Balance the Budget AND Eliminate the Debt!

The other day the comment below on another blog prompted an idea.

“My thoughts exactly. Regardless of the size of the budget deficit we are still going further into debt. The US. does not have unlimited credit. With a steady de-valuation of the American dollar we are already having trouble finding buyers for our debt. The “growth” of our economy means nothing if it is supported by foreign nations buying our debt. Eliminating the debt is the only sure fire way to stop the house of cards from collapsing.” Joe

Absolutely true.

The problem of course is that neither side will agree to end entitlements for their pet programs, much less earmarks.

But, I do have a proposal that might eventually change all that and I’d welcome feedback on it.

As crazy as this will sound, I believe it’s possible to, over a very long time, end the debt, greatly reduce taxes and have plenty of money to spend on needed programs.

No, I am not proposing that we can have our ‘cake and eat it too’.

Everything I am about to propose is based in mathematically and fiscally sound principles.

It will take sacrifice and most importantly, fiscal discipline. And I know how improbable and even oxymoronic the words Congress, the American people and fiscal discipline are in the same sentence…

Nevertheless, here goes:
We all are familiar with the notion that there are individuals who have been ‘blessed’ with the inheritance of a trust fund. I propose that we create a ‘public trust fund’ for the American people.

‘Running the numbers and doing the math’ is something that any actuarial accountant worth his salt can do to arrive at the specific amounts and details. Being a ‘big picture’ guy and ‘idea’ man, I’ll leave the details to the accountants and only elaborate the basic principles.

So, please do not hold my feet to the fire over amounts used by me to illustrate the idea, ok?

I also realize that while the idea is simple, successful implementation of this idea would be complex. If complexity really puts you off, you may want to pass on this post right now.

So, after due consideration and running the numbers and getting economists to agree that the idea is viable, we institute a new investment tax!

Hey, liberals like it already but conservatives are running for the door!

Now stay with me fiscal conservatives, I promise this is a tax you CAN live with and tolerate.

It’s an investment in ourselves tax…Matter of fact, it’s not accurate to think of it as a tax, so view it for what it in fact is, an investment in our children’s future and a gift from those alive today, to those yet to come.

One that will fundamentally alter the economic circumstances for ALL future generations.

A big, bold claim I know, so let each reader judge the worth of the idea for themselves, fair enough?

It is the idea of compounded interest and capitalism taken to the max…

For purposes of discussion, say the new tax is 1% of any taxpayers gross income. Basing the tax upon gross income would eliminate the possibility of evasion, as everybody would pay into it and Congress couldn’t play fast and lose with how much was being collected.

All monies collected would go into a version of Al Gores ‘lock box’ (groan, groan, ok the man had one good idea in his life, come on). The lock box would HAVE to really be a lock box because the only way to make this work is to create a fiscal sanctuary that Congress AND The American people simply COULDN”T get into.

AND as you’ll soon see, as time passed, the temptation to ‘raid’ the lock box would become irresistible.

To make this work a Constitutional amendment would be needed, making this a constitutionally created program, it would have to be literally woven into the Constitution.

Congress would have to cooperate and the only way they’d actually do that is if the public and media embraced this idea and demanded that Congress actually implement it.

Full transparency would be critical and a special, ‘unanimous vote condition’ would be written into the legislation creating the public trust fund and its eventual distribution.

This means that in order to change anything, Congress would have to get a special, unanimous approval from BOTH the House and the Senate AND then, it would have to submit the proposed change through the state amendment process, which requires 3/4 th’s of the states legislature’s approval.

Just the unanimous voting requirement alone would keep Congress from raiding the fund because as we all know, you can’t get 100% of the people to agree to anything… There’s always at least one cantankerous cuss who’s NOT going along with the group, either out of principle or just plain spite.

Once the needed protection was set up for the fund and a real lock box created, we would then start the new tax. Eventually, the amount of money collected would build to an astronomical amount. That means it would need to have built-in safeguards, ‘fail-safes’ to ensure that it keeps growing untouched, until the time was right.

Again the actuaries can run the numbers but the day would come in say, 50yrs. when the first payout phase could begin. I envision a four step approach with accordingly 4 phases of payout, with the money going to fund specific and mandatory purposes.

