Can Community and Character Survive Globalization?

To determine survival, one must first know what something was and what it is, so that a judgment can be made on what it becomes. Thus it is important to first identify community, character, their relationship, and how they are threatened, if at all, by globalization. A community can be regarded as a set of interactions or human behaviors—actions and understandings based on shared expectations, values, beliefs and meanings between individuals. These values and beliefs are, in turn, products of traditional and experiential development. Communities are naturally exclusive. A community’s strength of character is its willingness to maintain its particular identity apart from globalized interests. Character is an investment by a community in itself. While character is essential for the preservation of a community, it abounds from whatever inherent strengths and virtues the community espouses. Character functions to uphold the community standards, maintain its healthy traditions, and incorporate modernity as needed. While strength of character is an unrelenting pursuit of community interest, it must be an interest healthy for the community’s entirety, not just economical. The survival of a community, and thus the survival of character, is dependent on a continually discerning approach.
Communities are continued by like-minded posterity, and as such exist as recognizable constructs far older than any of their living members, constructs that will likely continue through generations. Ultimately, a community is beyond its very components, members, or even a geographical location. It is self-sufficient, existing without external need or dependency. Though attributes such as race and religion often aid in identifying a community, it is reducible, as a concept, to individuals with a common interest. Character is the measurement of a community’s ideals embodied in an individual or the group as a whole. Strength of character is determined by the capacity to preserve the communal traditions, and its variances of conviction affect the motivations and inclinations of any individual when making judgment or decisions. Community interests are not always synonymous or harmonious with the same community’s traditions, and at times it is necessary for individuals to serve their interests, as well as those of their community, even if against tradition. Provided these individuals do so with strong character, and they act for the good of the community, the traditions deemed most essential will be preserved and the community will ultimately endure.
Within the context of global trade and interactions, communities are simplified and amalgamated into a nation. Common interests become national interests, though individual traditions and ideals may not be identical or complementary; some amount of unity is necessarily lost. While nations, as a whole, appear to readily benefit from the plentiful labor, cheap consumption, and massive spending that comes with increased globalization, individual communities often do not. In a globalized economy, national interests often conflict with those of their comprising communities. The practical difference with the modern concept of globalization is that nations are no longer limited to trading goods or raw materials. As the tendency towards outsourcing grows, the protective element of national borders, formerly in place to protect communities, is not a prerogative of economic nations inclined towards globalization. It was not until the 1970s that the percentage of world GDP in foreign assets recouped the integration seen in the early 1900s. From 1870 until 1914, at the height of European imperialism and nationalist preoccupations, massive amounts of capital were sent from Europe and the Americas to areas of recent settlement with plentiful natural resources, but not cheap labor. Unlike today, developed nations were paying for raw materials but reserving the manufacturing jobs for domestic workers. In these circumstances, communities were not sacrificing domestic labor for national interest in foreign development. Furthermore, the governing opinions on globalization and free trade were far from homogeneous. Developed European nations, as well as the United States, specified protective tariffs, particularly affecting domestic agriculture, and the policies often changed with every new political election. Since the 1970s, the prevailing aspiration of many nations has been a modern, highly globalized economy that dissolves borders—a policy regarding globalization as an indisputable good. Robyn Meredith, Senior Editor at Forbes, offers a sufficient rendition of this trend:
Cut to 2007, and the numbers are in: The protesters and do-gooders are just plain wrong. It turns out globalization is good--and not just for the rich, but especially for the poor. The booming economies of India and China--the Elephant and the Dragon--have lifted 200 million people out of abject poverty in the 1990s as globalization took off, the International Monetary Fund says.
For proponents of globalization, the free flow and exchange of goods and services has flooded world markets with cheap, plentiful goods and labor saving devices for the benefit of anyone with money to spend.
Such approaches attempt to simplify what is, by virtue of its being a global issue, a very complicated situation. They do so by equivocating national interests and national measures of wealth with the well-being of individual communities—those on both sides of the global trade paradigm. Dr. Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, notes with distaste:
Desirous of demonstrating that globalization is creating more US jobs than it is destroying; normally sound economists are making fundamental analytical and empirical errors… As long as most economists and elected officials remain in total denial, we are unlikely to do anything about it.
The 1970s saw new highs in foreign asset investment, and even against the oil and debt crisis of the latter 1970s and early 1980s, promised increased consumption through global labor arbitrage. This mantra, as Dr. Roberts points out, is still repeated today. Even in the midst of the worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression, U.S. corporations continue to offshore jobs and to replace their remaining US employees with lower paid foreigners on work visas. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, poverty rates that were declining in the 1950s and 1960s spiked and stayed relatively static since the later 1970s. While outsourcing was helpful for China and India in way of employment, it has not been correspondingly helpful to the U.S. The G.I. Bill, war development loans, private saving, and rationing of World War II left post-war Americans benefitting from high levels of education, technology, and capital. The American workforce was highly productive and had little to fear from cheaper, foreign labor working with less capital and technology. However, the increased privatization in Europe, China, and Mexico in the 1980s, along with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, created investment opportunities abroad where skilled but unemployed labor was available. This explains the shift from colonial globalization to modern, with its new investment priorities. In this modern period, capital and technology are easily transferrable, and all other factors being relatively equal, are appropriated towards the cheapest labor supplies. Technology and capital were not so easily transferred in the early 1900s with cost-efficient results. Instead, the preoccupation was with the importation of raw materials to industrial complexes with better skilled and better paid workers. According to Roberts, globalism is a direct threat to U.S. living standards:
A number of economic factors, such as existing contracts and mortgage debt, make it impossible for U.S. wages and salaries to quickly adjust downward to Chinese and Indian levels. Therefore, Americans will continue to lose ground in the global labor market.
For communities in the United States, the cost of globalization is a loss in employment.
Roberts and Meredith encapsulate the difficulty in gauging the value of globalization. They both come from the same nation, but as seen by their conflicting opinions, come from different academic communities. Meredith values the economic benefit that globalization brings in the form of foreign job creation and cheap consumption. Roberts values domestic jobs, if at a higher cost of consumption, and bemoans the loss of domestic employment—in essence emphasizing the economic costs of globalization. Meredith continues, “As the Chindia (Chinese-Indian) revolution spreads, the ranks of the poor get smaller, not larger. In the 1990s, as Vietnam's economy grew 6% a year, the number of people living in poverty fell 7% annually; in Uganda, when GDP growth passed 3%, the number fell 6% per year”. She refers to the same privatization as Roberts, but excludes the negative effects he emphasizes so heavily: “China unleashed its economy in 1978, seeding capitalism first among farmers newly freed to sell the fruits of their fields instead of handing the produce over to Communist Party collectives”. Meredith is concerned with financial improvement regardless of community or nationality, citing with pride how Starbucks now serves coffee within the Forbidden City—a particularly contentious issue with the Public Citizen Group against whom she is arguing. The Chinese and Indian economies are growing, as are the standards of living almost everywhere foreign capital goes. Considered in isolation, this prosperity is a good, but it does seem that certain elements of tradition, in this case oriental, have been compromised. It is ultimately up to those Chinese and Indians with strong character to decide what is most valuable, and up to them to create a balance between economic progress and cultural preservation. If the communities comprising the growing economy have re-orchestrated their ideals and values solely towards economic prosperity, then contemporary character and community would survive. The traditional aspects of their communities, however, will likely be forfeit, especially on a national level, where they cannot be represented as ubiquitous national traditions. The Chinese, as a nation, don’t necessarily value the Forbidden City as an austere and untouchable icon, though some Chinese communities do.
