Thankful, I am.

What am I thankful for?

America, what are you thankful for?

I'm sure numerous blogs have been posted, speeches given at dinner, and cards exchanged; all of which elude to the idea that we should be thankful for each other and what we have in this world. Yet tonight I'm feeling a bit cynical.

The world is a mess. Poverty is at an all time high. AIDS is running rampant in other countries and growing in our own. Our economy is crumbling. Terrorists, drunk with ignorance and fundamentalism, are plotting to kill people every day. The prisons are crowded. The streets are unsafe. The list goes on and on, who knows what's going to happen tomorrow. Anything is possible in this shitty world...but...maybe I'm thankful for all of that.

We've been presented with a unique opportunity, one which hasn't been an option to the younger demographic since the 60s, and do you know what it is: It's the power to give a damn and do something about it.

I look around every day and I see young people intensely interested in politics. I know kids who stay up at night drinking beer and watching Anderson Cooper, getting hammered while debating issues. I see activists who won't take "no" for an answer. I've read columns proudly proclaiming: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" I've seen charity. I've seen understanding. I've seen hate, and I've seen hate create immense love.

In the span of a week all these things have presented themselves to me and if it wasn't for the fucked up state of the world, I don't know if I would have seen it.

Our race possesses the unique ability to pull together when the chips are down and I don't have to tell you that the chips are far from down, they already hit the floor. Still I can't help but feel optimistic. Things are going to get worse, but they will also get better. We have an opportunity to make things right for everyone in this country, not just the upper crust or middle class. We have been given the chance to set into motion a long term vision for prosperity, and we have to hold our politicians to it. No more need to point fingers; we know why things got so bad. But it's because they got so bad that we can now take action.

We may live in one hell of a depressing place, but I'm thankful that I'm alive to see a time which is bringing the best out of people. There are a great many evils out there, but there is a lot of good too. Tomorrow is truly a new day if you wish it to be. I'm ready. Are you?

Take a Lesson From Machiavelli

In 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a treatise for Lorenzo de' Medici offering him advice as to how to rule should he come to unite the city-states of Italy. Il Principe, or The Prince, soon became a classic example of 16th century thought which went on to inspire numerous rulers such as Charles V, Catherine de' Medici, Cardinal Richelieu, and Frederick the Great.

What was special about The Prince was that it used history, not theory, to provide examples as to how a monarch should rule over the people. It also laid no claims to virtue. Asking the famed question whether it is better to be feared or loved, Machiavelli simply stated that to be loved was nice, but to be feared was better; a conclusion which dozens of dictators have also reached since the original publication of The Prince.

All this aside, the United States government would be wise to remember one important lesson from Machiavelli, especially given the recent news regarding the activities of Blackwater USA. Said Machiavelli:

"Mercenaries...are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful...The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you."

Two days ago it came to light that the mercenaries of Blackwater are guilty of ultra-violent misconduct in Iraq. For the last five years they have gotten away with manslaughter, assault, and illegally importing over 900 automatic weapons into Iraq without the proper permits. The United States Justice Department has done everything in their power not to charge Blackwater, even telling Congress they have no legal jurisdiction over the company. However numerous voices in and outside Washington are calling for Blackwater to be held accountable, though there is no guarantee that any actions will be taken against them.

Sadly, I'm of the opinion that no charges will be brought against them. Why? Because the US government needs Blackwater if they are to continue their war in Iraq.

The armed forces of the US have been suffering from dwindling numbers for years and with an increase unlikely in the decade, many inside the Pentagon will be wondering how long they can continue to sustain a volunteer army. Some will say the answer is to reinstitute the draft, however this is unlikely as it would be political suicide for any politician who supports it. The other option would be to continue the employment of mercenary organizations like Blackwater, which have already shown a complete disregard for human life in the name of collecting a paycheck. Still, all is not lost. There is a third option: stop fighting unnecessary wars and bring the boys home.

The Obama government is sure to focus more on infrastructure than flexing muscles on the global stage. As Obama and his aids search for ways to pull out of Iraq, they should consider terminating their contract with Blackwater and any other organization that kills for money. These organizations could care less about the health and well-being of the Iraqi or any nation within which they operate. All they care about is surviving battle so they can collect their paycheck, a very dangerous situation when you think about it. Would you trust a babysitter to watch your child if they knew you were going to pay them no matter what they did? Probably not. Then why would we trust our nation to babysitters toating sub-machine guns?

