Election Issues 2008
January 24th, 2008

The online questionnaire at http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ is becoming a popular web site to explore how candidates stack up on the issues Americans feel are important. It is NOT scientific, but it is an open-source calculation that hides no specific agenda by the author. I urge everyone to take the test just for grins. The candidate’s positions on the issues are based on somewhat outdated information. I’d like to see it updated (by the candidates) for 2008.

Whether or not you concur with the calculation of which candidate best matches your positions on the issues, the list of issues presented is fairly comprehensive with regard to current 2008 campaign rhetoric.

When I was asked to ‘weigh in’ on this list of issues I was first struck by how much one needed to know about current issues and events to make an informed decision. It also struck me that I expect most candidates do not know the background or the nuances of all these issues either. I’d love to see this list of questions posed to each candidate in a closed session (with none of their aids around to help them).

So, in response to those that asked – my views on the issues (as of Jan, 2008 – in the order they are presented on dehp.net) follow:

Abortion Rights – Federal legislation banning abortion.

• While I am not an advocate of abortion as a contraceptive measure, I firmly believe that a person should have the right to determine whether or not their body can be used for reproduction.
• The federal government should not be able to compel a person to use their body for reproduction against their will. Banning early stage abortion is like involuntary servitude. A women’s rights activist once put it best, I think, when she said: “If men could get pregnant this would never be a question.”.

Death Penalty – States’ right to issue the death penalty.

• As a deterrent it has little value. As a punishment it still has merit. It has the same connotations as the tenets of self defense.
• If a person is justified in killing another in self defense, then the States have the right to do it in their stead. I know. My left wing friends are disappointed in me – but you wanted my opinion.
• Bottom line – “States Rights” should be absolute unless they endanger the security of the United Sates or are contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
• In the area of Federal Crimes this limitation would not stand. If the government wants to ban the death penalty for federal crimes that’s another story.

No Child Left Behind – Maintaining the No Child Left Behind Act.

• Since I know little of this Act’s true wording or effect, it’s hard to say. It’s one of those ‘sound bite’ questions that saying ‘no’ to will be like being against children, mothers and apple pie.
• I don’t know where the money goes for this program (like, how much really gets to the children in the form of education, etc.) and how much goes to administrators, corporations and greedy parents. It sounds good – but I think we all need to know more to make an informed decision.

Embryonic Stem Cells – Legalizing research that uses stem cells derived from embryos.

• There is a stark difference between legalizing independent research and using citizens tax dollars to support such research.
• I do not support the right of the federal government to criminalize a research practice that breaks no state or federal law, per se.
• However, I do understand the moral objections made by citizens when it comes to using their tax dollars to support such research. But congress is supposed to be the voice of the people. If the votes were there to overturn this it would have already happened.

ANWR Drilling – Drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

• Today’s oil exploration and production technology is so advanced that impacts to the environment are less than natures own impacts of wild fires and natural disasters.
• If well monitored and regulated, extracting oil from anywhere can prove safe and indeed necessary.
• Conservationists and anti-oil special interests have often flip-flopped on impact assessments. I remember a great groundswell of protest over placing drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico some years ago. Recently when the platforms were no longer needed the same conservationists protested their removal. It seems as though the platforms had created an artificial reef that supported a new population of sea life. Go figure.

Kyoto – The US adhering to the Kyoto Protocol.

• I don’t know about adhering, but ratifying it would be a start. The option of whether or not it should be signed should be left up to the congress not the State Department.
• Although foreign policy is the purview of the Administration, Kyoto has direct and indirect impact on federal regulations and U.S. corporations and the citizens they employ. Thus, it needs greater vetting than your usual trade agreement and that vetting should be done in the congress – IMHO.

Assault Weapons Ban – Reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban.

• I must plead ignorance here. I did not know it was ever lifted.
• I see no reasonable excuse to bear weapons of ‘mass destruction’ in our American households. I am a strong advocate of the right to bear arms. But there are limitations – and this should be one that even gun enthusiasts support.

Guns – Background Checks – More thorough background checks for gun ownership.