Roberts addresses the spending side of globalization, and observes a country of communities once known for economic thrift and prudence failing to preserve their traditions or even serve the immediate interests of economic well being. He asks, “Will the U.S. still be a superpower when it can no longer make anything and is dependent on foreigners for manufactured goods?” The United States, an alliance of fifty greater communities, is running a massive trade deficit and losing income as more and more U.S. assets are forfeited overseas. The argument for globalization, that this loss is being more than made up for in cheaper goods, will soon be without merit, according to Roberts, as the U.S. dollar depreciates in value. While living standards increase elsewhere, they decrease in America, and the new sector of the American economy supposed to fill the manufacturing void, information technology, is also being outsourced at what is, for Roberts, an alarming rate. For the United States, globalization seems to bring less economic well-being and has developed a destructive attitude among U.S. consumers. Modern outsourcing has caused America’s domestic demand for labor to decrease dramatically. Between January 2001 and May 2003, US manufacturing jobs declined by 13.3 percent, and the jobs continue to decrease. Every state and the District of Columbia have lost manufacturing employment in the range of 15-21 percent over the last ten years.
Nations can borrow on debt, as the United States continues to do, but individual communities cannot. When nations enter into trade, they utilize their productive resources. In the United States-China relationship, the U.S. has borrowing power while China has labor to its advantage. When a nation absorbs more than it produces, it must necessarily borrow from abroad. While Congress expands the federal debt limit, manufacturing-centered communities like those in Detroit or Lexington North Carolina wither away. A greater concern is the lessened emphasis on actual ownership and the moral hazard this brings. Part of the recent U.S. recession had to do with default mortgages and defunct credit. Americans seem to place less and less value on hard work, patience, and consolidated ownership. Wassily Leontief observed that the U.S. exported labor intensive commodities in the 1950s and 1960s—contrary to then-contemporary economic theory and quite contrary to today. Any association of communities which once lent money to the world, as the exceedingly industrial United States did during and after World War II, cannot be in sequence with tradition or its values if it now perpetuates its own debt—an act showing a substantial lack of character for those community leaders who do so.
Because of the trade deficit, American communities must borrow to support higher living standards than they can produce, while many Chinese communities are producing better than they can afford. All of the communities involved have become dependent, though Robert’s fears of a devalued dollar have been abated so far by the Chinese Government pegging the yen. Foreign investors, like the U.S., have become dependent on cheap imports to make their joblessness acceptable. None of these parties sound like strong nations comprised of strong communities—communities that can reconcile current interests with a preservation of their traditional ideals. Global trade is no longer just an advantage or particular and small aspect of a protective community. It has been lumped into the greater goal of globalization, now held to be a necessary constant. A community that depends on foreign involvement is a community that will eventually buy into a new culture as well—in this case a culture of rapid consumption. While this may satisfy immediate community needs, the new culture will be incompatible with the community’s traditions and inherited ideals. Economic well being is distinct from cultural well being, and of course is of varying importance to any given culture. The economic interests of a community can be served in keeping with all of the community’s traditions, but often are not. Modern globalization, defined by its differences from globalism in the early 1900s, is setting a new trend of its own, and by nature of its reliance on progressive technologies, is very rarely in keeping with community heritage.
Many of the pro-globalism economists argue that globalization with tampered exchange rates isn’t ideal, and that any negative effects in the global exchange can be explained by monetary control. This is another example of varying communal priorities. The Chinese orchestrators of globalism, for example, value being exporters, and thus peg their currency. Many American communities, who are used to significant buying power, value international trade when complemented by domestic employment. While American buying power remains strong due to China’s policy, the nation at large will be unwilling to sacrifice cheap goods for higher levels of employment. However unemployment within American communities is likely to conflict with their traditions and put a strain on their cultural wellbeing. As the problem with unemployment grows, communities will begin to politically mechanize controls to the same effect of the Chinese—unregulated globalism is not really possible.
The interests of communities that coincide with the exigencies of globalization will survive, but the traditions and interests that conflict with it will not. William Baldwin, a self-proclaimed critic of Meredith says, “We are unmistakably enriched when China dumps products on our markets too cheaply”. This would only be true if consumerism were the be all and end all of America’s existence. But the cheap consumption and instant gratification of globalization are hardly in keeping with the characteristic traditions of many American communities. Consider the traditional, American Dream maxim: hard work, patience, and perseverance will yield anyone of any community their desires for liberty and happiness. It was this ideal that brought so many otherwise different communities together. But the reckless, materialistic pursuit Baldwin advances so fervently necessitates no hard work or patience. As long as China keeps offloading cheap goods, one doesn’t have to work hard or aspire to anything more. The older American community is dead and buried with its virtues. It has become an anachronism that will serve as little more than a dull heading towards the back of a textbook. Likewise, in an era of aggressive globalization, exporting communities cannot afford to prioritize based on inward needs, as they will be focusing on foreign demand. The unmarketable aspects of the old will fade as communities strive to interest foreign buyers.
New communities can form or develop as long as they maintain common interests and individuals with the strength of character to pursue them. Globalization, though it may contain economic incentive, is a pursuit pragmatically opposed to the independent community. The polis, the local community, exists to protect the interests of its citizens from external pressures. In the 21st century, the conflict of globalism is between private communities and global forces. When communities attempt to globalize, they abandon their foundations. While these traditional communities seem doomed as the world becomes more and more economically integrated, this isn’t to say that new pseudo-communities won’t form or possess some small piece of their original virtue. However, these new commonwealths are products of globalization. They can be sustained only by globalization, and are wholly subject to its every ebb and flow. If there is a recession, they will also diminish; such is the risk of abandoning all self-sufficiency. Sufficiency can be, and was, complemented by international trade. Trade proved inadequate for the nations involved with the apparent benefits of rampant outsourcing. While nations may benefit from globalization, communities do not. Communities can trade, but they cannot globalize and remain a distinct community; it is an existential paradox. Individuals with strong character can accommodate inevitable change and reconcile the community’s traditional ideals with modern interests. However, globalization, the external search for economic security, has become incompatible with necessary self-reliance for community survival. The new global groups are centered on economic considerations that will take little account of traditional mores. The economist studies individuals living in a world of scarcity. Societies produced by globalization, whose character will be defined by economic interest, will be driven by individual inclinations toward personal gain rather than communal integrity.

