New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

There are so many reasons I could care less about Darfur and there are so many problems with the logic of the “save Darfur crowd” that it’s hard for me to find a place to begin. But let me essentially say that I don’t care because the crisis neither involves nor affects me. I feel no connection to the people who live there—they are not my “brothers and sisters,” their fate has nothing to do with me; don’t pretend they have anything to do with you. I don’t care if a bunch of Arabs want to kill a bunch of indiginates, it happens all the time, and it happens because their society is primitive and uncivilized.

Do I like the fact that 400,000 people have been killed there? No. Do I wish that Africa as well as the whole world would live in freedom and (thus) prosperity? Yes. But wishing it true won’t change its reality. And to fix Darfur will change a real and concentrated effort. And that effort will cost a price. The question that remains is, why should we engage in this effort?

The efforts that exist as is—the initiatives of the bleeding hearts and Darfur-is-the-in-thing-to-do teenagers—only involve money. But in all their infinite self-righteousness they failed to recognize that the nature of the issue cannot be solved by money. Dollars don’t stop bullets—bullets stop bullets. The only way to stop government genocide is to do it by force. Someone must intervene militarily for any genocide to be stopped.

But for intervention to occur at least one nation must take responsibility. But whom? Is there any nation, any person who is obligated to help? No, of course not. Not the US, not any nation—save the Sudan itself—is guilty of the crimes committed there, so they have not responsibility to invest themselves to alter the course. Nor do these nations have a responsibility to themselves to intervene in Darfur because the Sudan is not by any stretch of the imagination a threat to the security of their country.

Of course this does not say that anyone is not morally justified in attempting to fight—Sudan is a murderous regime that perpetually violates the rights of their citizens and systematically operates on a premise larger than death. But if you do chose to fight for Darfur then you must fight yourself. You cannot and may not drag anyone else into this fight. What do I mean by this? I mean that you can donate as much money as you want but you cannot take my money and donate it (i.e. international aid via taxes…duh). I mean that you can go fight in Darfur as part of an ad hoc vigilante militia but you cannot deploy US military—who I pay and whose job is to protect me—and waste their efforts and their lives on a problem irrelevant to American security.

As far as I’m concerned my government exists to protect my rights—just as other governments exist to protect their citizens. So the only time my government should wield its foreign policy is when my rights are threatened by foreign belligerents. Anything more is a waste of my money, which the government confiscated from me, and thus tramples on my rights. So if the United States government endeavors to fix the shit pie that is the Sudan—a nation whose government in zero ways threatens American freedom—it does so at my expense. And quite frankly we have enough people in the world trying to kill us already to begin worrying about people who aren’t.

I think the most childish thing about the save Darfur crowd is that for all their labors they have never actually enumerated a plan or even a general strategy for solving it. Most of the efforts have concentrated around “awareness”—we hear that word a lot with them—well guess what? We’re aware; surely, all of our policy makers know about it; so is the UN. But awareness does not come close to solving the problem. As I said, someone’s gonna have to wage war. But the problem is that the save Darfur crowd is the type of crowd hardly willing to fight a war and face up to the harsh realities of it. They are the type who thinks that they can live outside of reality, where you can stop a bomb by holding hands, contradicting values can live in harmony, and there is no objective concept of evil.

The only proper roll of a foreign policy is self-defense—in the same way that government is created for the purpose of defending the individual rights of its citizens. Privately donating and striving for Darfurians is wonderful, but no one has an obligation to Darfur which is why employing our government—using the tax money and lives of Americans—to fix the problem is an unjust option. Simply it seams like the bleeding hearts of the world have been following each other without ever looking where they are heading. They don’t seem to be willing to defend our country from a belligerent like Iran, but when the fate of the primitive and irrelevant are brought to the table everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off. It’s about time we got a hold of ourselves and allow rationality to enter the debate. Someone has got to have the balls to say it: Darfur just doesn’t matter.

Popularity: 69% [?]

Unfortunately the United States has never had a purely gold standard and as such William Jennings Bryan was never crucified. Today, Mr. Bryan’s vision has been made manifest as we have an inflationary currency while all but one of our 18 presidential candidates support the monetary status quo. Congressman Ron Paul is that lonely Anti-Bryan and has staunchly spoken out against the Federal Reserve for years.