Eventually Blackwater will ask for more money or they will become a greater liablity than they already are. What will we do when they go to far? What will we do when they ask for money we don't have? The possible answers could range anywhere from leaving Iraq in a state of disarray, to taking control of sections of the country and holding them for ransom; the outcomes are numerous and equally horrible. There is only one option: scale back in Iraq, then get the troops home and end our relationship with Blackwater. Its the only way we can save face, distance ourselves from mercenaries and stop promoting the kind of blood tainted politics that we claim to fight against. If we don't take this course, who knows what could happen or what we will be held responsible for.

As I've said numerous times, the greatest problem with our nation is doubt. We always seem to convince ourselves that certain outcomes will never happen. This needs to change and taking a stance on Blackwater would powerful signal from the new government that we are privy the possibilities of the future and we do not want to be associated with blood-money.

He may have inspired some of the meanest bastards in history, but Machiavelli knew mercenaries were a bad idea. It's about time the US realized that too.

--Mr. FDR

Will MoveOn.org Move On? I Hope So.

I'm hoping Senator Obama wins the presidency tomorrow night. My hopes lie not in the fact that I see Obama leading this country in the right, more humanistic direction. Nor do they lie in the belief that his plan to cut taxes on the middle class will help stimulate the economy. No, I've come to terms with these and other issues weeks ago. Tonight the main reason I want Senator Obama to win tomorrow is so that MoveOn.org stops badgering me with incessant emails and phone calls.

I was once a proud member of the online community, signing petitions and sending them to my friends in emails. I even went so far as to encourage others to join. However once the primaries began I (an Obama supporter since day one and an extremely liberal individual) soon grew increasingly weary of the constant emails and plugs for money. Then as the bid for the White House drew closer to its conclusion, my weariness turned to annoyance as MoveOn members badgered me over the phone, practically forcing me to volunteer (apparently "maybe" in MoveOn's dictionary means "yes"). If this was not enough, I continually receive emails to this day asking for money or my time to ensure that Barack Obama wins the White House. I can't take it anymore!

Still you might be wondering why I'm upset. Shouldn't I enjoy their efforts since they're campaigning for my candidate? The answer: yes, but mostly no. Let me explain.

I love the fact that MoveOn has rallied so much support and grassroots activity for this election. Kudos lads. It's because of efforts by MoveOn members and other organizations that we're going to have a high voter turn-out this election with citizens certainly being more well-informed than they were last time around. Yet from here my enjoyment ceases and falls into a state of contemplation.

Given MoveOn's fervent support for Obama I can't help but wonder what they will do once he goes into office. Keeping in mind that MoveOn has always been a Democratic Party linked organization, its unsurprising that underneath their campaign for more citizen participation in government lies an agenda to usurp Republicans from positions of power. This has probably gone largely unnoticed because we've had a Republican president for the last 8 years, almost the entirety of MoveOn's existence. But once he is sworn into office, will they give Obama the same treatment they gave Bush?

I mean lets be realistic. It's highly unlikely Obama will meet expectations. Anyone who thinks the second he swears in the country will change for the better is either on cocaine or a moron. On top of this, Obama will need time and support to organize his plans and move them forward, after which it will probably take at least a full term before we start to notice the affects. All the while business, citizens, and congressman will surely get disgruntled about a multitude of things and President Obama will come under fire. Which then begs the question: Will MoveOn continue down its former path of citizen participation and critical evaluation of the government, or will it become Obama's core support group?

I'm sorry to say but given their conduct in the last 5 months, I think the answer is puppet. It's quiet clear to me that MoveOn has transformed into nothing but a front for one party/individual, to the point that I don't know if I can stay a member of the organization. The essence of MoveOn was change, change in the way citizens speak out against government policies and reach out to Congress. With Obama in office I can't see MoveOn being so aggressive, largely due to the fact that they put so much time and effort into getting him there. Thus, there is no other option but for them to become a front through which the Obama administration can spread their message. Will there still be petitions? Yes, I'm positive MoveOn will still have some petitions. Yet they certainly won't have any criticizing Obama, and by failing to do so they will help to silence the democracy they've tried to foster.

Some one call Jim Henson. I found him a new puppet.

Media Botches Coverage on US-Taliban Negotiations

"U.S. Mulls Talks With Taliban in Bid to Quell Afgan Unrest"

This was the headline Wednesday morning in one major U.S. newspaper (link). The story, only deemed front-page news by The Wall Street Journal, explains how Gen. Petraeus backs an effort to talk with certain elements of the Taliban in order to quell some of the violence and destabilization in Afghanistan. The classified recommendation advises the Afghan government lead the negotiations with the "active participation of the U.S.," which we know what that means...mainly that the U.S. would have a major roll in the negotiations though we probably would never know to what extent.