America Now, Then, and Now

This year has been one of extreme turbulence in the American political scene. Any pensions for moderation have been long lost. With fair cause, allegations of left-wing socialism and right-wing libertarianism are commonly, derisively exchanged in the American forum, and a preoccupation with the purported evil of the opposition often detours any political machinations from an active pursuit of good. So seldom now are political discussions about the means to an agreeable end; so often are they diatribes to further cement diametrical ideologies. Defining, categorizing, and simplifying, most often along political, racial, and religious guidelines are the methods of the day. With the ill-will between political factions and identities at an amazing high (and again, not necessarily without good reason), it is helpful to remember those moments of excellent inter-political cooperation, when Americans were still able to form that more perfect union in active resistance of great evil.
Such was the case with the 1948-1949 Airlift, perhaps the most brusque ebullition of American initiative and ingenuity in the entire 20th century. Though divided amongst the Allied forces after WWII, Berlin was entirely enclosed and isolated in the greater Soviet portion of Germany. To gain control of the city, Soviet forces blockaded all railways and roads into Berlin, hoping through this threat of starvation to stimulate enough discontent that an uprising would occur in Berlin and allow the communization of Germany proper. A Democrat president, Harry Truman, and a majority Republican legislature signed/voted the Marshall Plan into effect, and from June 24th, 1948, until May 12th, 1949, the Allied airlift kept the badly damaged German capital, which was meeting only 2% of its vital production needs, supplied with adequate food and coal until the blockade was lifted by the much-shamed Soviets. A total of 278, 228 flights, flying a total 92 million miles, provided 13,000 tons of food and 26, 000 tons of coal per day to Berlin, and at its height the airlift actually brought more supplies into the city, per day, than had been previously been brought by ground. The Airlift was sustained through the exceptionally harsh winter of 1949, and was run so efficiently that one plane departed for Berlin from an Allied base every 30 seconds. The United States dropped 1,783,573 of the Allied contribution 2,326,406 tons food and coal, at a total cost of $224 million, which if adjusted to modern inflated standards equals $2 billion. For less than half the cost of what the U.S. pays Israel and Pakistan annually to not fight each other, the United States kept Berlin fed, heated, out of communist control, and did it all by plane.
There was a time when objective, eminent goods were easily recognized, if for no other reason than Americans then had a lot more in common. Admittedly, few issues are as black and white as the Berlin Blockade, but the loss of an enemy like the USSR should not mean a loss in moralistic temperance. Now the accused socialists seem to be pursuing a crippling spending policy, while the accused ultra-conservatives advance their “don’t spend to help anybody anywhere” policy. This can all be seen within the context of any one issue—say health-care reform, foreign aid, or troop presence abroad. Perhaps the contrast between need and want is not as obvious as it once was, but the necessary moralistic perspective seems largely lost amidst the current political segregation. The American political dialogue may have broken down, but America’s enemies, the enemies of life, liberty and happiness, have not. The same pride and perseverance that shocked the world in the Berlin airlift, appears to be fretfully dwindling.

Hot and Steamy Premonitions

Though modern science has been unable to give any formal explanation, it has been well documented that many animals, domesticated and wild, behave in an abnormal, anticipatory fashion before natural disasters. Most recently in Thailand, but with many tsunamis and earthquakes, people report their pets moving erratically and congregating on higher ground, usually moments before some cataclysm renders man and beats homeless alike. But without a numerated cause, without a lengthy theory supported by lots of big words, ambiguous experts and pie charts (everybody likes pie), can ma really rationalize and learn form this phenomenon?
Superseding all of these isolated, though nonetheless tragic, disasters, is the end all and be all, the ultimate come uppins' for scientific man: Global Warming. With national leaders such as UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer predicting simultaneous droughts, floods, and famines--which the less enlightened may think to be mutually exclusive-- it may seem as though people will finally be good and prepared for the coming catastrophe. Al Gore, the peaceful promulgator of carbon awareness and environmental consideration, put his money where his mouth is, and the $75 million he loaned to Silver Springs Networks, an energy-saving technology company, was backed by the U.S. government, which has directed $3.4 billion in aid and development--all in addition to the recent motions in the Senate. Still, there are those naysayers, those who refuse to board Noah's Ark even as the ice caps begin to melt. The Frederick Seitz Project, a petition signed by 31, 478 scientists attesting to the invalidity of man-made global warming, demonstrates the stubbornness of those self-proclaimed educated who cannot see what others feel all around them.
Man would do well to heed the forewarnings of his four-legged friends, and while he has often rued his past neglect, nature has again come knocking. All of the female South American spotted bears at the Leipzig zoo in Germany have lost their hair, clearly in anticipation of the coming global warmth. The sudden change has veterinarians baffled, and while many insist it is some sort of sudden onset genetic disorder, a lack of additional symptoms or adverse health effects yields little credence to this theory. It is early November, but instead of growing an increasingly thick coat as normal and undisturbed bears would this time of year, these prognosticating creatures have taken the coming climate change into consideration. Visitors have been bombarding the the Leipzig Zoo in record number to marvel at the bizarre spectacle; one hopes they will take more away from the experience than a few awkward photographs. The spotted bear, the only indigenous bear of South America, is listed as "vulnerable to extinction" by the International union for the Conservation of Nature, and supposedly has lost over thirty percent of its natural habitat to human encroachment. If people do not heed these anticipatory creatures, if they dismiss the Bear's sudden baldness as an unexplained, unsubstantiated bit of fun like so many are dismissing global warming, then the spotted bear may soon be finding the world a much more spacious place.




After:
Before:

Bizzare Czars so Far

There has been ongoing criticism, particularly among mainstream conservatives, concerning the ambiguous and continual appointment of executive ‘czars’ by the Obama administration. The term itself, ‘czar’, was coined by Ronald Reagan in 1982 when referring to his predecessor Jimmy Carter’s appointments, and Reagan himself maintained loyal officials in similar positions. The main grievance with this fairly recent czar tradition is that these specifically appointed presidential advisers, some of whom are currently unabashed communists, serve entirely outside of congressional oversight and are not appointed with Senatorial approval. As it stands, the Obama administration has a record staff of thirty two czars, but has only nominated candidates for 243 of the 385 branch positions which do require confirmation in the Senate. Though the president can delegate authority amongst inferior officers (Article II section 2), there has been an increasing discomfort with the ever-increasing appointment of these persons outside of the traditional advice and consent process.
Because Obama has already set a new record only ten months into his presidency, and he has done so with such notable appointments as Socialist International member Carol Browner and accused embezzler Nancy-Ann De Parle, a renewed wariness is very appropriate. The exact administrative authority of these czars is uncertain, undefined, overlapping, and tax-payer funded, but with unmistakable certainty the presidency is growing less and less transparent. It is important to remember that, while Obama may be going above and beyond any sense of political prudence, he is not the first president to so appropriate his executive powers. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes all had varying numbers of czars, and while there is something to be said about the quality of appointments and the reflection on each president by the company he keeps, the fact remains that while conservatives complain, their record is no cleaner.
Obama’s approval rating, along with that of a majority Democrat congress, has fallen at record rates, and as it looks increasingly likely—albeit still a long time away from the next dual election—that conservatives will reclaim majority control, they will have to make an important decision. If the republicans do retake the White House and intend to make good on their promises of reduced government and de-regulation, they cannot simply appoint better qualified czars or appoint less of them; they must abolish the practice entirely. This is not to say the convention is in itself unconstitutional, but it is certainly abused, unnecessary, and contrary to any avowals of conservative policy. Republicans have contributed to the czarist problem as much as the Democrats, and if given the opportunity they must not forget to accompany their words with action. Conservatives complain that Obama’s appointments are out of touch with Middle America and nothing more than an expansion of power. While this is probably true, Republicans have not yet done anything to actually curtail this form of oversight. Czarist appointments must not be accepted as an irreversible aspect of the political status quo, but altogether rejected by conservatives if their political platforms are applicable and genuine.
Removing this state of czar-dom is far from implausible—after all the czars are only accountable to the president. Some maintain that the practice, if carefully regulated is a good and needed check against congressional power, but this only further shows how deeply rooted the regulatory mentality is rooted. This persistent commissioning suggests that politicians on both sides of the spectrum are too used to the idea that the czars should be there. This political malaise, this timid approach to reducing an appallingly costly and inefficient bureaucracy, stands in as victorious progressivism. Despite all of the agreeable rhetoric against it, governmental micromanagement has been allowed to persist where it should not, and it is a shame that so many politicians seem used to the idea.