Payout would be set up so that the amount taken out of the fund on a yearly basis could never be as much as what is being put into the fund, on a yearly basis. This would ensure that the fund would continue to grow.

The payout in Phase 1 would initially go to eliminating the debt. It would again be written into the constitution that once debt elimination began, Congress could NOT add to the debt.

Boy, they’re not going to like that requirement.

Once the debt was eliminated, Phase 2 would begin and payout would go to reducing personal income taxes.

For every dollar paid out from the fund, income taxes would have to be reduced by one dollar. In time, with the fund increasing on a yearly basis, taxes would be greatly reduced. Yet revenues would grow because the economy would experience less ‘tax-drag’ upon it and consumers would have more disposable income available.

To eliminate Congress simply raising or creating new taxes to end-run around the requirement, an overall cap would be placed upon Congress as to how much it could raise taxes. Say 10% of whatever amount the fund was paying out. Probably a yearly cap as well as an overall cap would be best.

The only exception to this would be in times of war or national emergency and then it would take a 3/4’s vote of Congress, with mandatory yearly renewal of any increase in taxes over the spending ‘cap’.

One basic aspect of my proposal is using Congressional access to a national ‘trust’ fund to impose spending and taxing limits upon Congress.

I’m also proposing to gradually shift government income from the personal income tax to the trust fund’s payouts. As the country would still need revenue for public projects, and necessary and worthy programs.

Why would liberals go along with limiting Congress’s ability to tax and spend?

Ah, because of the ‘carrots’ we offer

Once personal income taxes fall to a predetermined level, say 10%, the payout enters phase three…which has a very nice carrot!

But before I describe the third phase of the payout from the ‘lock box fund’ lets reiterate where we are; the debt is paid off, so the country is debt free. Over time, taxes have been reduced to an easily sustainable level, say 10% of income.

Ok, phase three payout.

The fund now starts paying out to eliminate the remaining personal taxes. Starting from the bottom up…So those most in need are benefited first.

But over time, everyone benefits with the greatest amounts going to those paying the most into the system. While they wait longer to receive those benefits, they are compensated with a commensurately greater reward.

Eventually the ‘trust fund’ grows to the point of essentially eliminating personal income taxes.

Incidentally, though it might be last, there’s no reason why we couldn’t eliminate business taxes too.

Eventually we will have almost completely eliminated taxes from income and in say a hundred years(?), the trust fund has grown to the point where the fourth and final phase can begin. And boy, is this carrot a whopper, the biggest of all! Remember, the trust fund has continued to grow…

Now the trust fund starts creating individual trust funds that start at birth…for everyone.

Because no child has an inherent right to more than another, (we’re all created equal…) the amount placed into every child’s trust fund is the same. With the yearly amount growing as the fund continues to grow.

This would continue until the child reached its majority. Then the outside funding of the individual trust fund would stop, though the funds principal would continue to accrue interest and the fund would be available for access by the new adult.

How much, and in what manner the individual trust fund could be accessed would have to be worked out. Common sense would seem to indicate that a mandatory amount of the principal should be required to remain so the fund can continue to grow for retirement, etc. Actuarial tables could be used to calculate the amount that could be withdrawn on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis.

Depending upon the use envisioned, the individual might be required to withdraw funds according to a formula. Obviously there would have to be exceptions built in for things like medical emergencies.

Details like the unfortunate death of a child could be easily worked out, with whatever amount going to remaining siblings, or if no siblings existed, then perhaps it would be returned to the public trust fund for redistribution to all.

It’s important to consider the range of individual responses to this program. Basically one of three categories of response is possible. People either work less, the same or harder. That’s their choice but in any case, everyone would receive access to an individual trust fund which would eliminate poverty at virtually no cost to the public.

Essentially I’m suggesting a public savings account, withheld until it can grow to an amount sufficient to become a viable substitute for income taxes. And then, as compound interest grows the trust fund further, using that increase to fund public trust funds for individuals, which we all, at majority, have access too.

Well, there you have it.

It may seem idealistic but as I pointed out before, it appears to be based in sound fiscal principles. It already is working for individuals lucky enough to inherit. Think of Paris Hilton…or not. But, if you come this far, I’m sure you get the idea.