Still while we also don't know which direction the Bush Administration will take in the final weeks of its existence, it should be noted that the recommendation is supported by a man (Petraeus) who used a similar tactic to recruit Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, thus lowering the violence in Iraq. This makes the recommendation popular no doubt among many supports both within and outside the party, which in turn makes it a very real possibility. On the other hand however, many have argued that by arming the Sunnis of Iraq we are only leaving the door open for outright civil war once our soldiers do finally leave the country. Which begs the question of whether or not negotiations with the Taliban will lead to a similar result.

Frankly though, I don't care. Why? Because I'm more upset that this story was not covered by any of the other leading papers in the country. The fact that the Bush administration is considering this proposal only serves to highlight how hypocritical, damaging, and irrational their policies have been over the last eight years. The news should have had a field day with this story, and yet they said nothing! Opting instead to report on the world series, stocks, and gas prices.

This tiny nugget of information serves only as a stark reminder that if the government isn't controlling what information you have access to, the media is. I encourage all readers of this blog to read (or at least browse) multiple publications each day to ensure the maximum amount of exposure is obtained. It only takes fifteen minutes a day, which is well worth it considering how much it will improve one's understanding of issues and the world at large. Try it out.

Here are just a handful of publications you can bookmark to get started:

The New York Times
The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post
USAToday
Time Magazine
Newsweek
The Nation

Obama and Marx

Upon reading my local newspaper I came across an article which said that Obama was a socialistic politician who reads too much Karl Marx. I couldn't help but think to myself, "Are you serious!?" I ask you dear reader, do you agree with his statement?

Whether you do or not let me get something straight: Obama is not Socialist nor is he Marxist.

For starters we must remember that while all marxists are socialists but not all socialists are marxists. Marxists believe in the ideas outlined by German philosopher Karl Marx and his partner Fredrick Engels, mainly the concept of historical materialism and the belief that the working class will overthrow the oppressors of business and society in order to move towards a utopian state of communism. In order to reach communism, which Marx said would take over fifty years, marxists believe society must make the transition from democracy to socialism, then to communism. Hence marxists are socialistic. On the other hand, all socialists are not marxists. The idea of socialism had been around before the time of Marx. In addition while many socialists at the time did agree that society needed to be radically altered, some socialists did not believe in the violence advocated by communist parties while other socialist groups did not feel that their even had to be a radical shift in power, just a shift in policies via democratic voting.

Socialism like many other ideologies has changed over the years and has many different branches, similar to the various forms of conservatism under the Republican banner. However regardless of form, all flavors of socialism support the belief that capitalism has led to the exploitation of millions and the development of an unequal society in which the view possess all the wealth.

The Democratic Socialists of America represent one form of socialism which many individuals across the nation support or would support if they knew anything about the organization. The DSA supports selective nationalization of key industries in a mixed economy (one which has privately and state owned enterprises). This means that the government would only have control over things such as hospitals, roads, schools, banks, and energy sources. In addition DSA believes along with a mixed economy their must be tax-funded welfare programs to ensure society is as healthy as possible. Socialism, as Debbs once eluded to, is a more humane less selfish form of government.

Does any of this sound like Obama's plans for the nation? No. It doesn't. He certainly doesn't advocate revolution for starters. His health plan only wants to drive down costs or/and make care available for lower income families. His economic plan would stimulate growth via taxes, the building of green technologies and infrastructure, and curbing wasteful spending (like the war in Iraq). He wants to get rid of lobbyists in Washington and make sure America talks first and shoots later. I don't see anything socialist, let alone marxist, in his ideas. Unless there is a correlation between taxing the wealthy and armed revoultion by workers that I'm missing...

All this aside and simply put the gentleman who wrote the column, like many ultra conservatives, have simply begun branding the "S word" on Obama as a last ditch effort so steal votes away from him and into the arms of McCain. This may have worked a few decades ago during the Cold War, but the American people are wise enough to realize that just like socialism does not mean marxism, Obama doesn't either.

Go out and vote on November 4th based not on what radical columnists tell you to think, but by what your own objective investigations compel you to do.