Inside Joke or Communist Yoke?

Inside Joke or Communist Yoke

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn raised a few eyebrows last week when she, while addressing a group of high school students, identified Mother Teresa and Mao Zedong as the two people she looked to most in life and as her inspirations to challenge the status quo. Dunn went on to urge her audience accordingly, “It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definitions define how good you are internally.” Dunn praised Mao for his intrepid takeover of China, neglecting to mention the 70 million casualties but nonetheless admiring his indomitable spirit. This shows President Obama, the first president to spurn a meeting with the Dalai Lama, in a new light—he was fighting his own war and not letting the external tradition of his predecessors influence him. When challenged on her pro-communist and potentially anarchical rhetoric, Dunn claimed to have been joking. It is indeed difficult to see the humor, but this does mean Dunn was not taking her address to impressionable high school students seriously and she may regard Mother Teresa a joke as well.
Before everyone’s sides stopped hurting, the administration again came under fire, this time with manufacturing czar Ron Bloom taking the spotlight. A video of the somber union man addressing his somber comrades at the annual Union League Club meeting in which Bloom states, “We know that the free-market is nonsense” and, “We agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun” has resurfaced in conjunction with Dunn’s recent comments. Though democrats may have had a good laugh about the peace prize, they now have a serious problem. It seems that the communications and manufacturing heads of staff have been caught red handed pitching their tents in Mao’s camp, but the Democratic congressmen and women who were cited earlier this Fall praising Fidel Castro and his regime missed the memo. So far they have all maintained some semblance of unity in their attempts to over-regulate the market; one can only hope their continued political power doesn’t come at gunpoint, as Mao and Castro’s did.
Anita Dunn maintains that calling Mao and Mother Teresa her “favorite political philosophers” was a bit of ironic humor. As a one-time stand-up comedian, this should be totally unacceptable for Dunn, who has now established that she is not only bad at humor, but also bad at communicating. Though he may not have the same pretext of mirth, Bloom’s communicative skills must also be lacking, for the Democrats clearly don’t all agree. Congresswoman Diane Watson, who lauded Castro as, “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met," displayed the same narrow scope as Dunn. Though they both rub shoulders with the major political figures of today, and have all of western political tradition to look back upon, Watson and Dunn are satisfied to idolize Mao and Castro as the best examples of initiative and administration.

Communists Ahoy!

It is difficult and uncommon to find some piece of media, some exposition, which is particularly damning for one person or group. Kanye West’s drunken belligerence has not curtailed his record sales any more than David Letterman’s well-publicized affairs have brought him bad publicity. There are some few outbursts of the entertainment industry, be they songs or movies, which can defines generations, encompass cultural movements, or capture a particular mentality with inimitable effectiveness. Warner Bros.’ Mission to Moscow, released in 1942, is one such film, and one’s whose release last Tuesday is as appropriate and unsurprising now as it was sixty-five years ago. This blatant, calibrated piece of Soviet and communist propaganda was requested directly by Franklin Roosevelt and is, as a critic put it at the time, a $2 million love letter to Josef Stalin.
According to Cass Warner, film historian and granddaughter of Harry Warner, “President Roosevelt himself asked Harry and Jack Warner to assist in educating, entertaining and enlightening the American people.” Directed by Casablanca’s Michael Curtiz, the controversial film marked a turning point in Hollywood’s perception of the Soviet Union, at the time an ambiguous and distrusted ally, towards a curious and praise-worthy alternative to America. The script was loosely based on the memoirs of Joseph E. Davies, ambassador to Moscow in the late 1930s, and at one point features Davies’ character lauding Stalin; “Mr. Stalin, history will remember you as a great leader.” The film insists that Stalin recognized the Nazi threat long before the West and only allied with Hitler to buy himself and the West—his real friends, some time. He was then obligated to invade Finland, as this mission to Moscow reveals, to protect it from the Nazis (don’t tell the Finns, or for that matter mention it to the rest of Europe lest they become envious) while the film insists his subsequent purges were the conjuration of a vast Nazi conspiracy.
The Office of War Information praised the movie and its rendition of Stalin, saying it portrayed that “the leaders of both countries desire peace and both possess a blunt honesty of address and purpose”. Upon its release, Mission to Moscow came under heavy criticism, and the Warner Bros. found themselves appearing before Congress in 1950 as examples of communist infiltration in Hollywood, but after asserting screenwriter Howard Koch as the sympathizer were reprieved. Such behavior by the FDR administration is hardly surprising, but the release of Mission to Moscow is an inadvertent reminder that the situation has not changed that much. Russia is still a belligerent power ready and willing to exercise military force, as now is China, and while both countries have launched multiple operations in the past 3 years, they are being greeted mild affection and flimsy politics. Though FDR was proven wrong and Stalin identified as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, the current administration is offering Russian operatives open tours of U.S. nuclear silos. FDR’s ghost can contentedly watch a re-implementation of his economic policies with the current administration while seeing the mission to Moscow turning into a submission to Moscow.

Nuclear Proliferation

It is commonly held that nuclear weapons are unduly dangerous and unnecessary, and U.S. policy is indeed an affirmation of this overly reasonable mentality. With the first war fought for nuclear proliferation near concluded in Iraq, (in so far as it was directed against nuclear arms) it is appropriate to reexamine the ideology that a general prevention of nuclear development is the best way to combat ambitiously malicious nations. North Korea and China, by far the most belligerent Asian countries, have managed to obtain or develop nuclear capabilities, and while Iran is apparently well in tow, Japan and Germany, the largest economies in Asia and Europe respectively, are tacitly chided from developing their own nuclear technologies. The problem is that U.N. and global sanctions, which come heavily with nuclear pursuits, only really affect internationally active and benevolent nations. The current method for deterring weapons development, a series of hefty embargos, makes it difficult for responsible—and often jeopardized—nations to acquire a nuclear deterrent. The situation, when reduced, shares its problems with gun control. While the good guys respect the prohibitions in a vain hope for peace and decency, the bad guys stockpile weapons.
Very few people are comfortable with the idea of nuclear promulgation, and with good reason. Nuclear combat is the most dangerous and destructive force man has thus far brought to bear. Still, because that force is here, and because it has already fallen into the wrong hands, it is very challenging to see why, from an objective standpoint, the U.S. and U.N. shouldn’t encourage nuclear programs with time-tested and responsible nations. It would be far better if no one had any at all, but with the current weapon stockpiles, there is enough atomic power to destroy the world many times over, and the global threat of any one country initiating doomsday has not really dissipated since the Cold War. A case example is the India-Pakistan situation, in which two countries with mutual enmity have peaceably existed for the last fifty years. Compare this to Israel’s military activity. Though it is not entirely certain whether or not Israel have atomic weapons, she has been involved in more direct conflicts on this side of the twentieth century than any other non-Western power.
It seems like the only way to really prevent aspiring antagonists from acquiring atomic weapons is to sustain prolonged military campaigns and a sort of semi-occupation, which is very costly for all nations involved. Furthermore there are already volatile and militaristic nations with nuclear weaponry, and at this point they can’t well be invaded. The only apparent way to check the abuses by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, is to allow our similarly located allies—Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Ethiopia, Germany—to defensively arm themselves in kind. It isn’t a pretty picture, but nothing else seems to be working and as much as it makes one cringe to say it, nuclear deterrents may indeed be the most effective method to prevent militaristic expansion and preserve human life. People have an inherent and rightly placed discomfort with nuclear expansion, and there isn’t a precise guarantee that American allies will stay agreeable when armed. The only real assurance is that belligerent countries are aggressively arming, and as it stands they see no reason not to.

