Response to a very touchy subject.

    This is definitely a very difficult subject, not one that is easily tackled in a government blog. Kelly Rogers expresses an opinion that is very common in America, a moral objection to the practice of abortion. However, her focus in the article is not so much the religious minefield that is the pro-choice/pro-life debate, but the way in which that debate might soon be affecting American citizens. She lays out the details of the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill championed by Mr. Obama, which, according to Ms. Rogers would allow abortions after the stage of viability and remove all restrictions from the abortion providers regarding consent of the significant people in the woman's life. She expresses concern with Mr. Obama's eagerness to pass this bill and what that eagerness might mean for the American government.

    Just the mention of such a subject is sure to light a few fires, and Ms. Rogers handles the issue fairly delicately, especially since the issue is not exactly conducive for a "middle ground" opinion. She understands that all her readers are going to either agree or disagree vehemently. But while she is respectful of dissenting voices, she is somewhat fuzzy on the facts, and her evidence is not clearly laid out. Granted, the "facts" of the abortion debate are notoriously elusive, as most tellingly evidence by the constant battle over the meaning and importance of "viability." However, Ms. Rogers states definitively that any abortion performed after 21 weeks ("or so") is murder, when in reality, a cutoff point is much harder to pin down.

    Apart from the trickiness of the facts, I both agree and disagree with her conclusion. True, she and I stand on complete opposite ends of the debate, and we would battle it out over the morality of the issue, but I understand her concern as a taxpayer in being forced to subsidize a practice that she feels to be murder. On the other hand, most pro-lifers use religious logic as the basis for their arguments, and by giving in to their view of the issue and limiting my choices, I would be forced to live my life according to a religion that I do not belong to and that I feel has caused countless more murders than abortion ever could. Also, I disagree that this act will necessarily lead to so many more abortions. Obama will also place an emphasis (perhaps a much greater emphasis) on birth control programs that will cut down on the number of abortions in a much more positive way, by reducing the need for them rather than reducing a woman's rights.

    Really, this issue is not so different from many others facing American citizens. There are countless opinions in our country, and all of us will resent the way that our tax dollars are used at some point. Ms. Rogers opposes her money being spent on murdering the unborn, and I oppose my money being spent on murdering Iraqis. But the abortion issue is one that I truly believe will never be resolved. You either believe that abortion is murder or you don't. If you believe that it is murder, you would try to stop it at all cost; but if you believe it is a woman's natural right, you would try to uphold it at any price. Therefore, without trying to sound pessimistic, there can be no significant compromise. But the debate will rage on, and the tides of opinion will continue to affect women's rights for the worse or the better. I just hope for my own and for every other woman's sake that each ebbing of the tides brings even a little gain in upholding our interests.

Thoughts of a Gun-Toting Liberal

     In light of our recent elections and the President-elect's views on gun control, I thought I'd tackle something that has been weighing on my mind for a while, something that has me thoroughly confused: why do so many liberals hate guns? Or rather, why are liberal gun owners so dismally represented in today's politics?

     I know it sounds laughable that a vegetarian hippie socialist like myself would want to own guns. But I'm part of a growing minority of people that does not identify with the fundamentalist image of most gun owners. I have my reasons for owning guns--none of which involve killing animals or harming people--and I believe in upholding personal rights and promoting equality. I don't really see these various beliefs as incongruous with my lifestyle and ideology.

     So why must I be forced to compromise one of my very important freedoms in order to protect others that I hold equally dear? I'm speaking of course about voting for liberal Democrats because they promote my interests in many other areas like economic and social programs and on issues like abortion and the environment. By supporting Democrats, I'm faced with voting against one very important issue or voting against several. In that sense, I suppose it seems like a small price to pay, but I don't understand why people see the issue itself as so black and white, and why liberals must make the gun-ownership issue one of their major targets.

     The issue itself is a hotbed of debate that has raged for time immemorial. The objections of the anti-gun sector revolve around cutting down on crime, through the banning of certain types of guns and the strengthening of laws to decrease criminals' access to guns. Their pro-gun opposition argues that responsibility is the key, not banning, and that banning will not decrease crime. Both sides produce statistics supporting their own view, and they debate on and on about which side uses the right numbers.

     The arguments boil down to two good reasons to address gun control: preventing accidental deaths/injuries, mainly of children, and preventing criminal ownership. But child safety is the responsibility of the parent, full stop. Parents should educate their children in gun safety and responsible handling, and parents proved to be negligent of their guns and their children's well being should be prosecuted. So ultimately, the only solid argument for gun control is the issue of criminals with guns. This factor needs to be addressed above all else, through tightening gun-sale requirements and enforcing gun crime laws. This is where government and activist groups need to focus their efforts, not in taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens. It's an old cliché, but it makes sense even despite the confusing statistics that anti-gun camps throw out to counter the logic: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

     So what's the point? I haven't come here to argue the merits of gun control--believe me, I'm a definite advocate for stricter regulation. But "regulation" does not mean "banning," and that's the idea that I wish liberals would champion. I am a law-abiding citizen, and I should have the right to purchase any kind of firearm I feel necessary, provided I submit to controls like background checks and gun registration. This is an issue where compromise can be reached, one simultaneously of freedom of choice and containment of violence. And once this middle ground is established, I can finally vote liberal Democrat without a bad taste in my mouth.