--Mr. FDR


More information about DSA can be found here: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

The Real Answer to Our Economic Problems: Abandoning Free Market Capitalism

Note: Before you, my beloved reader, continue I just want to preface this short essay with some background information. Many readers will notice the above title is eerily similar to Mr. Jefferson's recent post. This was of course intended. Readers should know that Mr. Jefferson and I have a long history of verbal sparing on economic issues and it is only in that spirit and with a smile on my face that I wrote what you are about to read. So please, do not think any ill-will is meant by this post. It is just another chapter in the battle Mr. Jefferson and I have been gleefully waging against each other since 2006.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This IS a failure of unregulated markets.

I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, the very notion that our once powerful economy is "failing" is nothing new to the more liberal sort of this country as we've been saying it for as long as The Left as been alive and (barely) kicking. However this is not a time to point fingers and say "I told you so." People are loosing their retirement funds, houses, jobs, and untold amounts of wealth, something needs to be done. But what's to blame? I'll tell you: Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and a partial free market system.

CDS:

Credit Default Swap is a bastard child of JPMorgan, used in the mid-90s to solve a growing problem they were facing which could threaten to hold back their profits.

The problem: JPMorgan had loaned billions of dollars to governments and corporations, but due to federal law had to keep enough capital reserved in case the loan went bad. This meant that there were large sums of money which JPMorgan couldn't give out for loans because the government was "unfairly" forcing them to protect their investments.

The answer: JPMorgan started using the credit default swap. A CDS is when a bank or lending institution finds a third party to take responsibility for a bad debt (paying it if it goes bad) in exchange for small regular payments, just like insurance premiums. By doing this the extra money on their books reserved for covering bad investments can now be used to issue more loans.

Yet, how did this effect the economy?

By 2008 the value of CDS grew to $62 trillion with Lehman Brothers having $700 billion in CDS and AIG possessing $14 billion worth of CDS that they had loaned to banks, insurance companies, and God knows what else. When investments like these went bad the third parties (just like a credit card company) came calling for their money, and when groups like AIG couldn't pay (due to a lack of extra funds in reserve) they defaulted. Causing what happened next, which has been in the paper for the last two-months.

The problem with CDS was that they WERE NOT regulated by the government and no mechanism was in place to help determine their value.

CDS were used to promote investments in dangerous foreign markets, protect against company failure (like Enron), and most importantly to back mortgages. Lenders, like sharks, would let families take out mortgages they knew the family couldn't pay and would then offload the debt onto a third party via CDS. However once people started defaulting on their mortgages, the lenders started to default on their payment to the third party, which like a domino effect cause a crash as it was quickly discovered that no one (not even the third party) could pay or absorb the loss. When no one absorbed the loss AIG crashed and when AIG started to crash investors began to pull money out of every major lender and investment bank, causing the same effect as a snowball rolling down a hill.

Free Market Problem:

Free market capitalism caused this problem. While my colleague is correct in pointing out that the Feds got involved by lowering interests rates, he is wrong by placing blame on the government for labeling Fannie and Freddie as a GSE. The real problem was the unregulated CDS market, which grew and grew until lenders were caught in their own greed and the bubble truly did burst. While this example alone should show many why we don't need full-blown free market capitalism, I will offer another more powerful one to solidify the argument: the Rational Actor (RA).

Free market capitalism such as the version proposed by Mises, and the game theory which studies all brands of free market jargon, relies on the Rational Actor to ensure the system works properly. Let me explain:

"As this malinvestment is discovered markets; left unhampered by government interference; will naturally correct and be able to separate good investments from malinvestments." -- Ludwig von Mises

That sounds all well and good but Mises and his allies are relying on the players within the market to be Rational Actors. To be an RA means to be well informed about the state/aspects of the market and to act accordingly in the best interests of yourself and everyone else. As such the ideal RA would think: "This seems to be a bad investment. I'm going to ignore it so that I may invest in this safer endeavor."

Great, but free market believers make two mistakes:

1.) They assume the actor is well-informed and/or not withholding information.

A common mistake is to assume the actor knows everything about market economics so they can make sound decisions. This is impossible, especially as the market has gotten more bloated with technical jargon and complex schema. In addition, they also assume that other actors within the market (like a bank, stockbroker, or investment firm) are not withholding information from others to gain an upper hand. This means (for a simple example) that even though a stockbroker knows investing in a certain company would be bad for their client, they might recommend it anyways just so they can get a commission, be dammed if it puts their client at risk.

2.) They assume the rational actor is in fact rational.