What Mr. Paul recognizes is that complete economic freedom and spearation of government and economy is an absolute requirement for a system of individual rights. Such a system, so too, must entail a commodity based currency and zero government involvement in money. Government is an inherently inflationary entity. When it has omnipotent reign over printing paper money until the cows come home. Whenever it acts to intervene in this area it can only inflate and distort the economy’s median for exchange because the government is not a productived entity–it does not create wealth, it only consumes, and it works by force.

Hence the Federal Reserve must be abolished and the free market solution instated–a gold standard.

The reason there is such little illumination on this subject undoubtedly stems from the publics general ignorance of monetary policy. Fiat money has legitimacy in our lives not because it is an objective value–it is not valuable, it is paper–but because government has the capacity to initiate force it can administer a paper currency, forcing people to accept it. Government has complete control over it; it can print more of it at will. This is called inflation. Inflation is a means of taxationo–a hidden confiscation of wealth. Suprising? Why else would government do it? Well, essentially, the value of currency is equal to assets (savings) divided py claims on wealth (money). More money derives its value by diluting the value of currency; by confiscating the value of currency already issued. When the government prints more money and devalues the worth of private savings, government is taxing income earners in a hidden and unchecked way.

To eliminate this immolation of individual rights and the dilution of the economy’s capacity for production fiat money must be eliminated and hard money reinstated if there is truly to be free market capitalism.

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 29% [?]

The Democratic Party cannot win the 2008 presidential election for one simple reason: Iraq. As much as I do not like his show, I caught this segment on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown on MSNBC the other night. In this segment, Keith discusses how the “American people have been betrayed” by the Democrats for “giving in to the president” and not following through with the mandate they were elected to do. He (like most Americans) says that the Democrats were elected in 2006 with the clearest mandate of any new Congress in US history: get US soldiers out of Iraq. Even someone with a moderate understanding of the complexities of government would know how difficult it would be for the Democrats in Congress to pass legislation and to force the president into withdrawal. Of course, the average American would not understand the logrolling and underhand deals that have to be made to pass any sort of bill in Congress and make it so much more difficult for the Democratic Party’s majority to get their way.

All the Democratic presidential candidates (with one exception) were supporters of the war initially and several of them have not overcome that obstacle. However, if the Democrats in the House do not pass a bill (even if it is purely symbolic) that is endorsed by the media (even those on the far left like Olbermann are rejecting the Iraq bill) by the end of the summer, the public will loose any faith it has in Pelosi and her minions.

As someone who watched the Democratic debate and the two Republican debates, I can say that while the Democrats only offered a plan for withdrawal, all of the Republican candidates offered some coherent strategies for stabilizing the country. The Republicans suggested increasing troop levels, bringing in the United Nations, and even dividing the country into three states united by a federal system. My point is that if the Democrats are unable to get US soldiers out of Iraq (which is very unlikely), the American people will look for people with solutions for how to stabilize the country and it is obvious that many of the Republican candidates are waiting to unveil their strategies.

The Republican candidate will have a distinct, if not so obvious, advantage when the national campaigning begins. The Democratic candidate may point out that the Republican Party began the War in Iraq.  Unless, however, the Democratic nominee is Barrack Obama, the Republican front runner can point out that not only did they authorize the war, but when the Democratic Party was elected into power in both houses, they failed to confront President Bush in nearly two years.

Both parties are in trouble, but right now the only thing going for the Democrats is their Iraq withdrawal strategy.  If troops are not pulled out of Iraq by the spring of 2008, mark my words: the Democrats will not win in 2008.

Eftychis

Editor’s Note:  This post was edited for grammatical consistency on May 27th at 12pm.  

Popularity: 48% [?]

Science and Religion have been at each other’s throats for the past 400 years, ever since Galileo was arrested for thinking outside the box. Today, the battlefield is in two main areas:
The first, evolution. The second, stem-cell research.

Evolution is a theory. A theory, however, in science, means that it has been backed up with tons of evidence, experimentation, and the like. In layman’s talk, a theory is equivalent to that of a hypothesis’ value. Thus, creationists enjoy using such words to inspire doubt.