• What is meant by ‘more thorough’? I have often believed that more thorough civilian weapons training and licensing is needed. I can’t believe we have stricter laws for getting a drivers license than owning and using a firearm.
• But the last time I bought a gun (before I received a concealed handgun license [CHL] from the state of Texas) I had to wait 3 days and I thought that time was enough to ‘thoroughly check’ my background. I can only hope.
• I’m not sure what good further regulation and expense will do if it does not include mandatory weapons training and testing – just like a driver’s license.
• If there was a clear indication that more background checks alone would keep guns out of the hands of criminals – then I would have no problem with it. But I expect there is no such indication. I suspect this whole subject is a fear tactic used to get votes in some left wing areas. It would have little impact on crime or shooting statistics in my opinion.

Patriot Act – Maintaining the Patriot Act.

• One of my biggest ‘hot buttons’, The Patriot Act has absolutely no social welfare properties that existing law could not have provided.
• The Patriot Act is an affront to basic liberties that I fought for in the Marine Corps and what many Americans have died for over the centuries.
• One of Al Qaeda’s greatest victories, in my estimation, was the imposition of the Patriot Act on America. We took one step closer to their idea of totalitarian rule – and they loved it! They effectively shut down many of our “self evident” liberties.
• The rights of those appearing to match the “profile” of those who attacked us on 9/11 have lost almost all sense of individual freedom in public places. Now that is Anti-American.

Guantanamo – Maintaining a military presence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

• I have no problem with a military presence. But I think a discussion on an ‘outside-the-law’ concentration camp is in order.
• If America is truly the land of liberty and justice then our enemies must be availed the protections of our legal system. Otherwise we are as ruthless and dishonest as they. We are them and they are us.
• Today, the world perceives a dishonest and self-serving double standard for justice in the USA. I can’t say I blame them.

Torture – Torturing prisoners such as enemy combatants or suspected terrorists.

• I think there are drugs (truth serum, if you will) that can produce the desired results without inflicting terror or harm. However, I can understand how some want to ‘punish’ those that inflicted the same on us; which I suspect is the real excuse for this type of behavior.
• No, torture is more retribution than purpose. Leave it in our barbaric past where it belongs.

Wiretapping – Intercepting internet/telephone communications without a warrant.

• See Patriot Act. - I never understood why existing domestic surveillance laws cannot be used.
• As I understand it, the conversation must be with or through a foreign country. Of course any real subversives will use VOIP anyway.
• In any event, the problem is that there is no transparent oversight to prevent domestic abuses. The NSA can do almost WHATEVER they like. But that is slowly changing with the exit of Rumsfeld [re: Revisiting Intelligence Reform http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4795 ].

Citizenship Path for Illegals – Creating a path by which illegal aliens already in the US can become citizens.

• Another one of my “hot buttons”.
• Besides the term ‘Illegals” not being a valid word – I’m not sure lumping together immigration (e.g. the “illegal alien” moniker) from border states and immigration from the rest of the world is a smart idea. Mexicans, for example, have more Native American claims than the current majority residents of the contiguous 48.
• The cultural and social intricacies ARE different with border states and ignoring these differences only exacerbates the problem.
• A citizenship path for citizens of border states needs to be explored separate from a broad immigration policy.

Border Fence – Constructing a border fence between the US and Mexico.

• Dumbest idea since Hilary’s National Health program. See also: The Other Side of the Immigration Debate [ http://www.aberantnews.org/?p=24 ]
• I propose the opposite of a fence: Open up our southern border all the way. No restrictions – either way. U.S. citizens and U.S. corporations can move into Mexico with no appreciable difference in civil law, tax law, government regulation – nor any added burden for business formation or establishing individual residency. A true ‘open border’ policy that invites U.S. interests into Mexico, and Mexican interests into the U.S.
• The affect? The flow would reverse itself almost overnight, with U.S. residents and business flooding into Mexico to take advantage of low taxes, cheap land, inexpensive labor, you name it. A complete ‘Americanization’ of northern Mexico could be the result in as little as 10 years. And we would build modern highways, utility delivery systems and other infrastructure along the way. Can’t do it of course, but it is fun to think about.