Imagine two cars driving towards each other playing a game of chicken. One actor knows that he is either going to swerve and save his life or stay the course, make the other guy swerve, and be the hero. Rationality would dictate these thoughts in both actors. But what if one actor rips off his steering-wheel and chucks it over the side giggling to himself? Even though he is being irrational the other actor thinks he is still being rational and undoubtedly the chances of the cars colliding increases. This is what happened with mortgages. Families went in to banks looking for loans to buy a house, but instead of being an RA in seeing that a family couldn't afford certain mortgagees, the banks threw their steering-wheels out the window, irrationality loaning the family large amounts of money they could never pay back.

Now apply this to the whole market. If we had a free market system we would be relying on rational behavior by the actors within the system, something which I have just shown is not always the case. Actors within the economy or not well-informed, they withhold information to gain the advantage, and will irrationally act in order to increase their own gains. These three faults of the RA alone prove that a free market system is not the answer. A regulated one is.

If the market was more regulated the CDS market would never have swelled to the size it did or even took place to being with, actors would be fined for withholding information, and institutions would be more closely watched to ensure they do what's best for both parties, not just themselves.

Regulate It:

My fellow citizens, if you want more of the same economic worries push for a fully free market system that relies on "rational actors," we already saw were a partial system got us. However if you want to level the playing field, support a regulated market. It won't stifle competition or invention (a common claim by Republicans), all it will do is ensure that everyone is forced to play by the rules which in turn will ensure that everyone makes money and those companies that should fail will fail, something I'm sure free market believers will love.

A Second Bill of Rights

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

--Franklin D. Roosevelt, from his 1944 State of the Union address

It would appear our longest serving President was on to something before his untimely and unfortunate death. Reading the above quote, it would also be funny to consider that many of the points FDR made are now major concerns for the American public, that is if it wasn't so sad. Imagine our country if we would have adopted, politically (as FDR wanted it), a second credo or Bill of Rights striving towards all of the aforementioned goals. What would our country be like?

Would we still have poverty on the scale we do? Would we be suffering from our current situation on Wall Street and in the housing market? Would proper health care cost so much?

It's hard to say, and it's even more difficult to defend a position against these points if you're one of the lucky ones in this country not suffering from poverty, unplayable medical bills, or any one of societies many ills.

Think about it. It's easy for one to stand up and say governmental policies helping the less fortunate at the expense of the wealthy are bullshit, especially if you're one of the wealthy. Yet one must remember that the current source of their wealth is the governmental system that outlined the laws and rules that in effect allowed one to create their wealth. The wealthy owes as much to the poor and government as they do to their own hard work, in most cases maybe even more.

All around the world people are realizing that if we are going to make this world a great place for our kids we're going to have to do it together, hand-in-hand, no matter what the cost. This isn't about traditional values, explanations for markets, or "having the right to keep what's mine." This is about looking around your surroundings and understanding that we have just as much of a responsibility to our neighbors as we do to our family.

In light of this I everyone who reads this post to please consider what the above quote really means. However I want you to do so not as a Socialist, Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, Anarchist, or any other philosophy. No, instead take the time to consider FDR's points as a human first. When you're done, consider the world around you from that same perspective of humanity. Finally, think about what it would be like if you were not living in your current socio-economic position. If you do this I promise you that when it's all said and done, you will see what we as a nation need to do.

Society, it's time for a new deal. Are you with me?

Third Party Rising

As the government attempts to pass a $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street through Congress, some independents are surely looking back on the last eight years and asking themselves why we don't have stronger third parties in this country. Spanning even beyond the G.W. Bush presidency, it isn't outlandish to state that both Republicans and Democrats have failed us multiple times since the passage of Reagan's absurd "trickle-down" economic plan, and yet those on the outer fringes of the political spectrum are still waiting for more citizens to take up the third party cause. Why?

One reason could be the fact that many of our fellow citizens are baby-boomers, thus products of not only their parents opinions due to the first Red Scare, but a cold war that brainwashed them into thinking that any non-mainstream party might be made up of Soviet agents hell bent on destroying the American way of life. These same baby-boomers had children, whom they raised in a manner that undoubtedly attributed to their political leanings, and as a result the wicked cycle of misunderstanding continued with the donkeys and elephants of politics gaining a firmer hold on Congress at the expense of dissident parties. Another reason for the lack of third party participation may merely be public consent. Controversial journalist Arianna Huffington hit the nail on the head in her 2000 book How To Overthrow The Government when she said that:

"Our political landscape is so littered with duplicity and deceit, we've actually come to expect our leaders to lie. What once would have shocked us now barely registers. We've become inured to wrongdoing. So politicians mangle the truth--call it "spin"--and the public lets it slide, too numb to care."

