to find a new job in another line of work. That would require not allowing them to leave in luxury for doing a lousy job. It would mean hiring someone at a salary befitting a person who lost a billion dollars at their last job. As for the rest, for the life of me I cannot think of a single thing a person can do that is worth being paid $1 million a year short of curing cancer or inventing a perpetual motion machine. But then I do not have as large an ego as many Americans, certainly not as large as the captains of Wall Street. Well, perhaps that is not quite true. It could be because I do not measure my stature by income or possessions. I will have to leave it my biographers to sort out.
When Wall Street CEOs or Chief Investment Officers lose their job in the wake of poor performance, i.e. massive financial loss or mismanagement, they do not face financial uncertainty. Their egos might be bruised but their lifestyles are not in jeopardy. When Peter Kraus was pushed out of Merrill Lynch after spectacular losses, he received $25 million. When Martin Sullivan, CEO at AIG was let go he took $47 million with him. Stanley O'Neal left Merrill Lynch in 2007 after losing $8 billion when the sub prime mortgage market collapsed, he took $160 million with him. When former AIG executive Joe Cassano was pushed out in 2008 he took $315 million with him along with another $34 million in bonuses. The $1 million in monthly pay he was offered as a "consulting fee" was eventually cancelled in the resulting backlash. The rest of the money he kept. Like other CEOs and financial officers, Cassano lost vast amounts of money during his tenure.
The list of CEOs, chief financial officers, and top level executives who have lost their jobs in the wake of huge financial losses is as impressive as it is long. Equally impressive is the amount of money they took with them when they left. Despite their blunders and miscalculations, despite their grim countenance and statements of contrition, despite their noble admission of error and lapsed judgement, none of them are going to have to do without. None of them are going to have to sell their homes or sweat paying the bills. Don't worry. Unlike millions of other Americans, the executives and bankers that lose their jobs will be just fine.
As long as a person is perceived to be capable of making other people money, they will always be in demand. People like money. They like easy money even more.Wall Street is easy money. Best of all (or worst of all depending on your perspective) to the extent that brokerages are used, it is also money gained without effort. Indeed, it is almost magical. Therein lies the problem. People invest in the belief that the money they put up will be increased. Many investors have come to expect quick and large returns on their money. Many brokers strive to meet those expectations and are willing to go to almost any length to do so. After all, the better they meet those expectations, the richer they become. I would have written "limit" but there really are no limits, not yet anyway. An investment officer might lose his job. He might even lose a few million in bonuses and options, but he will not lose his lifestyle.
Until brokers and investment officers have more on the line than their egos, any barrier erected to curb their activity will be flimsy. You do not have to threaten them with prison. All you have to do is make it necessary for them to find a new job in another line of work. That would require not allowing them to leave in luxury for doing a lousy job. It would mean hiring someone at a salary befitting a person who lost a billion dollars at their last job. As for the rest, for the life of me I cannot think of a single thing a person can do that is worth being paid $1 million a year short of curing cancer or inventing a perpetual motion machine. But then I do not have as large an ego as many Americans, certainly not as large as the captains of Wall Street. Well, perhaps that is not quite true. It could be because I do not measure my stature by income or possessions. I will have to leave it my biographers to sort out.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Judge Him By the Future
"Common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it." -unknown
Addressing supporters at a rally in Columbus Ohio on Saturday, President Obama told listeners that he would urge Congress next week to implement "common sense ideas" to accelerate job growth. He sought to deflect blame for the languishing economy by chastising Republican lawmakers for not doing enough to bring down unemployment. Obama made his remarks after government data showed that hiring has slowed and the economy continues to struggle three and a half years into his administration.
"That is why next week I am going to urge Congress, as they start getting back to work, to take some actions on some common sense ideas right now that can accelerate even more job growth," he said at a school in northern Virginia: a key battleground in the upcoming presidential election. The economy will be a dominant factor as voters weigh whether to give Obama a second term, and he took the opportunity to tell Americans that he was not to blame. It is GOP intransigence that is hampering progress.
Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives will be returning to Washington next week and begin negotiations on legislating a long-term highway transportation bill, which Obama and Democrats have framed as a job-creating measure. The legislation is intended to fund yet more major construction projects, such as roads, bridges, and mass transit systems. Fortunately there are always roads to be paved and bridges to refurbish. Immigrant laborers will be happy to learn that their jobs are not in jeopardy.
Government data showed U.S. businesses slowed their pace of hiring in April to115,000 new jobs, compared with forecasts for 170,000. Unemployment edged down a tenth of a percentage point to 8.1 percent, but this was partly because of the number of discouraged workers who dropped out the labor force last month. "There are still a lot of folks out of work, which means we've got to do more," Obama said. The question is more what? More spending and more government according to the administration.
Not only are Obama's solutions not very good, they are not very new. Obama has been "stimulating" the economy for over three year yet the economy is still not stimulated. That is because government sponsored jobs almost always cost more than they produce. What is the point in spending $100,000,000 to stimulate the economy if it only results in $75,000,000 in economic activity? Other than obtaining the gratitude of those who were hired, nothing is gained. Why not give that $100,000,000 to the public and let them spend it? Because the government has no control over how people spend their money. Progressives do not trust people to spend money in ways that benefit the government or advance their agenda. Indeed, most Americans have no agenda. They have families, homes, and their own priorities. Unless it can be demonstrated that buying a new television or taking a trip to Disney World advances the progressive cause, liberals are not interested. Government jobs create workers who are dependent on the government for their paychecks. Government grants create communities and organizations that are dependent on government to balance their budgets. Government spending creates people who are dependent on government for their well being. The more people that are dependent upon government, the more indispensable government becomes. The more indispensable government becomes, the more immune to reform it becomes.
Obama cautioned the public. "They'll (Republicans) tell you who to blame, and ask you if you're better off than before the worst crisis in our life time. The real question - the question that will actually make a difference in your life and in their lives of your children - is not just about how we're doing today. It's about how we will be doing tomorrow." Against the economic policies of his his opponents, Obama is once again holding out the promise of a better future. That is really all he has to offer. After three and a half years under his leadership, the present is discouraging. He is asking the public not to judge him by the way things are now, but by the way things will be four years from now if he gets another chance. Obama ran on hope in 2008. He is running on hope again in 2012.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
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 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
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 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
- Resolution 106: "...‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid"
- Resolution 111: "...‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
- Resolution 127: "...‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem"
- Resolution 162: "...‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions"
- Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria"
- Resolution 228: "...‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
- Resolution 237: "...‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
- Resolution 248: "...‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
- Resolution 250: "...‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
- Resolution 251: "...‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
- Resolution 252: "...‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
- Resolution 256: "...‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation"
- Resolution 259: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
- Resolution 262: "...‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
- Resolution 265: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
- Resolution 267: "...‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
- Resolution 270: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
- Resolution 271: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
- Resolution 279: "...‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
- Resolution 280: "....‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon"
- Resolution 285: "...‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
- Resolution 298: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem"
- Resolution 313: "...‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
- Resolution 316: "...‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
- Resolution 317: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
- Resolution 332: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon"
- Resolution 337: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty"
- Resolution 347: "...‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
- Resolution 425: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
- Resolution 427: "...‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’
- Resolution 444: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
- Resolution 446: "...‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
- Resolution 450: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
- Resolution 452: "...‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
- Resolution 465: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program"
- Resolution 467: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon"
- Resolution 468: "...‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
- Resolution 469: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians"
- Resolution 471: "...‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
- Resolution 476: "...‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
- Resolution 478: "...‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’
- Resolution 484: "...‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
- Resolution 487: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility"
- Resolution 497: "...‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
- Resolution 498: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
- Resolution 501: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
- Resolution 509: "...‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
- Resolution 515: "...‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
- Resolution 517: "...‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
- Resolution 520: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut"
- Resolution 573: "...‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
- Resolution 587: "...‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
- Resolution 592: "...‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
- Resolution 605: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
- Resolution 607: "...‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
- Resolution 608: "...‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
- Resolution 636: "...‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
- Resolution 641: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians
- Resolution 672: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
- Resolution 673: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
- Resolution 681: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
- Resolution 694: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
- Resolution 726: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians
- Resolution 799: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)