Peaceful Resistance

The world was shocked, animated, and maybe appalled with the awarding and acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize by President Barack Obama. Citizens of inner-Chicago, while no doubt saddened by their inability to host the Olympics, may now take pride in the peaceful triumph of their esteemed Community Organizer, who has risen well above the rampant violence in Chicago and continues to lead by example. In his acceptance speech, Obama said he was both humbled and honored to receive the award. While admitting he may not have done enough yet to equally share company with the “transformative figures” who have also draped the peaceful medal over their peaceful shoulders, he was nonetheless resolved: "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." No peace pipes were passed around the White House Garden, but the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament as enough of a qualification, despite his comparatively short stay in international politics.
It is difficult not to be preoccupied with Obama’s inexperience and greenhorn credentials on the international stage, much less as President, but this really is a secondary concern. The deadline for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations was February 1st, 2009, which means that Obama was actually nominated only two weeks into his presidency. Taking into account that he is currently pushing for a troop surge in Afghanistan, people may be well skeptical of declaring him the most peace-loving person of 2009, but the Nobel Prize Committee, it must be remembered, is not behaving without precedent.
The “transformative figures”, Obama’s peaceful prize predecessors, are as diverse in cause and origin as they are supposedly peaceful. Al Gore’s acceptance in 2007 received a lackluster reception, perhaps because the runner-up who helped sixty Jews escape Nazi concentration camps seemed a bit more deserving, and if Obama is to bring a new climate to politics—as the Committee suggested—he may indeed be unable to share Al Gore’s company. Woodrow Wilson received the Prize for his peaceful involvement in World War I, and in fact, ever since the Nobel Prize Committee gave to award to themselves in 1928, they have embarked on a peaceful journey of epically unsettling proportions. The International Labor Organization (international communist party) received the award in 1969, and three separate persons, each in a different decade, have been awarded for bringing peace to the Middle East. The United Nations Peace-Keeping forces shared the award in 1988, despite Alfred Nobel’s stipulation that recipients should have done the most for the "abolition or reduction of standing armies". To counterbalance, Egil Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, rebutted Nobel’s opinion on his own prize, citing "mobilization of troops from countries all over the world as a tangible expression of the world community's will to solve conflicts by peaceful means". It is strangely fitting and perfect then, that a peace prize having nothing to do with peace, is gifted to a U.S. President who has nothing to do with America.

Water water everywhere, but no one needs a drink

Last month India’s Moon Impact Probe, onboard the maiden voyage of Chandrayaan 1, confirmed trace amounts of water on the moon’s surface. The US space agency and NASA corroborated the findings, and top Indian scientist G Madhavan Nair expressed pride in the “path-breaking discovery”. This may have come as sharp relief for those who have become belatedly bored with the water features Earth has to offer, but unfortunately the moon-water is embedded in the surface of minerals and rocks.
Though NASA missed the water with their 1969 walkover, they’ve followed up the Indian find with an Impact Probe of their own. The imposing LCROSS device detonated in the crater Cabeus A at 11:30 GMT on October 9, the idea being that any residue ice would be shot up above the lunar surface by the impacting probe, where sunlight would break it into easily detectible oxygen and hydrogen molecules. The water, thought to be sublimated at the bottom of craters after several million years of meteor impact, could have been essentially refrigerated by virtue of the constant shadow, and scientists think there now could be some billion tons locked up near the Moon’s South Pole. Cabeus A, near the South Pole, is shaded and easily visible from Earth—the 2 second long impact flash was visible to those with household telescopes. NASA crashed the rocket and a satellite into the moon's surface on Friday morning in a $79 million mission. It will be some weeks before all the data from the satellite can be analyzed to determine if there is indeed water on the moon.
While this is well and good, NASA’s recent machinations still and unabatedly beg the question, why? As the fifty billion dollar space station looms overhead without production or purpose, it is appropriate that one wonders at the feverish expense going into the rather mundane space exploration. Even now, there are fanciful talks of establishing an international moon base for eventual shuttle launches to Mars and further expansion (though not necessarily useful) of the space station. Now a moderate expense like the Hubble Telescope seems to be well worth the amazing celestial photos it’s captured, and hey if NASA wants to launch some probes every once in a while that’s fine too—it’s good to stay busy, but especially now in these times of economic and political upheaval, where is it appropriate to draw the line?
Many students and professors alike, especially here at UD, will rightly insist that learning is an excellent virtue and an end in itself, and furthermore one can’t well put a price on excellent education. It seems in Man’s nature to explore and test his surroundings, and while that should not necessarily be curbed, perhaps it should be redirected to Man’s more immediate surroundings. After all, more is known about the moon’s surface already than the ocean floors, and apart from any potential resources that may be there discovered (not to mention there’s lots and lots of water already) a more direct study of life—tangible and reactionary—can be carried out.

Case Study: Cuba

As healthcare reform continued to dominate the political maneuverings and current events here in the U.S., Congresswoman Diane Watson decided the issue was heading south, and accordingly urged fellow California Democrats to hearken the Cuban example. Watson recently accused conservative opposition of blocking Healthcare reform out of malicious racism, but conversely had only the best to say about the Cuban regime. After lauding Cuban healthcare, along with mass murderer Che Guevara, Watson, amidst applause and encouragement from fellow congressmen, described Fidel Castro as, “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." Assuming Watson has met all of the foremost Democratic and Republican leaders alike, this is a particularly alarming mindset. Watson may not be aware that Castro himself ousted a man who was, like Obama, 50% black, but nonetheless the current administration may be taking Watson to heart.
In addition to lifting travel restrictions and allowing remittances to the island from Cuban-Americans, the U.S. and Cuba are now coordinating to resume uninhibited postal services. This should come as sharp relief to many Cubans, who for more than remittances are in desperate need of toilet paper. The cash strapped country, which imports 60% of its food supply (now being rationed) and approximately 80% of its toilet paper, does not have the financial resources to continue its foreign dependencies. Apart from decreasing the food ration, the only reassurance thus far issued by Castro’s government is that by state-run Radio Rebelde, which currently maintains that, “an important importation will be attained at the end of the year”. Raul Castro, who replaced his ailing older brother Fidel as president, also has complained that Cuba's productivity is too low, and to the wailing and gnashing of communist teeth he is putting more state-owned land in private hands and pushing for salaries to be based on productivity. With the global economic downturn, a particularly harsh hurricane season, and a tradition of being unproductive, the largest Caribbean island is in dire straits.
President Obama recently compared his Health Care schematic to the general Postal Service in the U.S—the government owned USPS running nicely alongside the private companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL. This was supposed to be an assuring example of cooperation between public and private sectors (though of course it’s still illegal for anyone but the USPS to go door-to-door). However, this may take on new meaning as UPS and FedEx are, and will still be, barred from business in Cuba, whereas the USPS going to be granted exclusive business access, in addition to German owned DHL. In the spirit of ornery rebellion therefore, and more importantly in the spirit of humanitarian aid for the Cubans and their constipated economy, conscientious and caring Americans should cover all Cuba-bound mail-planes/boats with toilet paper. With Castro initiating capitalist policies and Watson pushing to emulate Cuba, maybe a trade is in order (now that it’s possible). America can airmail Watson and some TP, as long as it’s USPS, and get some celebratory cigars.