Who reading the above statement would not agree with this assessment to some degree? We all know someone who doesn't care about politics, no matter how negatively it affects them. Still the last eight years have shown that the tide of apathy is changing, and just how we realized taking cover under a desk wouldn't save us from a nuclear attack, many citizens are finally starting to see the potential third parties possess.

Voters across the nation are starting to ask more difficult questions of their candidates, seeking answers to problems that differ from the standard Democrat/Republican response. Questions about the economy, protection of jobs, state funded education, and universal health care are taking precedence in this election. Presidential nominees and Congress are quickly realizing that the American public are starting to look for a departure from mainstream Washington and if they don't change their image, they could see new faces on the Senate floor.

In addition, Libertarian Bob Barr and radical Republican Ron Paul have both enjoyed a surprising amount of support in this years presidential election, with the latter being particularly popular amongst college students. Given both candidates libertarian stances, their success can be seen as further proof that the public is slowly shifting away from mainstream political thought and the endless woes that accompany it. This news should be greeted with satisfaction and excitement by third party voters who have longed to see a greater representation of ideas in Congress, but many will feel that it's too late with the damage done by lobby-influenced, big-money politics being too great to overcome. Thankfully though it appears many young Americans feel it doesn't have to be this way.

This is because regardless of what happens in this election, the young electorates of this nation realize they are going to take part in a unique opportunity over the next four years to begin exploring new political avenues. We see it's quite evident that the current path is damaged and one way we are going to find brighter skies is to look beyond this election and continue to consider the value of third parties in dealing with future problems. From talking to fellow citizens I see that interest in ideas of Barr and Paul won’t stop after November 4th. A quick trip around the web shows that more people will still be asking new questions after someone is voted into the White House, knowing that just because change is being promised doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. This all means that finally a further willingness to move past the stereo-types and misconceptions of what third parties represent is becoming evident.

As the questions asked of our government get more complex, those offering different solutions will continue to grow and though one may not always agree with what they say, that doesn't mean they can't help point this country in the right direction. If it keeps up only good can come from it, as this nation will soon become fully comfortable with “other” political ideas that can help to create the real democratic, multi-party process we crave.

Shalom Israel

Israel's history as a full blown, UN recognized, nation has been short and filled with conflict. Officially recognized in 1948, Israel did not have long to enjoy its new found independence before it was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Though the Arab-Israeli War (and the later Six-Day War of 1967) seemed like climatic moments resulting from years of conflict between Jews and Arabs, the world has still yet to see a cooling off of tensions in the region, with many nations coming in and out of the fray of controversy over what is to be done in the highly disputed area.

Over the last 25 years it is reasonable to say no other nation has supported Israel more than the United States. Our government has lead the way by supporting Israel on multiple fronts such as the military, economy, and foreign policy. For example, according to a 2007 New York Times report, Israel will receive towards $30 billion dollars in military aid from the U.S. between 2008 and 2017. The U.S. also supplies Israel with almost all of its yearly economic aid, with half of the government's external economic debt owed to the U.S. Given these two facts it's unsurprising that current presidential candidates have also pledged support for the Jewish state, despite the fact that the current geopolitical situation makes such blind support dangerous to the nation.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them...I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran." --Hilary Clinton, 2008

"We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." -- Barack Obama, 2006

"The United States of America has committed itself to never allowing another Holocaust." --John McCain, 2008

Thankfully Hilary Clinton won't be president any time soon, but regardless any reasonably minded citizen has to be concerned with the comments made by the three mainstream presidential candidates.

The notion that we would obliterate anyone let alone Iran, just for attacking another country, is a frightful idea that should have be itself prevented people from voting for Clinton. If she would attack Iran for attacking Israel, who else would she attack and for what other reasons? Obama speaks of a "unique defense relationship" between our nations, and yet what is he talking about? As far as I know, our relationship with Israel consists of us providing them with weapons, money, and global support while they provide us with yet another reason for Middle Eastern countries and terrorists to despise us. Finally as far as Johnny Mac is concerned, I find it hard to believe that any attack on Israel could be mentioned in the same breath as Hitler's coordinated rounding-up and calculated extermination of the Jewish population of Europe. In fact it's pretty clear that they only thing our relationship with Israel gives us is a foothold within the troubled region in which it lies, but is that enough to justify a possible war with Iran? No. No it isn't. The U.S. government already has a foothold in the Middle East via Kuwait, we don't need another one, especially one that causes more trouble than it's worth.