The Next Step.

     Even before last Tuesday's historic (and apparently, highly predictable) election, Republicans were doing some soul-searching regarding the fate of their party. Although many ultra-conservatives had all but jumped ship on the announcement of Sen. McCain as the 2008 candidate, by the time election week had rolled around, many GOP diehards were wondering if the party didn't take a wrong turn sometime before that. My classmate's article "Where to From Here?" examines the GOP's recent stock-taking and reassessment of their goals for the 2008 elections. He explores all the seats of power that the Republicans stood to lose besides just the much-focused-on presidency, and he makes a convincing argument that the GOP really needs a priority check.

     Seeing as his audience is our diverse little group of students, Mr. Lazarski takes a very reasonable approach to his commentary, neither inflammatory nor weak, which seems to fit his self-described moderate views. Avoiding the high emotions that surround the Bush administration, he takes a calm look at the fact that President Bush's ratings have dropped drastically over his final term. As much as some conservatives would like to deny it (my Fox News-devoted uncle claims that Mr. Bush will later be recognized as one of the greatest presidents in our history), the simple truth is that even many who supported Mr. Bush is 2000 and in 2004 are weary of his policies and missteps. Mr. Lazarski uses this dissolution as the basis of his argument that the Republican party started changing their focus long before Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin stepped on the scene.

     Mr. Lazarski is asking a question that many conservatives have been asking for a long time. In hindsight, his points about the Congressional races were fairly prescient, showing that the polls were spot on (or that Democrats won so overwhelmingly as to negate any margin of error). However, even before this transfer of power, his argument was correct. Even without this election and the resulting stark evidence of the waning influence of the GOP, Mr. Lazarski's call for reevaluation carries much validity.

     Concerning the implications of this argument, I am less certain. This realignment shows the failed mentality of the GOP in recent years, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right? In light of this recent moderate stance of Republicans like Mr. McCain, will the GOP backlash and revert to its super-conservative, evangelical views of the 80s? And a Democratic monopoly is equally prey to the stagnating effects of incumbent power; will we be saying the same things about them in 4 to 8 years? Whether or not the Republicans recognize it, continual examination of priorities is a good thing--to keep the party on track and in line with the views of its constituents. Of course, I do still fear the results of this priority check within GOP ranks. One can only wonder if the 2012 ticket will be Palin/Joe the Plumber, spreading their real-America, religious, free-market values across our land. Until that time, I'll hold my breath and hope that President-elect Obama does not do to the Democrats what President Bush has done to the GOP. Good luck, President-elect.

Godwin's Law, Revisited.

     The latest McCain campaign argument/rebuttal/smear tactic is the pronouncement that Obama is a socialist. At the risk of sounding naive or idealistic, my response on hearing this for the first time was “So what?”

     OK, back up. That’s a bad place to start. Before plunging headlong into centuries of socio-political debate over the virtues and pitfalls of socialism, a better beginning would be to investigate the evidence and logic behind Joe the Plumber’s statement--and the McCain campaign rallying point--that Obama’s tax plan “sounds more like socialism.”

     Firstly, so few of us have a solid understanding of socialism to begin with, that to incite this claim is to call on Cold War fears, still lingering in the American imagination, or perhaps to conjure images of "terrifying" South American leaders who flex their dictatorial muscles by trying to use their countries' natural resources for the benefit of their own people. Whichever of the many definitions of socialism floats your boat, Obama is not really a socialist. Yeah, he’s more liberal than some, which means he will raise taxes, and he used the phrase “spread the wealth,” which, lest we forget, is a basic principle of a progressive tax system such as the one we currently enjoy. Perhaps some of Obama’s policies like tax and health care are in danger of appearing *gasp* European, but would the likes of Warren Buffet really be advising and associating with Obama if he was likely a socialist?

     The fact is that, regardless of the label put to Obama’s tax plans, McCain’s are hardly different in the effect that they will have on the country. The Tax Policy Center’s analysis of both candidate’s tax and health care plans show that “without substantial cuts in government spending, both plans would sharply increase the national debt” (emphasis added).