Teaching the controversy and intelligent design is basically an attempt to teach religion in science classes. This is unacceptable-it is akin to teaching children philosophy in neuroscience. It breaks church and state and essentially will dumb down the curriculum while other nations laugh at us in our ignorance.

Stem-cell research, however, is a sign of progress that is being countered. Cures for millions of people are put into doubt because an unliving thing cannot exist. The “thing” is as alive as the cells on the umbilical cord and placenta-those are property of the mother, and as such, the mother can choose what to do with the embryo. If she wishes for it to be used in stem-cells to create new organs for people (which will encourage new industry), she should be perfectly able to do so, especially as it her right to do what she wills with a fetus, not the government, and certainly not the church.

The church is a good institution that has gone wrong because mindless zealots seek to incorporate themselves into other things, and, finding them incompatible, refuse to compromise and instead attempt to suppress and bring down a totalitarian system upon us all, especially a theocracy. A Christian Theocracy of America would be as bad as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Religion should stay in religion’s realm, and science should stay in its realm.

This post was written by Ryan Chou, one of New School Politics’ new writers. As with all other articles, the above piece of writing does not mirror the sentiments of New School Politics, only those of the individual writer.

Popularity: 43% [?]

Too often public opinion reacts with more emotion than reason to events of magnitude such as the Virginia Tech shooting of a month ago. Rather than take perspective on a monumental tragedy much of the public, the media, and politicians will move to use the event as an expedient for pushing an authoritarian agenda, and all the while they will remain oblivious to the fact that individuals have rights whose legitimacy does not waver with the breeze of public opinion.

Rights, to the contrary, are inalienable and they include not just the right to property, but the corollary right to self-defense. The right to bear arms proceeds from those two concepts: (a) the right to own the gun as property itself; and (b) the right to use it against anyone who threatens or attacks your own safety or property. Anyone who wishes to take that right away from you in the name of peace and public harmony are hypocrites, for, it is guns and force that the government itself must employ to keep its private citizens from having guns.

Let us first remember that crimes and violence are not committed because guns exist–crimes and violence exist because there are evil people in the world who believe that it is morally permissible–or expedient–to initiate force upon individuals at their own whim. Whether or not guns existed there would be crime–crimes occurred even before guns existed, believe it or not. Moreover there are even crimes committed without guns. Who would have thought? It is the people motivated to do so who are the driving force behind murder, and thus laws to limit murder must be concentrated on de-incentivizing criminal action–namely effectively enforcing the law, and strictly punishing violations thereof.

Re-examine Virginia Tech for a moment and recall that the perpetrator of the shootings, Seung-Hui Cho, was himself declared “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization” in 2005 and certified as “[presenting] an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness” by a Virginia judge. The problem at Virginia Tech was one with an individual, not with a nationwide policy of lax gun control.

And in this case, more guns may have actually been the remedy–not the cause–of such a grotesque death toll. Virginia Tech was notably a “gun-free zone” and as such it was against the rules for anyone to carry even concealed firearms on campus for the purpose of self-defense. By doing so those populating Virginia Tech were rendered helpless by anyone who carried a gun into the school with malicious intentions.

As we can see in the case of VA Tech, banning guns does nothing other than make self-defense impossible. When even a well intentioned administration makes carrying a gun illegal it makes it so only criminals will be carrying guns–and those criminals will not have any immediate barriers to their malicious intents. Gun control does not prevent crime, it incentivizes it.

Some feel that permitting a gun in the school is unsafe. But sometimes there is a difference between feeling safe and being safe. The fact remains, when administrations ban guns they also ban self defense, and in no way will that make any of us safer from those with the intent of harming us.

The fact remains that the right to own guns is enumerated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Obviously it must have been significant to the framers if they made it the second of all rights enumerated in the constitution. During the zeitgeist of 1800 the notion of needing to seek approval from the government to own a gun would have been laughed at. As a matter of fact, gun registration was not issued in this country until after the War Between the States ended and the slaves were emancipated—why do you think that was?