Net Neutrality – Regulations to ensure that public networks treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.

• This must be a trick question for a Blogger. Of course we believe that the free expression of ideas and sharing of information is one of those ‘inalienable rights’ that our founders expounded upon.
• However, I think we need to keep the government’s regulatory hands OFF the internet. Please! Let’s let open and free commerce dictate how the internet is used.
• If some ISPs want to ‘sell bandwidth’ then let them. If they embark on anything close to unfair trade practices, anti-trust behavior or interfering with individual rights, we have plenty of laws already on the books to address abuses.

Iran Sanctions – Maintaining trade sanctions with Iran.

• Well, they have worked wonders in Cuba. Not.
• When will we ever learn? Sanctions only drive nations closer to other countries that are unfriendly to the US. No one likes sanctions more than our enemies.

Iran – Military Action – Utilizing military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities.

• Well, I’m not a hawk, but if the Iranian people can’t or won’t stop Ahmadinejad someone else may have to.
• I only hope this option is far in the future and does not involve Israel.
• The bottom line is that, by and large, the Iranian people, and to some extent many Iranian government officials, do not like the idea of making nuclear weapons – out alone nuclear threats (like wiping out Democracy in general, or Israel in particular). I think we need to give Iran time to solve the Ahmadinejad problem themselves. And by all indications, they have that time.
• So.. My answer is NO… for now.

Iraq War – Maintaining the current war with terrorists in Iraq.

• Define ‘terrorists’.
• Before we invaded many of the people we now refer to as terrorists were simply Iraqis. And there simply was no security threat posed to the U.S. by Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was shear ineptitude at best – and a war crime at worst.
• HOWEVER, we are now bound to protect those we have endangered. See also Nobility Lost [ http://www.aberantnews.org/?page_id=26 ].
• It’s like your husband getting the neighbor pregnant. Should the baby (democracy) be abandoned because the act was dishonorable? Do we make it more dishonorable through self-serving abandonment? You be the judge. I cannot.

Iraq Troop Surge – The increased troop presence in Iraq.

• Old news, but pertinent.
• We owe the Iraqis more than we can repay. So – yes, I’m afraid I was in favor of the surge and would want it to continue until the hate mongers are suppressed by the Iraqis themselves.

Iraq Withdrawal – Withdrawing from Iraq.

• As early as possible, yes. But again we must insure we are leaving a capable government and a safe environment behind.
• It’s a bitter pill, but hope is not a strategy. Neither is abandonment. We have work to do. We must face up to it, like it or not.

Minimum Wage Increase – Increasing the minimum wage.

• I think eliminating ‘off the record’ foreign workers would go a long way to leveling the playing field, regardless of wages.
• Nevertheless, the minimum wage HAS been increased (legislation signed in May, 2007 increased the wage 70 cents each year until 2009] and – so this is fairly moot now. We could argue over if it was enough or not – but we would accomplish little.

Same-Sex Marriage – Allowing same-sex marriage.

• I’m one of those that believe the doctrine of separation between church and state should not allow a religious ceremony to dictate a binding civil contract (see also next issue).
• I think every married couple should have to enter into a Civil Union contract before any property or guardian rights may be enforced by law.

Same-Sex Civil Union – Allowing civil unions between people of the same sex.

• Not only do I think Civil Unions should be allowed – I think they should be compelled. A church ceremony should be just that – a religious ceremony. Period. It should not bind two people legally. It should bind them morally and spiritually.
• If there is truly a separation between church and state in this country, then two people should be required to sign a contract that assigns and accepts mutual responsibilities and accountabilities. These tenets are simply “assumed” in today’s civil law. In reality, most first time spouses have little knowledge of the civil (common) law surrounding that little phrase “I Do”.
• But this solution to the “marriage wars” is just too simple and uncomplicated to ever be adopted. Congress is full of lawyers – voted for by a bunch of evangelists – so this is doomed no matter how much sense it makes.

Same-Sex Constitutional Ban – The creation of an [amendment] that bans same-sex marriage.