Renaissance Men in Venice

Acclaimed film directors Oliver Stone and Michael Moore were again throwing their weight around in the international film circuit, and rocking the boat in Venice. The once mighty commercial Republic sunk all the faster as Moore, Stone, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez concentrated their considerable mass (in the spirit of socialism) at the annual Venice Film Festival. Moore’s film, Capitalism: A Love Story, along with Oliver Stone’s latest documentary South of the Border, debuted in a nifty, four-hour, commercial free proclamation of the evils of capitalism, extortion by America, and the virtues of Hugo Chavez and his proclaimed, “Latin American Renaissance”.
Moore’s film unequivocally concluded that, “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." Stone echoed Moore’s blatant criticism, particularly targeting the American policies in Latin America while praising Chavez’s counteraction: “I hope you realize how dynamic he is in the movie. What I like about the film is you see how sincere he is on camera. You don't see a guy who is a phony. He's not a dictator." Moore let his standard publicity stunts and political analysis circulate with typically minimal objectivity, but Stone and Chavez really lit up the red carpet scene with their sincere dynamism.
After Chavez’s dramatic entrance, during which he threw flowers, blew kisses, and took pictures—of himself, Stone addressed reporters saying, "I think the movie, if you've seen it, shows very clearly the level of stupidity in the kind of broad statements that are made about Mr. Chavez.” The film itself received criticism for poor editing, sporting several scenes wherein cameramen were unintentionally visible. Apparently, Stone has sacrificed the meticulous approach in film for the bombastic in his PR campaign. According to Stone, his movie will only show things to people who watch it—fair enough—and furthermore will cover up what Stone saw as harsh generalities with more amicable blanket statements of its own.
When asked why he didn’t present any opposing viewpoints of Chavez, Stone coldly replied, “There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect”. Fellow filmmaker George Lucas knows more than anyone that the Dark Side is cunning. Two Sith there always are…a master, and an apprentice. It is very curious because, in this instance, the dark side is the generally liberal media and Latin American ex-patriots—some Sith somewhere is acting very duplicitously. Where is that chancellor Palpatine? Obama’s policy on cloning is shaky at best, but he’s already called for a civilian army: "We cannot continue to only rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."…the Jedi are going to feel this one.

People's Republic of New York

New York, once an eminent icon of the United States, has become an embarrassing case causing liberals and conservatives alike to cringe (plastic surgery not preventing). Similar to California, New York benefits from extensive natural resources and a large population, but through a gross, extensive, and long-term abuse of fiscal policy and dead-end social intervention, it is bankrupt. Its state debt is second only to California, but Governor Patterson, who is planning to run again for the position, insists this is due to vindictive racism. It may be best to ignore Albany, and most people probably do, but New York City is another matter entirely. With its famous skyline and infamous Wall Street, New York is often thought of as the pinnacle of economic initiative and the place wherein America’s tremendous wealth is centered. While this may be exaggerated or debatable, there are nonetheless few people who look at the Empire State Building and aren’t impressed by the capability it signifies. The financiers in New York often come under criticism for lacking any egalitarian perspective, and whether or not this is fair, some may well have finally sold out.
This past Wednesday, October 2nd, marked the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, and the Empire State Building was bathed in the red and yellow towards its honor. The most iconic building in North America was illuminated with Communist colors while they goose-stepped in Beijing. The lighting ceremony itself is not unusual or a particularly reserved procedure (it recently shone celebratory colors for the Wizard of Oz jubilee), but this is nonetheless a most disconcerting display. In the midst of the current obsession with the floundering economy, and as China is mobilizing troops along the Indian border, the tallest building in America is covered in communist totalitarian propaganda. People would be far more alarmed if a poster of Mao had been plastered on the Statue of Liberty, and while that is admittedly more extreme, the demoralizing and apathetic mindset witnessed in New York can easily lead to further ethical abandon.
The ESB Lighting Partners sub-committee maintains that, “The program is designed to achieve the best and most constructive publicity for the Empire State Building and its Lighting Partners. All special lighting requests are considered based on the merit of their cause, the benefit of their use of the special lighting and their treatment of the Empire State Building’s iconic image for the event and on an ongoing basis.”
Perhaps the powers that be really want China to keep buying U.S. bonds. Maybe moral fiber in New York is irrevocably tarnished, or maybe people just don’t think that advertising Chinese communism is that big of a deal. This repulsive (and tax-funded) display, in accordance with ESBLP, acknowledges that the act was intended, deliberately, to publicize China PR, and that celebrating the 60th anniversary of one of the most destructive and abusive regimes mankind endures is a cause of merit. China hasn’t only been gifted a pass on accountability, it’s had the iniquitous ideology for which it stands directly focused on the tower’s iconic presence.

Where Has it Ghandi?

Realistically, Gandhi’s policy and the Indian Independence movement were destructive for the sub-continent. India, as a country, is imaginary. It’s a conglomeration of disagreeable nationalities, creeds, and castes, placed on the world map by an arbitrary line drawn by civil service elite. The movement lacked majority support but was promulgated by British neglect. Until the unification, de-centralized government presided and each distinct culture was left to self-government provided they all traded with Britain and ceased slave trading. The conception of a homogenous India without regarding the peoples, cultures, and prejudices of the nation was swept up in the socialist agenda of the Congress Party (former IIM).
Gandhi’s own world view reflected such prejudices. He advocated keeping the entire country together, under arms, if necessary. He protested suffrage for the untouchables, one of the ethnic castes, and supported the invasion of all Portuguese controlled areas in modern India. The Indian constitution, which Gandhi presided over, displayed a disregard for constituent wishes and traditions. Additionally, only civil servants can appoint new civil servants, thus perpetuating the stagnant aristocracy. Indira Gandhi, his granddaughter, invaded Pakistan and violently curtailed the Sikh rebellion, killing five hundred participants in the sacred Golden Temple and causing a Sikh alliance with the Hindu Nationalists.
Because of legal definitions, British-Asian territories were all made different nations upon independence; Malaysia, Burma, Nepal, Hong Kong, and Bhutan. Ethnic disunity had surfaced before independence in India. The Muslim population was against independence due to majority Hindu control, while the Hindu Nationalists strove to create a theocracy. The concentrated Muslim areas soon seceded to Pakistan in a very bloody exchange, while the Hindu Nationalists took Gandhi’s quote to heart, “Be the change you want to see in the world”, and shot him. The Cashmere, a Muslim populated and desirably productive area, held a referendum to become part of Pakistan, and was then invaded by India, which had written in constitutional protection of the area from by-ins by non-Cashmeries. The area was since partitioned between India, China, and Pakistan.
To compound the problems, there is totalitarian control of the electrical industry and artificial property rents assigned by local civil servants, which keeps rents low and development lower. Additionally, the Nationalist party is gaining strong support for the upcoming election, and is pushing to end the slaughter of beef, nationally, and annex all of Cashmere from Pakistan, as well as ban the conversion from Hinduism (to Islam or Christianity). Violent communist insurgencies in the eastern provinces have added to the social unrest while local communist regimes have controlled three states since the founding. Their influence has now spread into Nepal with funding from China, and recently taken control of the Nepalese government. Decreasing exports, Christian persecutions, and hyper inflation all compound the undesirable situation, which has caused considerable damage to attempts at peace and prosperity in the area. India is a contrivance, an amalgamation of irreconcilable cultures, and should be allowed to desist for the betterment of all within its borders.