The only thing I see as a real obstacle to implementation of the idea is simple human cussedness. People can mess up just about anything but we got it right once, a little over two hundred years ago. I don’t see why we can’t get lucky one more time.

One thing seems likely, with the emergence of virtually certain future realities: artificial intelligence, robotic manufacturing, the eventual discovery of fusion based power (the suns’ source of atomic energy, environmentally clean) resulting in such low energy costs as to be essentially ‘free’ energy. The incredible mineral resources out in the asteroid belts waiting for future exploitation…then using the moon (no environmental degradation) for heavy manufacturing with products shipped down to Earth as we now do with China, wealth and productivity will rise to the point of what would now seem absurd. And then, we will HAVE to find a new operating paradigm in economics.

To reiterate, the main idea is to create a public trust fund that in time can be used to good purpose. The specifics of how we administer it are details that would need to be worked out. That’s a case where many heads are better than one.

So, let the criticism begin and hopefully there’s enough worth to the idea that those more knowledgeable, can figure out what needs improvement and actually make it work.

And until someone convincingly explains why a public trust fund won’t, in principle, work as well as a private trust fund…I’m going to adopt the ‘Lone voice crying in the wilderness’ pose.

Hey, it worked for the Prophets! Then again, there’s also that bit about a prophet never being honored in his own land…or was it time?

Anyway, I’ve done my part and led you to the well, you have to decide whether you’re gonna drink or just complain about being thirsty.

Note: this is a slightly revised version of a post I first published in July of 2006. I suggest rereading Joe’s comment in light of the recession we are now in… and then, reflecting upon an eternal truth; times change but principles do not. And that truism is why this can work because the same financial principles that apply to individuals, apply to nations.

Marriage and Premise; Moral Lines of Latitude and Longitude

At present there are profound disagreements on many issues within our nation. Marriage and the disagreement surrounding the subject of same-sex marriage transcend mere politics with both sides escalating the issue into a cultural civil war. As such it deserves our full attention.

Resolving disagreements requires that we start by finding areas of “commonality of agreement”.

Reasoning together is a step-by-step process, beginning with establishing a mutually agreeable premise and then logically developing, from that originating premise, a rationale that extends to a logical conclusion, consistent with the  premise. In that spirit, I’ll start by attempting to establish a fair and rational examination of marriage, as it applies to the consideration of same-sex marriage.

There are two components to the institution of Marriage. The primary component for the couple is their personal relationship and familial relations. The secondary component for the couple is the social aspect.

Society places the social aspect of Marriage as the primary component, with the personal relationship between the couple as the secondary component. Society has legitimate societal concerns regarding children, inheritance, insurance, property, etc. These considerations provide society with the necessary rationale and justification in determining to whom we may and may not marry.

Traditionally, society has limited Marriage to a man and a woman, most commonly with the conditional limitation of banning marriage between first relations.

In the Western nations, we are considering broadening the “definition” of legal marriage. Gay and Lesbian groups, along with other sympathetic individuals and organizations are pressing in the courts for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

There are numerous arguments for and against legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Most people are familiar with the common themes. Unfortunately, the arguments of each side either fail to address the main viewpoints of the other or require acceptance of a presumption, so the disagreement is unresolved.

A perfect illustration of this is religious objections against same-sex marriage. Religious based assertions that homosexuality is a choice can’t be convincingly demonstrated to non-believers.

Whether or not, GOD in fact, objects to SSM is really not the issue, that is, as it pertains to the disagreement. Religion-based premises have relevance only to those who accept the premise that a God exists and, in fact, has made known the truth of the issue. Since by definition promulgators of same-sex marriage do not accept the traditional religious premise (the basis from which the logic extends), for them, the argument is intellectually bankrupt.

Without acceptance of premise, logic developed from any premise is sequential nonsense to the skeptical party. The one great failure of logic is, its inability to examine the originating premise from which it extends.

Premises are assumptions, generally considered self-evident, about things for which, we have no outside proof. This is the reason why arguments based in logic can fail to persuade, for without agreement as to premise, the supporting rationale will be non-persuasive.