• Any government legislation that regulates a religious ordainment or ceremony should be struck down as unconstitutional.
• I might support it if the President and Vice-president had to comply with the same law. A ban on same-sex running mates makes about as much sense – and would make the political conventions much less boring.
• The stupidity and audacity of the religious right will never cease to amaze me.

Universal Healthcare – The creation of a federal, universal healthcare system.

• Boy, I really don’t like federal programs. I have worked on too many federal contracts to know how ineffective and inept most federal programs are. BUT – the need for a national healthcare plan is too obvious – and it cannot cater to the drug or healthcare industry (which is what most all national heath proposals have been so far).
• I MAY support a Universal Healthcare program IF it included a consolidation of all federal healthcare programs and agencies (FDA, Medicare, Medicaid, HHS, NIH…) – AND – created a non-profit, non-government civilian oversight authority.
• Basically, it would have to not only revamp the current healthcare systems, it would have to redefine them and fund them in a totally new way. It would have to include medical education, research and administration. I really don’t think anyone has the stomach to do it right.

My 2¢

JB

The extraordinary campaign of Representative Ron Paul
January 12th, 2008

Dr. Ron Paul is an interesting mix of constitutional idealism and uncommon sense. His 2008 campaign for president has enjoyed a huge following on the internet and contributions are outpacing many of the leading candidates. But he is not expected to garner many votes in the primaries. Many believe his positions are not sustainable and realistic in today’s world.

Let’s look at several of his views and the issues surrounding their implementation:

1. Only Republican candidate to have opposed and voted against the Iraq War – but voted for use of force against terrorists in Afghanistan.

Probably his best credential. Shows that while he may be an isolationist, he is not fearful of confrontation and is somewhat a pragmatist. Fight the battles you can win – stay out of the ones you cannot – and recognize the difference. As Commander and Chief this would bring a certain amount of restraint and intellect to our foreign military policy that it has lacked since Colin Powell left.

2. Opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

While this is easy to say, the truth of the matter is, the “native born” citizen has been a mainstay of traditional constitutional language since reconstruction – which Paul courts with relish (13^th Amendment – all free persons born in the republic were by definition citizens of the United States; reinforced by the 14^th amendment addressing pre-civil war slaves, Asians, etc.). One of the reasons Gov Schwarzenegger cannot run for president – and one of the reasons Paul can, is this native born doctrine. Repeal it and you lead down a slippery Orwellian slope to “citizenship by decree” with is a much worse scenario.

Also, I’m not sure lumping together immigration (e.g. the “illegal alien” moniker) from boarder states and immigration from the rest of the world is a smart idea. Mexicans, for example, have more Native American claims than the current majority residents of the contiguous 48. The cultural and social intricacies ARE different with boarder states and ignoring these differences only exacerbates the problem.

3. Advocates ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies – including the Federal Reserve, Dept of Education and the IRS.

Couldn’t agree more – in principle. But the issue here is one of shear complexity. The tax code, the U.S. economy and the banking system are so umbilically linked to the everyday welfare of the average citizen that any change will need to be done very slowly and with much diligence. Literally millions of jobs, industries and social systems are woven into this fabric. And the links to a growing global economy are significant.

I too believe that the government can lay down guidelines for educational excellence without the need for an entire department. However, federal funding for tuition assistance & student loans needs to be addressed in a broader framework of educational standards at some high level.

As with all of Paul’s idealistic notions, the fact that a U.S. Congress must share in his convictions for any of this to actually happen is lost on his somewhat naive supporters.

4. Opposes the Patriot Act and War on Drugs.

Again, I support this conviction too. The Patriot Act is an affront to basic liberties that I fought for in the Marine Corps and what many Americans have died for over the centuries. One of Al Qaeda’s greatest victories, in my estimation, was the imposition of the Patriot Act on America. We took one step closer to their idea of totalitarian rule – and they loved it! They effectively shut down many of our “self evident” liberties.

The War on Drugs is as ineffective as it is expensive. I would take this idea further to the ideological left and propose legalizing, taxing and controlling marijuana sales. That would go further to solving the overall illegal drug trade problem than the War on Drugs has.