Today, authoritarian intellectuals who couldn’t load and fire a rifle if their individual rights depended on it scoff at the idea that individuals need guns. “Collecting is childish–Hunting is cruel and primitive–Shooting at a range is pointless” are all conclusions we could expect gun controlists to make. Certainly collecting, hunting, and shooting on the range are all activities that must be protected by gun rights, but it wasn’t recreation for which the framers wrote the second amendment. The right to bear arms was perhaps the single most important check on government power written into the constitution. In light of a violent separation from an overbearing government the framers recognized that the last resort to protect the people from a monstrous dictatorship—whose power itself derived from its use of force–was to give the people the power to fight back against it. And to reserve that right it must give them the right to bear arms, because if the government were ever to effectively ban the ownership of guns there would be no power left to keep it from overrunning all individual freedom.

Popularity: 73% [?]

I’m at the Personal Democracy Forum at Pace University in New York City right now watching a group seminar with Jay Rosen, Mike Connell, Jeff Jarvis, and Walter Fields. I’ll be publishing more thoughts about this morning’s sessions and what was said later this evening and over the weekend. Jay Rosen, founder of NewAssignment.net and AssignmentZero, is discussing both projects and his new partnership with the Huffington Post. Today, Rosen has given the project a name. OfftheBus, the project’s new name, will be a collaboration between NewAssignment.net and the Huffington Post in an effort to bring the public the best election coverage. Arianna Huffington was unable to make PdF today although she was a scheduled speaker. Rosen cited that he believed that having over forty independent bloggers in cities around the country to cover the elections would be a far better alternative than having one journalist stay with the presidential campaign.

The new website will help to foster new media interaction in the presidential campaigns, something that’s been sorely lacking in recent campaigns. Will 2008 be the year of the democratization of election coverage? According to several of the panelists, new breakthroughs in media and pilot projects like Rosen’s NewAssignment and AssignmentZero signal what’s to come. Jeff Jarvis, both an old media pioneer and a champion of new media causes, seems to approve of Rosen’s new project with several reservations. The audience seems to have come to the same consensus. Only time, however, will tell if the distributed reporting in the 2008 elections will hold up to that of professional reporters.

Popularity: 88% [?]

For all the obvious inferences attached to the word, the very idea of secession is widely repudiated in American culture–except maybe in some areas of the nostalgic deep south. But recent murmers of secessionist sentiments in the state of Vermont have revealed the issue to a larger audience. In a Washington Post op-ed from Sunday, two secessionists–Ian Baldwin and Frank Bryan–enumerate the reasons for which they wish the “state of Vermont” to become the “Republic of Vermont”:

Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world, toward its own citizens and toward local democratic institutions. It has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans’ fundamental freedoms.

Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire.

Some of us therefore seek permission to leave.

The point being made, in essence, is that the Government of the Union has become too big and too coercive and has simultaneously infringed upon state and individual rights and thus Vermont no longer wishes to leave.

Secession lacks legitimacy in the court of public opinion because Americans unconditionally attach the idea to the old slave south; but in all their endless ignorance, the masses have made an unnecessary association. Perhaps America’s memory only can stretch as far back as the War Between the States; perhaps it forgets how America was born–it suceded from the British Empire. If the first American patriots did not believe that secession was a viable political tool, then we would have been under the tyranny of empire for generations more.

The point I am trying to make here is not that Vermont should seceed from the Union–quite frankly Vermont is no special state and demonstrates few viable, exceptional characteristics that give reason for its separation.  Rather, as an aspect of political theory, the idea of cedession is very viable and should be viewed with perspective and analyzed with rationality, for if a region presents itself as legitimately more free than the nation as whole it has the right to “declare the causes which impel them to the separation” and procede to do so.

Popularity: 35% [?]

Tonight I attended a Republican fundraiser for Mitt Romney. I will not go into details on the fundraiser but will rather focus on Mr. Romney. Let me just say this: if you thought he was impressive in the debate, he is a rock star in person. He is one of the best public speakers I have ever seen. His wife is also very articulate and is First Lady material. Mr. Romney spoke about some interesting topics and while he was speaking with a specific audience (fiscally conservative but not evangelical audience) what he said will be a major part of his campaign. He used an example that when he was in Massachusetts he was asked to spend $250 million to rebuild a crumbling state courthouse. Romney was advised that many of these courthouses would have to be renovated over his term. He instead decided to build twelve new state courthouses that would be placed strategically so that each citizen would be within half an hour of a courthouse. How many courthouses existed before? 112 court houses. The reason these courthouses still remained is because most towns had courthouses prior to the invention as the car, but he questioned why when society as a whole has adapted to the car, why hasn’t government. Such spending only benefits people who work on senatorial campaigns who are then appointed as clerks or employees as these courthouses. As usual in government, until Romney came in to fix Massachusetts, the government employees got the benefits that should have been going to the people.