Facts are demonstrably true whether we believe it or not. Gravity for instance, needs no logical defense, it simply exists beyond dispute. Until God demonstrates his existence and will beyond dispute, significant numbers of people will reject religiously based premises.

Under a legal system such as ours, laws governing behavior must have a basis in premises not directly related to religion. While frequently misquoted and misunderstood, the applicable constitutional phrase is:  “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”. Basing laws grounded solely in religious belief is exactly what the constitution prohibits.

The Massachusetts Supreme court has recently ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage violate the constitution. That ruling cited the equal protection clause of the US Constitution as the basis for their finding. It is obvious that laws banning same-sex marriage preclude homosexuals from participating fully in social life and, relegate them to second-class status.

This is a powerful argument, reminiscent of the civil rights struggle and worthy of examination. Our country’s history regarding slavery, treatment of Native Americans, minorities and women’s’ rights, compel us to give this argument, due consideration.

It is a self-evident truth that banning homosexuals from marriage bars them from full social participation and does in fact relegate them to second-class status. Acknowledging this is simply recognition of reality, not necessarily agreement that this should not be, as there are legitimate and rational reasons for some groups being relegated to the category of second-class citizenship. So, the issue is whether same-sex marriage properly falls within that category. If it does, then discrimination itself is not a relevant objection to that status.

Richard J. Rosendall writing in Salon stated: “the problem for gays is not in the difference itself but in the social stigma and legal discrimination directed at the difference”.

Here is the heart of the issue for the homosexual community and its advocates. Homosexuals seek acceptance by society; that homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality, this is in fact, ‘the’ goal. The legal right to marriage is seen as the means to that larger acceptance. There’s no denying the social stigma and yes, denying SSM is legalized discrimination.

That however does NOT end the argument because this is not the issue, for those opposed to SSM.  Limiting marriage is seen as logically necessary and therefore legally valid.

There are two categories of discrimination that are constitutionally accepted as proper and thus fair by everyone. These categories consist of choice and circumstance.

The prime example of choice is criminality; society justly holds that anti-social behavior entails consequences. In the case of the most serious, felony behavior and conviction, the societal offense is considered to be ‘prima facie’ evidence of the offender’s unfitness for full citizenship and, that therefore their citizenship is forfeit, by their own actions, resulting in the imposition of second-class citizenship.

Homosexuality however, has not been demonstrably shown to be a choice.

In circumstance, we have a condition that applies to members of that group, while choice is not a factor. One example of the category of circumstance, in legalized discrimination, is legal immigrants who are not naturalized citizens. Lacking the benefits of citizenship automatically relegates them to second-class status. Yet everyone agrees this is fair and as there is no moral condemnation of legal immigrants, their second-class status is not based in prejudice. In point of fact, the value of immigrants to the vitality of the nation is widely acknowledged.

Other examples of circumstance are children, the profoundly retarded and people committed to mental institutions. In none of these groups is choice even an option but all of these groups have their “freedom” restricted to some degree, resulting in defacto discrimination and yet, everyone acknowledges the wisdom in doing so.

In marriage, it is the category of circumstance wherein homosexuality and SSM reside.

This is so for two reasons of paramount importance to society. Profound societal importance is of course a necessity whenever society contemplates any form of legalized discrimination. In order for groups whose sexual orientation is outside the “statistical norm” to be legitimately precluded from full participation within a society in which laws are promulgated and based upon non-religious rationale’s, compelling, rational reasons outside of religious belief must be convincingly elucidated.

Again, whatever one may believe is not the issue; only what one can demonstrate to be true, regardless of whether belief is shared or not. As ‘facts’ are true, regardless of what we believe and laws must be based, as much as is possible, upon fact. Especially when laws so fundamentally affect the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Gays and Lesbians after all are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters; if we deny them full participation, we owe them an honest and fully thought out rationale for the laws we enact.

Legalizing same-sex marriage necessitates significant consequences for society that have received little examination. There are two aspects to these societal consequences that those considering this issue must reflect upon.

What is in the best interest of children, which is society’s primary interest and, what is the moral basis for marriage laws?

What is in the best interest of the child?