5. Strongly pro-life, advocates overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Here’s where we have considerable differences. Even the term “Pro Life” implies “Pro Choice” advocates are also “Pro Death”. I sincerely believe that you can be against abortion as a contraceptive measure and still believe in a fundamental right to decide weather or not your body is to be used for reproduction. As one woman’s advocate put it “If men could have babies this would not even be a question.” I tend to agree.

6. Advocates the withdrawal of troops and the closing of military bases worldwide.

Again, sounds good on paper but entire economies and even cites full of people rely on these military-industrial dinosaurs for their livelihood. An irresponsible reactive process could do much more damage to foreign policy than some of the current interventionist strategies that I deplore. A case of the cure being worse than the disease, such actions can be extremely counterproductive if not done with extreme forethought and long term planning.

Bottom Line:

His rhetoric sounds very good to Americans that are sick and tired of heavy handed, misleading and out-of-control government. The Democrats have no real vision beyond gaining the White House. At least Paul offers us a vision of life after politics. However, a return to core constitutional values does not mean we can return to the “New World” isolationist policy of the constitutional era. Globalization of markets, communications and information is a reality that we cannot isolate ourselves from.

To bad Paul’s ideology is fraught with reckless and dangerous consequences. If not done with extreme caution and planning the resulting disaster could make Bush look like a Jimmy Carter knockoff. That’s my biggest problem with Paul – his lack of any credible plans for accomplishing his very complex goals.

Palestinian-Israeli Peace is SIMPLE formula
January 8th, 2008

I have Jewish heritage. Well, genetically speaking anyway. My natural Father was Jewish. But I hold a few views that my Jewish friends find objectionable.

I sincerely believe that Peace between Palestinians and Israelis is actually a pretty simple formula. “Do unto others as you are willing to have them do unto you.”

However, applying this simple principle has eluded the warring factions for 60 years.

Repatriation and Settlements

Neither side should demand of the other side that which they would not be able or willing to do themselves.

For instance, one of the biggest hurdles is the repatriation of Palestinians to territories in Israel and maintaining the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.

These are two sides of the very same coin.

If Palestinians wish to return to territories inside Israel, fine. Of course, as residents of a sovereign state they would have to live under the laws and within the jurisdiction of the Jewish State of Israel. Pay the taxes, learn the language, respect the customs and respect the culture of the host country.

If Israelis wish to live in Palestine – fine. Let them. Of course, as residents of a sovereign state they would have to live under the laws and within the jurisdiction of the Islamic State of Palestine. Pay the taxes, learn the language, respect the customs and respect the culture of the host country.

If that does not sit well with those that believe in a separation of church & state and the irrevocable right to self determination and freedom of religion – then don’t insist that your country be a “Jewish State” or an “Islamic State”. A Democratic State should suffice.

Like I said – a simple formula.

Both sides should easily see the other side’s point of view and both can see that they must work together to insure the safety and freedom of each other’s citizens. Until this simple principle of mutual respect and responsibility is adopted by both parties – a solution is simply not possible.

Jerusalem

While Jerusalem is the spiritual center for Judaism, it is not the spiritual center for Islam (Mecca is considered Islam’s spiritual capital). Conversely, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel – Tel-Aviv is. The capital of Palestine has been Jerusalem since the end of the Crusades centuries ago.

This dichotomy makes this issue worrisome – but it is not a unique problem historically.

Just as Washington DC is not part of a State; and the Vatican is its own City State (as was Rome) within Italy; so then, I believe, should Jerusalem be a City State of its own. It’s as simple as that. How it is governed is not an issue. We have many models of City State governance from which to choose.

Jerusalem must be treated as an enclave of free movement and security. Sitting directly on the border of Israel & Palestine Jerusalem can be a Mecca (no pun intended) of cooperation and religious freedom. Of course this assumes the return of east Jerusalem lands to Palestine – for which there is adequate historic precedence.

If the Palestinians want to make it their capital – Fine. If the Israelis want to make it their Capital too – Fine. Just get on with it.