Should we maintain a friendship with Israel? Absolutely. We should also be friendly with every nation be it Israel, Iran, China, Russia, Germany, or North Korea. The key to reestablishing the U.S. internationally is to realize that in this globalized world you can't just cut people out and ignore them because doing so will only create hatred, ill-will, and resentment towards our nation that may come back to haunt us later. We need to start building positive relationships with all nations and if we have a friendship that hurts us, it needs to be restructured so it does not. Long ago we've reached this point with Israel and there is nothing but dark days ahead unless we alter our friendship into a positive one.

That being said I want to close by reminding readers that when individuals reach a certain age they are told to grow up, take care of themselves, and solve their own problems. Israel has already proven at a young age it can fend for itself and it's time for them to cut the child leash crap and stand on their own. As for the U.S., the first step to correcting a problem is to identify what's wrong and fix it. If we want to ease tensions in the Middle East and build relationships with the nations that reside within the region, the first thing we have to do is say "Shalom" to Israel, cut back on our blind support, and start acting as a friendly mediator instead of a big brother with a hidden agenda. Israel, it's time for a new deal.

Students for Anti-Academic Freedom

I am writing today to state one simple fact: I am completely against Students For Academic Freedom (SAF). The reason why I'm against this organization is because while it may seem like a good idea, it is actually a group that if they got their way would open the door to a pitfall of questions that would cripple academics as we know it. My objections lie in the fact that the majority of SAF complaints are based on the alleged victim's perception and beliefs. In addition the group receives more members than it should because people do not take time to visit the organization’s website. If they did, they would realize that the mission of this organization is to attack without reason, attack because of dislike, and to control the academic world. To highlight my points I will be quoting the SAF Mission and Strategy document, which is available online for all to read. Lets begin.

"Liberal Arts faculties at most universities are politically and philosophically one-sided, while partisan propagandizing often intrudes into classroom discourse. It is appropriate for faculty to want open-minded students in their classes, not disciples. Faculty bias is reflected in the curriculum of courses available, in the manner in which they are taught, in readings assigned for classroom study, and in discussions only open to one side of a debate." -- SAF Mission and Strategy

It is utterly amazing how many things are wrong in that simple statement and it alone should be an alarm to anyone interested in joining the group. First and foremost, where are their facts? How do they know that most Liberal Arts faculties at universities are one sided? There are hundreds if not thousands of universities across this nation and I highly doubt they have checked each one to make sure that their faculties are non-biased. If they claim this broad generalization to be true, what else can they claim to be accurate information?

Secondly, who decides if a curriculum, course, teaching method, discussion, or reading assignment is biased to begin with? Are they going to set up a committee at each university whose job it will be to monitor courses and professors, thus deciding the status of both and eliminating them if the committee declares them to not be "unbiased enough?" I would certainly hope not, as the idea of what is politically charged or biased is completely open to individual interpretation and as such should never be considered in an argument. Nevertheless members of this group continue to believe that they can tell what is biased and what should not be in a classroom and to this point I ask: How can SAF promote intellectual diversity if it refuses professors the right to speak their minds? A member of the organization may answer such a question with a quote from their mission statement such as:

"In The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declared: "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." --SAF Mission and Strategy

Once again, and I cannot stress this enough, who decides what “matter” is relative to the subject being taught? Apparently SAF has and since they have taken it upon themselves to attack the Liberal Arts, which we will now look at for an example.

The Liberal Arts consists of a variety of subjects that are considered "Humanities" like Philosophy or "Social Sciences" like Sociology. I chose one of these two for my example because on the many Facebook Group pages dedicated to SAF, students seem to have the most problems with Philosophy departments. According to these students the professors in the aforementioned departments are chief violators of the American Association of University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles and it’s the job of SAF to stop them. However I have to urge caution before you, the reader, jump to your own conclusion because I feel it is necessary to highlight the following points:

First, many if not all of the Liberal Arts disciplines are impacted by politics. As such the government affects professor’s studies and they are in their right to comment on the government's actions and how it affects their discipline or society as their discipline views it. An example would be a Philosophy professor giving his/her view on abortion to a class via lecture and their own written work. Perhaps the professor believes that Pro-Choice is the best option and explains how he/she feels it is wrong for the government to project a Pro-Life stance because in their scholarly opinion, the government should not be involved in trying to answer such a question. Given in this example, was the professor stepping out of line? By SAF standards they were, but I myself am not so convinced.