Wake Up and Smell the Roses

Having been caught snoozing on camera during a number of Mr. Obama's cabinet meetings, top economic adviser Larry Summers was finally prodded into comment about the apparently failing stimulus, and the increasing public sentiment that it isn't helping.
In defense of his administrations spending and its results, Summers had some reassuring news: "The number of people searching for the term “economic depression” on Google is down to normal levels. Searches for the term were up four-fold when the recession deepened in the earlier part of the year, and the recent shift goes to show consumer confidence is higher".
As unemployment now tops 10% in 16 states, and 15% in Michigan, we can only conclude that people in those states have no access to Google or no concept of 'economic depression'. There is also the possibility that people in those states simply prefer an alternative Search Engine, like Ask Jeeves. Since these unemployment rates are the highest they've been since the early 1980s, one wonders, how would Larry Summers have qualified a successful stimulus back then? Less people buying Encyclopedias letters E and D?
When pressed for a more enumerated defense, Summers continued in a more professional fashion: “More than $43 billion in immediate tax relief has reached households and businesses. Another $64 billion has been channeled into the economy through aid to state and local governments, expansions in social programs, and spending on education, housing, and transportation projects. In addition to the amount that has already been paid out, another $120 billion in spending has been obligated by the federal government and is on track to begin working its way into the economy.” Now coupling this statement with plucky Joe Biden's recent assurances yields a whole big pile of contradiction. The top economic adviser and top Vice President really need to coordinate better.
According to Summers, people weren't worried about relief for their households or businesses, but rather about the philosophical underpinnings of 'economic depression'. The primarily contentious issue, unemployment, designates that $64 billion channeled to education and housing irrelevant, and Joe Biden told us all to avoid public transportation anyway lest we contract H1N1 and become swine. The pending, or rather, "obligated" $120 billion (what else would it be obligated for I wonder??) will apparently become autonomous and work itself into the economy as it best sees fit, which granted may be better than the Left trying to direct it. Well, at least that $120 billion is working, because Michigan sure isn't.

Brilliant Biden Strikes Again

Well, he served his time-out, and Mr. Biden has been taken off the leash and out of the dog house to bark once more. After urging Americans to avoid using airplanes, subways, or any other crowded transportation, lest they all contract H1N1 and die, Biden attempted to make amends by encouraging Americans at the prospect of their continued health.
While addressing perhaps the only major group that isn’t rightly skeptical of Obama’s Health Care scheme, VP Joe Biden had some illuminating thoughts. At the AARP Town Hall meeting in Alexandria, Virginia, Biden had encouraging words and fanciful outlooks to share. “And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable”. He’s right of course, the status quo still lets too many hard-working Americans keep their money in their pockets. It ios curious he mentioned that to a crowd of retirement community and nursing home residents who very much like the status quo, because anything else gives them indigestion. As legislation moves through to increase the upper income tax bracket rate in New York to 57%, Biden shared his reassuring philosophy with his elderly audience: ““It’s totally unacceptable (not the tax, the current healthcare system). And it’s completely unsustainable, even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.” So, will Mr. Biden cut some of the gangrene, dead-end government expenses that will have the system at a deficit by 2016? No, because Obama really likes deficits, and because while Biden admits, ““We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation”, he has the most brilliant of solutions.
After thinking hard for three days and nights and studying all of Keynses’ most celebrated (if unsuccessful) theories, Biden made up his mind: “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt? The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
Ah ha! I didn’t know our public schools were this bad. I did not know that when you have one number and then you take away from it, it’s actually much bigger than it was before. Of course, Biden and his audience don’t have to worry about such trivial arithmetic. By 2016 his regime will long have been ousted, and then they can blame the conservatives for not spending enough money. In the mean time, all of his and Mr. Obama’s supporters in the AARP will had gotten their full doses and died off, leaving the tax burden –err I mean surplus of money to be enjoyed by posterity.

One Small Step for a Man, one Giant Step for Mankind?

A Major in the U.S. Army reserves, currently residing in Florida, received his orders for deployment to Afghanistan. He had since sued against his deployment, saying that because there was not, in his mind, substantial proof of Obama being born in the U.S., which would therefore render him Constitutionally unable to occupy the position of Commander in Chief, he does not have to obey his marching orders.

When I had first read about this, I figured the guy probably just didn't want to go to Afghanistan (and I don't blame him) where more soldiers have died in the first half of the month than the first month of U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Secondly, I wondered what the military does with such cases, when it is obvious the person doesn't want to contribute, but does continue to receive military benefits. Instead of next receiving a notification for a dishonorable discharge, or ten lashes, his orders were revoked, no questions asked! This has a number of potential ramifications.

Can any soldier now use this excuse, albeit an apparently good one, to refuse service in Afghanistan or anywhere else Mr. Obama decides to spread peace? More importantly, it means that, as Dr. Orly Taitz, Maj. Cook's lawyer said, "the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it." This further acknowledges that, if the current Commander in Chief is illegitimate, all troops present in Afghanistan, as Maj. Cook intrepidly pointed out, are by default war criminals. NOt that this in itself is a good thing, or that it will really affect the way U.S. prisoners are treated, but at least there's less of a worry now about Mr. Obama sending the troops to Honduras to save Democracy.

Mr. Obama finally has brought some change! Not to the economy or environmental protection, but rather by opening the doors to the possibility that the U.S., for the first time, is run by a war criminal.

Remembering Richard...