     But all of these are practical considerations; let's really focus on the theoretical. If Obama did indeed harbor some socialist tendencies, I refer to my opening statement: “So what?” Ignoring for the time being the nuts and bolts daily operation of socialism, we can all agree that some of its aspects “look good on paper:” namely, the programs enacted in order to level the playing field to try and give the underprivileged a fighting chance and to close the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. Surely we can agree that if Obama brought a socialist perspective to the U.S. government, some of the resulting programs would be worthwhile if added to our current social structure. Where taxation is concerned, it seems ludicrous for individuals to complain about being taxed for earning over $250,000 a year when some can't afford health care for themselves or their families. We've seen the effects (or rather we haven't) of trickle-down economics, and the current economy cries for something different: now, in this time of recession, the hardest hit will be those who are already struggling for subsistence.

     Conservatives will always argue that liberals will have too big a hand in government. But with this most recent claim, they should really stop to turn the microscope on their own ranks. For all their bluster over the nationalization of our banks undertaken with the recent bailout, and the big show they put on over rejecting the plan, they let the (fascist) Patriot Act slip through Congress with barely a peep—in some cases even with great applause. I’m not sure I’m comfortable in a society where citizens are more protective of their economic interests than of their lives and basic human freedoms. And Obama is just one man. Even if he were the most radical of Marxists, he himself would not be able to fly in the face of the prevailing economic trends and overhaul our fundamental socio-economic structure. That is the beauty of the American democratic republic—checks and balances. At the most, Obama might be able to turn a few of his more strongly held ideals into law, such as universal health care. Please stop me if I'm starting to scare you...

Maybe a pinch of socialism in this melting pot will improve the flavor.

"Carbon charlatanism:" Say that ten times fast...

     The Devil's going to the back of his closet to pull out the winter sweaters, cause Hell is about to freeze over.

     That's right, I'm agreeing with Fox News. Dum da duuuummm!

     Let me preface that statement (Please, give me a chance to defend myself)!! I went to Fox News looking for a really right-wing commentary that might be fun to rip into, and I came away with this. I've always been pretty eco-minded, and recently, finding myself without economic means for a car, I have been pedaling myself around with the fuel of my own self-satisfaction turning the wheels of my bike. So the subject is of some interest to me. I thought, Great. I wonder what Steven Milloy has to say on the subject of the environment; probably some rubbish about raping the planet. Alas, though I found such material as would be expected from a man in the employ of such imperials as Philip Morris and ExxonMobile as well as the author of a blog covering "all the junk that's fit to debunk," I also found that this particular post went beyond the usual global warming debate.

     Milloy informs his Fox audience about an interesting offer from the World Wildlife Fund, that organization of the ubiquitous panda logo, to participate in the journey of a lifetime! The irony is plain to see, that a company touting drastic lifestyle change--including reducing air travel--as a way to reduce human impact on the planet would offer such an extravagant and seemingly wasteful vacation. (The hilarity is amplified when you take a look at the banner across the top of the page which proclaims several lovely eco-platitudes each time the page loads: when I opened the page, there was a graphic of a bicyclist lecturing me to reduce my carbon footprint.) Concerning the "luxury" vacation, Milloy really just states the obvious about the hypocrisy, and he drives his point home with a look at the WWF's own carbon footprint calculator, finding that a journey such as the one advertised would cost over $44,000 in carbon offsets.

     So far, so good. However, as always with Fox and its affiliates, Milloy's post seems to infantilize both the target of his attack, in this case the green industry, as well as (subtly) his audience. He uses a tone that suggests the utter incompetence and therefore the complete incredibility of his target, so common to Fox broadcasters. That is what is so frustrating about the Fox News network in general: in some (very few) cases such as this one, I do agree with them, at least on certain points, but the obstinacy of their tone blinds me to any logic they might be using. And though I heartily agree with him on the point of the jet tour, I'm not so sure of his lambasting of the carbon-offset industry. I understand how such a product seems like snake oil, but when you take a look at the companies that offer these offsets, such as the now-famous NativeEnergy who offset the carbon footprint of the filming of "An Inconvenient Truth," what they really are is creative charities. The "guilt" money sent in by wealthy overconsumers goes toward funding green projects and--for NativeEnergy--offering hope to the decimated tribes of Native Americans. Of course, every industry has its bad apples, but it's naive to automatically discount the entire industry because some people are greedy.

     By turning the WWF's own preaching against them, this article of Milloy's does what is intended: it gives the Fox-devoted sheeple another talking point to shout about. Although I agree with the main point of the article, to expose the hypocrisy of a sometimes-dubious charity, I cannot be led to the same conclusion as Milloy, that all things green are a global scam created by kill-joy liberals to break up the earth-raping, SUV-driving, animal-hunting, tree-felling, reckless-living party. The moral of this story for me is look closely at a charity before forking over your hard-earned money, a lesson well learned particularly when giving to charities, but equally important in all aspects of life. And though I'm doubtful that conservatives and liberals will ever agree on the wider global-warming issue, I'm sure they can all agree that there will always be those who prey on the emotions of average, concerned citizens in order to exploit their response to charity. Hopefully, policy makers will understand that such behavior does not discredit an entire movement and regulate accordingly.