Philosophy professors often examine society, the individual, and morals. In fact some people might argue that a philosopher’s greatest contribution to humanity is to examine the morals and values of our society and critique them. In the scenario above the professor thinks Pro-Life is not the best option for everyone and because of this feels the government is morally wrong by supporting it. By stating such a view, the professor is lecturing to the student body on the moral questions involved with abortion by using his/her own opinion and written work. The intention is that the students digest the professor’s lecture and when coupled with other information reach their own conclusions about the topic at hand, in this case abortion. Keeping this in mind I ask: How is this any different then lecturing or being tested on Plato's view of government or Nietzsche's thoughts on God? According to the SAF it is.

Based on SAF standards and members’ views, it would appear that it is okay to study the works of classic philosophers, but wrong to study and be tested on the works of modern ones, especially if they are teaching the class. Is the professor above, who has a doctorate in Philosophy and has studied subjects like abortion for years, not worthy to have their work be examined and tested on? Most SAF members it seems would tell you “yes,” but I am sure the majority of them would jump at the chance to take a class taught by Plato that focused on his work "The Republic." Though I have to wonder what Plato would test on…but SAF views do not stop there! They have more to say about professors:

"In an academic environment professors are in a unique position of authority vis-à-vis their students. The use of academic incentives and disincentives to advance a partisan or sectarian view creates a environment of indoctrination which is unprofessional and contrary to the educational mission." --SAF Mission and Strategy

SAF claims that professors use their position of authority to indoctrinate their student body with whatever viewpoint they see fit. Yet how is a professor’s position unique or different than that of an elementary or high school teacher?

When I was in elementary school I was told not to trust strangers and to look both ways before crossing the street. It was drilled into my head, along with every other child’s in America, that these two precautions were the right way and because of this I was indoctrinated to believe that trusting strangers was wrong and not looking both ways would bring certain death. Still I have not seen a group called "K-6 for Academic Freedom." Why is that? Once again the answer is perception.

In society today I think, we would all venture to agree, that children should not talk to strangers. We believe this because we have heard stories about the youth of our nation being kidnapped, raped, or worse. However right in those few words lies the main point against SAF's illogical statement. Because everyone believes that children should not trust strangers, no one seems to have issue with teachers "indoctrinating" our youth with this and other such agreed upon ideas. Then again once these same people reach a collegiate level, where people are supposed to think for themselves, they suddenly take issue with a professor preaching about how a particular party might be ruining the country. Why? Probably because they might not agree with it and because they don't agree with it, they feel it is indoctrination and not mere opinion and active dialogue. In spite of that however, still more absurd is their idea that professors use academic incentives to advance their views.

If a professor offered extra credit to all those who attend a viewing of the film Birth of a Nation, does that mean that the professor in question is trying to push the Klu Klux Klan? No! It does not because the film can be used as a mode through which to study American culture and the Klan's role in society at the time of the films release. However if I felt the professor was promoting the KKK I could just as easily say: "This is just another example of a professor using their authoritative position and an academic incentive to push their views on me."

If I said this to someone, they would probably think I was nuts because of the nature of the topic. But if I said it about a professor giving extra credit to watch the Democratic debate on CNN, suddenly in SAF's mind I am in the right and the professor in question needs to be stopped! It doesn't take a genius to see that SAF is completely absurd and using perception as a weapon against our intellectual community. If you do not believe me, here is another quote from their mission statement:

"It is the goal of Students for Academic Freedom to secure greater representation for under-represented ideas and to promote intellectual fairness and inclusion in all aspects of the curriculum, including the faculty hiring process, the spectrum of courses available, reading materials assigned, and in the decorum of the classroom and the campus public square." --SAF Mission and Strategy

The quote above basically states that students should have to right to decide who gets hired and fired as well as what should be assigned in classes, what should be in the curriculum, and what should occur in classes and campus common grounds. This statement alone signals the desire of SAF to crush the intellectual community by taking control of our nation's universities and dictating how they're run! If this step was ever reached, it would only be a matter of time before they would be cutting out certain ideas all together, thus truly indoctrinating us with those they see fit and given their attack on Liberal Arts faculty, I think I have an inkling of which ideas would be force fed down our throats.

Therefore in light of this it is easy to see, from just a few examples, how the arguments made by the SAF organization are irrational and completely driven by perception and opinion. They continue to stress their so called goal of “academic freedom” by strangling the free exchange of ideas and turning personal grudges against liberals into a debate about class censorship. Frankly put, what they are doing is wrong and they should be fought at all costs as I am convinced that Students for Academic Freedom is the most anti-academic freedom group in this country. If it grows too powerful, then it will be our job as educated individuals to stop them and preserve true academic freedom for all, instead of a cheap hybrid that revolves around interpretation and political grudges.