History

For the average person “on the street” in The West the history of this region is confusing.

The seemingly continuous fighting between Israelis and Palestinians has it roots not in the Middle East – but in New York City.

The truth is that the “partitioning” of the area known as Palestine – into Palestinian and Jewish States in 1948 – was a fabrication of the WWII Allies through the United Nations. After the horrors of the Holocaust were found to be actually true – the long standing Jewish request for a homeland was finally fulfilled.

While this was seen as a terribly unjust “land grab” by the Arab world (and maybe it was) the Arabs themselves made it worse by invading the new Jewish State of Israel in June of 1948 – immediately after Israel declared its independence and was recognized by the UN as a sovereign state in May of 1948.

[ A little known fact: The territory was under British rule up until that time. Several dozen British officers that were sympathetic to the Arabs in the region resigned their commissions in order to lead Arab armies against Israel. ]

However, the Allies considered the Arab nations to be in direct violation of the wishes of the U.N.; so, all the nations of the security counsel – from the U.S. to Russia and Britain, aided Israel with weapons and funds. Many battle hardened Jews that fought with the Allies in WW2 migrated to Israel as the threat of invasion was realized.

By the end of 1949 Israeli counter attacks pushed Arab armies out of their partitioned area of Palestine and expanded their land holdings by over 25%. This expansion included the western half of the city of Jerusalem and all the western land leading to it from Israel.

Again in 1967 all Israel’s Arab neighbors launched another attack – and once again they made things worse.

In only six days the Israeli Army – armed with U.S. technology and training – defeated the Russian backed Arabs and actually held all of Palestine and parts of Egypt, Jordon and Syria.

Under pressure from the UN – and specifically the U.S. – a ‘treaty’ returned most of the land of the Arab states (the Golan Heights were not returned to Syria due to their strategic military value).

Israel continued to occupy all the Palestinian territory as a “security measure”. The entire city of Palestine was also now annexed into Israel. Overall, Israel expanded its borders by about another 25%.

There you have it – an extremely short history lesson on what we today call the “Middle East Crisis”. Many details were left out – but you get the idea.

One thing is for sure – we cannot go back in history. We live in the present. We can only look forward and determine what we can do from here on out and what we can learn from the past. The egg once broken…

Going Forward

Very little of history is fair. Every nation that thrives was built through war, death, ethnic cleansing and unfair consequences. Today we consider ourselves too “civilized” to allow such practices, but we fool ourselves. The most powerful of nations are the ones who drove out the competition long ago.

The biggest issue facing Palestine is the imbalance of power between Israel & Palestine.

It’s David and Goliath.

Only this time it’s the Israelites that have the size and ego that needs tempering. They have become Goliath and with it they have forgotten some of their own struggles and have abandoned many of their own beliefs with regard to self determination and individual freedom.

Many Palestinians still cling to the hope that Israel can be eliminated – that they can ‘cleanse’ their country of the Jewish infestation. These are the same types of people that instigated the 1948 invasion and the 1967 attacks.

If Middle Eastern history is good for anything it is good as a bad example.

Hamas, Hezbollah and other ‘Jihadists” are a good example – of a bad example.

They cling to a 50 year old belief that intimidation, killing and hate will be enough – and as they do so they only make Palestine weaker as Israel gets stronger and more self righteous. Many proponents of this approach are only interested in the personal power they derive from these beliefs. It’s almost like a gang mentality.

Conclusion

The Palestinians may have gotten the short end of the stick in 1949. Once the “Land of Palestine” (first partitioned by the British Mandate of Palestine in 1920) included most of what is known as Jordon & Syria today. And yes, it included many Jewish towns and settlements.

Now this once proud people are relegated to the scraps Israel will allow them.

It may be said that much of the Palestinian plight was by their own hand, but I think the time has come to try and make amends with history and each nation allow the other – Israel and Palestine – to exist, thrive and be free.

In many ways, Israel will never be truly free until Palestine is. And Palestine cannot regain its proud heritage without Israel.

Time to fess up.

Simple.