The point that Romney was making was that in business, you have to change to survive. If your business does not adapt within five years to major market changes, it will fail. Take the US auto industry (an example he used) they became complacent with their status as the auto super powers and neither Ford, GM, or Chrysler was prepared for the far superior and efficient business model of Toyota.
He thinks it’s ridiculous that the cabinet is structured as it is; he said he would appoint vice presidents and other positions to increase accountability and also extend presidential control over bureaucracies. For instance, dividing the military to report to specific regional commanders would reduce reaction times and improve US military operational ability. Currently the United States does this with Centcom, which controls operations directly in the Middle East and North Africa, but no other similar structure or organization exists in the military.
He called for energy independence within 25 years and thinks that it is ridiculous that the America spends a billion dollars a day to purchase oil from other countries (80% of all oil production is controlled by nationalized oil companies, not private corporations) and that we only spent a billion on energy research in 2006.

Overall he seems to want to bring a much more business like approach to government (and he has proved it in his record in Massachusetts). As he said in the debate, he thinks that Iran presents a real threat because nuclear material could get into terrorist hands (even if they’re government does not use it). He is for tougher sanctions on Iran but seems to want to take a more diplomatic approach and also to appeal to the Iranian people to seriously consider the consequences and responsibility that come with becoming a nuclear nation.
He wanted to give the troop surge a chance to work, he mentioned federalism in Iraq and I predict of the surge doesn’t work that is an option he will push for or claim that he will promote if he is elected.
He refused to say whom he would like as his running mate, but in all honesty I cannot think of anyone else who is as impressive as Romney (at least who was present at the Republican Debate last week from MSNBC.com and the Politico.com).
He is the most articulate candidate I have seen and while it was evident in person it is clear on TV too. The good news for Republicans is that there is a very strong, very Reagan-esk candidate to counter the Obama movement.

Popularity: 31% [?]

We’re already about twenty minutes into the debate sponsored by MSNBC/Politico.com, and I’ll be periodically updating this blog entry with my latest impressions. So far, we’ve seen a variety of MSNBC-chosen questions, and there’s been a round of questions submitted by users of the popular political website Politico.com [I'll be writing about the importance of the interactive round shortly]. I’ve been a little disgusted with the frequency of Reagan references, but, after all, it’s a Republican debate at the Reagan Library, so I guess one shouldn’t expect anything else. Ronald Reagan wasn’t, however, the country’s greatest president, and I don’t see why all of the candidates continually refer to his greatness in practically every area of governance. I’ll be dropping general opinions into several paragraphs and I’ll keep candidate specific entries at the bottom. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 45% [?]

Get ready for the dramatic rise in sea levels that Al Gore warned us about in An Inconvenient Truth because it’s about to happen 30 years earlier than scientists previously thought. The new study used “satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice”, different methods that the computer models employed by the IPCC in their global warming report. Not only will the melting of the Arctic ice caps induce dramatic flooding in nearly all cities at current sea level, but it will escalate the rate at which global warming is currently progressing at.

“Right now … the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool,” Scambos said in a telephone interview. “Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster.”

That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.

This news comes at a time before what may be a turning point in human history. Not only is the Kyoto protocol scheduled to wrap up in 5 years, but a new President is scheduled to be elected in 2008. The next few years are essential to what happens to our world. Currently, only a handful of European countries have been successful at reducing their carbon footprints.

This has to change! We already know that reversing climate change is going to be a hard and arduous task. We already know that even if all the nations of this world stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today, that global warming will continue to get worse before it gets better. People across the globe need to snap out of it and realize that their planet is in danger. No planet; no life. This threat is the greatest we’ve ever encountered and I’m not sure if we’ll be smart enough to overcome it in time.

It’s unfortunate to think that it may just require the disappearance of Arctic ice and extreme flooding around major cities on the world for civilisation to wake up and begin taking action.

Popularity: 44% [?]