The Coming Storm

     Searching for the right article for this stage of the blog, I checked CNN and was surprised to see a commentary on the current economic crisis written by Dr. Ron Paul. Not surprised to see that he had written it, knowing his economic prowess, but surprised to see CNN, a newsgroup considered liberal by many, carrying his ultra-conservative writings. Paul must have been trying to bring his message to the wider audience of “the most trusted name in news,” although in researching the background of this article, I was even more shocked that CNN was not the only network to seek his advice.

     So. I like a challenge. Why don’t I attempt this critical analysis on his commentary? Daunting though it might seem, I set about to dissect Paul’s formidable take on the crisis.

     Paul, who openly and vociferously speaks against the Treasury’s bailout plan, foresees that the bailout will only have a temporary effect on the markets and the gross inflation and ultimate devaluation of the dollar will have a greater adverse effect in the long run. He calls for deregulation in most sectors of the economy, a backing-off of government from its current position of heavy-handed intervention, and balancing and decreasing the federal budget. In Paul’s eyes, the Federal Reserve and various government regulations since the 1930s, such as the Community Reinvestment Act, have the greater share in the blame of today’s financial crisis than, say, deregulation in the mortgage industry. He explains in a brief overview the underlying points of laissez-faire economics, and elucidates how that systems should work and how it is working now.

     This is where Paul and I start to differ (strangely enough, I’ve recently found myself ideologically torn between Paul’s libertarian capitalism and the far extreme of socialism). How things are working now is not the contention; how the system should work is the tricky bit. Part of me wonders if my emerging socialist instincts that cry foul on his Austrian-school logic are just youthful naivety, and another part of me questions whether I possibly understand more than I think. His logic is sound, if you are looking from his free-market perspective; he is more than capable of expressing his views logically enough to convince and enlighten the most uninformed layman. His evidence is basic, solid economic theory that anyone can learn in Principles of Macroeconomics. But Paul is an adherent to a free-market economy, and his calls for deregulation, though stirring, are problematic. Yes, some deregulation might be needed, as in the eradication of the Fed, but more deregulation in the industry could lead to more greed. Yes, people would be responsible for their actions (with no rescue for moral hazard), but then there would be nothing to stop the materialistic and unethical from exploiting other people.

     The implications of this article are the hardest part. Paul obviously understands the markets better than I do, in more depth and obviously with more experience, but I definitely appreciate one of his major points: that a financial bailout by the Federal Reserve could result in hyperinflation and the crashing of the dollar. It took nearly 10 years to recover from the Savings and Loan crisis, at the cost of $153 billion—Capitol Hill is now calling for bailout nearly 5 times that. This is an uncomfortable position for me to take because I don’t know the consequences of letting the market crash. But I do know that by creating more money, we are devaluing the dollar--at a high cost to the average taxpayer--and leaving ourselves open to greater tragedies of unknown scale.

     I could be wrong about the bailout. Perhaps it will save the country from being mired in a second Depression. Or perhaps the $700 billion tab picked up by the taxpayers will only trigger the revolution. If so, I want front row seats.

Fire!

I don't know about you, but honestly I'm a little tired of this constant bombardment with panicked and negative news commentaries on how each day sees our economy more quickly circling the drain.  Of course it's important to understand what is happening in the wider world, but every new article I see on the subject sets off a cacophony of bells and sirens in my mind, shutting out any meaningful message that the author might be trying to get across.  

It seems to me that all the national figures are spectators, standing and pointing, shouting "Fire," rather than grabbing a bucket to help douse the flames.  And of all the noise being made on the subject of banks filing bankruptcies and securities becoming vulnerable, the most useless speculation is on where to lay the blame.   

Publications worldwide, like Politico, give us their opinions based on their bias, and the Dems blame the GOP and the GOP faults the Dems and all the other parties... might as well not exist, as far as the media is concerned.  

To be fair, this article offer criticism of both parties, and it seems to understand that Americans might not see the Wall Street nightmare as a single-party cock-up.  It details several different blunders from both sides of the aisle, and it even has a liberal on record saying that the Dems made a mistake--albeit the mistake of not distancing themselves enough from the Republicans.

The article reaches the conclusion that the Dems need to clarify their answers on why the Republicans have caused such a mess.  I imagine that this will be the strategy for Obama in the upcoming days on the campaign trail.  Actually, I'd like to hear that one--a full scale explanation of why this is not the Dems fault, complete with facts, voting records and written documents showing how they did everything in their power to stop the snowballing of the economy.  We'll see how long it takes to get a reply to that inquiry.  

So read the article, if you can stand the noise.  But keep in mind that each camp has written one just like it, with themselves in the protagonist role.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go call my broker...