So fondly now do I look back to the days when our confident nation was headed by that scheming, paranoid jowler from California. Throughout the 20th century, liberalism hit the U.S. in 3 waves, each dramatically increasing the interference by the government with its citizens. Each of the waves, which carried with them the detritus and debris of the shoddy policy and empty ideology of the progressives, came in the form of some crisis or another. For Mr. Wilson, it was WWI and the initial Red Scare. FDR of course furthered the communists via the Depression and WWII, while LBJ surfed high on the Civil Rights debacle. Now Mr. Obama, the fourth wave, perhaps the 4th rider of the Apocalypse (though I think God awards Americans more dignity than to end our proud legacy in his hands), rode in on the economic crisis. Of course, his beneficent government involvement speaks for itself.
The federal deficit has surpassed $1 trillion for the first time ever, and could grow to nearly $2 trillion by this fall. The Treasury Department announced Monday (7/13/09) that the deficit in June totaled $94.3 billion, pushing the total since the budget year started in October to $1.09 trillion, and the likely forecast of the deficit for the entire year is $1.84 trillion in October. Clearly Obama is going for the record. (Incidentally the deficit was 32 billion to the positive for the month of June in 2008).
Anyway this has all been said and is hardly a new threat. What is a threat however, and what makes me wish Nixon had a powerful heir, is the WHO. The World Health Organization, by linking the H1N1 virus to the 1918 epidemic (which of course, Wilson benefited from), has conjured up enough fear to go on record calling the virus, "unstoppable", declaring that every nation must acquire/develop vaccines.
Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO director of the Initiative for Vaccine Research, addressed the findings of the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization, or SAGE, saying, "The committee recognized that the H1N1 pandemic ... is unstoppable and therefore that all countries need access to vaccine." Unstoppable? It's the first global crisis I'm aware of that can be cured by a few days' bed rest and plenty of fluids. Keeping in mind that the WHO went on record to proclaim the virus as intimately linked to swine upkeep, causing a nation-wide, government-sponsered slaughter of the pigs in Cairo and an increased rift between Muslim and Christian populations there, one wonders, who will strike at the bait this time? In Egypt, as it turned out, over 98% of the pigs were raised and consumed by Chrisitan farmers, and best of all, the WHO later admitted there's no link between the virus, pigs, and its transmission into the human populace.
Now, as Obama & Co. loom their tremendously expensive, all encompassing, tax the privately insured health care package above Congress, the WHO delivers just enough of a catalyst to dump their medical fantasies upon us. If only Nixon were President, he'd have some serious people keeping an eye on those WHOs, because they certainly seem to be in bit of a league here, and where were they to cure Nixon of his phlebitis?

The First of Many

Bad news Nobody!

If anyone actually believed the ambiguous statement that people making under 250,000 dollars a year will be unaffected, at least tax-wise, by the cap and trade legislation, the energy company SRP has something else in mind. In a preemptive company statement they've announced that, in the event of the cap and trade going through the Senate and into practice, they'll increase standard rates by about 9%, an average increase of about 150 dollars per home, to accommodate the increased costs that come with the bill.

Additionally, there's talk now in Congress of banning any and all forms of tobacco consumption in the U.S. military by any person in uniform. The rationale is that, because military healthcare is paid for out of public funds/taxes (an issue to be reexamined in itself) they now have an obligation to stay healthy.

Four soldiers recently died in Mr. Obama's Afghanistan war, I wonder if it was smoking which killed them? No no, it was a bomb. I'm just curious how they think this will at all go over well. This is more brilliant than Wilson and Co.'s idea to directly take America's money (via the income tax) and then simultaneously prohibit them from drinking their sorrows away (prohibition). Maybe 50 years down the road people will appreciate the thought, but that is unlikely because 50 years down the road, people will be crushed trying to pay off the debt and potential medicare expenses being accrued now, while simultaneously waiting in lin to have their crushed backs examined.

Save This!

According to Florida State annual Manatee census, conducted every November, Manatee populations are down again. As one may recall, the species, which has never engendered a large population, was endangered as of the late 1970s. Since the imposition of rigorous protection and restrictions on boating throughout their designated habitat, their population has tripled. While the Eco-Friends work to eradicate land cows at the Hall of Justice and save the Ozone from their harmful methane exhaust, they've successfully saved the beloved sea cows, or have they? According to the 2008 census, a record number of deaths was recorded off the Florida coast.

Has the protection slackened? Are cruel boating enthusiasts chopping them to bits (which again, is only acceptable to do to land cows, then called 'steaks')? No. The reason for their sudden decline is that the manatees have run out of food. Their population has grown too large to sustain itself and they've eaten themselves out of house and home. There were no autopsies required for the emaciated bodies which washed ashore. Either Mother Nature really wants these gentle giants to stay rare, or maybe, just maybe, disrupting the course of nature and prohibiting the natural selection they're fighting so hard to teach in schools (though prohibiting from applying in schools) is not the answer. As the manatees now starve to death in record number one wonders, will there be a movement to save the sea grass that now is apparently in short supply?

Global Governance: The Emperor Strikes Back

I'd found it hard to believe that Congress had dared vote on, and then pass the Caps and Gains Bill before it had been technically enumerated. While I have yet to hear of anyone fully reading the 1,200 page behemoth legislation all the way through, some of its key benefactors are nonetheless jumping to some rather absurd conclusions.
As the next process of voting is pending in the Senate, Democrat Barbara Boxer had some curious forewarnings. According to Boxer, should the Senate not pass the Bill as well, there will be dire results including droughts, floods, and fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution, and more. Now, before anyone could stop and wonder how droughts, floods, and fire could happen simultaneously, apparently in agricultural areas, Boxer reassured those inconvenient doubters with the huge upside.
If the Senate does act, millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children will all result. Now maybe we should give Baxter the benefit of the doubt and leave aside the whole issue with the massive reserves of oil which are being taken painstakingly slowly thanks to overly done and unnecessary regulation. Maybe we shouldn't keep in mind that there has been one Oil rig spill since they started drilling, far less than the number of tanker spills bringing “foreign oil”. Also, even though it’s inconvenient, let’s leave aside the probability that, if there are fires, floods, droughts, and no agriculture all going on at once, our nation’s children probably won’t really have the time or convenience to notice the superfluously damaging pollution--they might just be amazed to experience a fire and flood at once, all in the middle of a drought. Instead, I’m still trying figure out how increased taxes on American domiciles and the deliberate reduction and reverse of industry will lead to millions of clean energy jobs. Even Obama hasn’t yet laid claim to having “created or saved” that many jobs. Addressing the threat of a Republican filibuster Boxer responded, “This is consistent with a pattern of 'No. No, we can't. No, we won't,” she continued, "I believe that this committee, when the votes are eventually taken on our bill, will reflect our president's attitude, which is 'Yes, we can, and yes, we will.” Now while Boxer finds these slogans ever appropriate here, how would they respectively address such questions as, “Will you disregard the Constitution?” “Will you tax and spend until the American people really are the helpless victims you claim us to be?”
Speaking of which, former vice president Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.” To better describe this ambiguous scheme, Gore reference the proposed 2007 UN carbon tax. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the conference. Schwank insisted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” according to Schwank, who then added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”
Despite the vast majority of coal burning being done in Africa, the U.S. tax payers would foot the bill, apparently disregarding the “polluters pay rule” because the U.S. hasn’t contributed enough to said fund enough. Is getting involved in such a farcical “governance” really so dangerous though? I mean small amounts of trees and coal may be left in the ground, and that’s kind of nice, but then take into account also that at the same conference the self-titled group “Friends of the Earth” advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations. "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources," according to spokeswoman Emma Brindel. If we just redistribute the resources, how will any less be burned? They insist the problem is the necessary use of harsh fuels such as coal by 3rd world countries, so I guess the rationale is that if Everyone becomes a 2nd world country, the nice compromise between 1st and 3rd, everyone will be happy (the happiness of course being forcibly distributed).