Society long ago came to the conclusion that children ideally do best growing up in a home where Mom and Dad love each other, combine love and guidance to their children in equal measure, and provide loving connections to an extended family.

The current ‘norm’ in present day America of single parent families and divorced, ‘blended’ families is not disproof of the ideal, as the difficulty in achieving the ideal is simply a measurement of our societal dysfunction, it is evidence of how greatly we have strayed from a healthy lifestyle for children to emulate. Advocating profound social change without full consideration of the proposed changes’ logical consequences to society is to invite further potential disruption to society’s very foundational fabric.

Recent surveys suggest that approx. 4 % of the population is homosexually oriented. Therefore, since 96% of children are heterosexual, it’s fair to ask; where is the parental role model for the missing sex in a same-sex household? To claim that other adults of the appropriate sex will automatically fill in as role models is wishful thinking at best and, avoids the issue of the psychological importance to children in bonding with parental role models of both sexes.

Statistics confirm that high achieving males most often have a strong parent-child bond with their mothers. Conversely, high achieving women show a corresponding bond with their fathers.

The benefits to society in encouraging familial parent-child arrangements producing statistically high numbers of psychologically healthy children are self-evident.

No one doubts the problematic outcome of a child growing up in a heterosexual household where one parent is absent. How can not bonding on a parental level with a member of the opposite or same sex, be any less harmful, to the child, in a parentally same-sex home?

Psychological studies have convincingly shown that in the crucial early bonding years, excluding a relationship with either sex  is psychologically unhealthy. Full psychological integration requires parental bonding with both sexes, not just one. In a same-sex home, a single parental role-model environment is by definition, the one in which children grow up. They are precluded from bonding with a parent of one sex or the other by the very nature of the parental SS arrangement.

Some may say that there is no difference between men and women as parental role models. This assumes that a woman can be a father and a man a mother. It also assumes that the biological differences are solely physical and that the sexual hard-wiring in the brain that takes place in the embryonic stage of human development has no intended function. To so state is to choose to ‘insist’ that the observed facts must fit the theory, regardless of logical contradiction.

This is known as having an agenda.

Denial of logically inescapable conclusions regarding the consequences for heterosexual children raised in same-sex homes doesn’t change reality; it only reinforces an inherently dysfunctional arrangement and seeks societal acceptance of the atypical, into a new norm.

Exactly as in single parent ‘families” where women of their own choice, have a child through the use of a sperm donor, consciously deciding that their desire for a child “trumps” their child’s “need” for a father.

Advocates of SSM have a moral obligation to consider these arguments as dispassionately and open-mindedly as possible. Everyone’s ‘rights’ stop where the other person’s rights ‘begin’.

Anyone advocating a new, legal definition of marriage has an obligation to fully consider the predictable social repercussions. To not do so is to put personal desires ahead of others welfare and reveal oneself to be selfishly willing to harm others in order to implement an agenda of which one is unprepared to logically and honestly defend…

The Moral Basis for laws

The moral basis for law is the second consideration in legalizing same-sex marriage. As important as children are, this is of greater societal import because of the ramifications inherent to our social foundations. It’s the very “stuff” of life.

Webster’s defines “Moral-ity” as “principles or standards with respect to right or wrong in conduct”, that is, how we behave, rather than how we think or feel. As a society, we have up till now, based law upon a particular foundational structure, which by its very nature same-sex marriage requires society to abandon.

Lines of Latitude and Longitude

A brief exploration of a seemingly unrelated area, geographical Lines of Latitude and Longitude, serves quite well in illustrating the particular foundational structure to which, I allude.

Specifically, the primary difference between Geographical Lines of Latitude and Longitude. The difference between horizontal Lines of Latitude and vertical Lines of Longitude far exceeds the obvious fact that they run perpendicular to each other. It is in the basis for the establishment of said lines, wherein our interest lies.

Horizontal Latitudinal lines are based in established fact; they are definite, not arbitrary. The earth has a certain circumference and is tilted exactly 23° on its axis. It follows a highly specific and entirely predictable path around the sun. The equator’s placement is objectively definite. It can only exist upon one plane of reference and no other.

During the course of the year, the suns’ specific and measurably highest point, both to the north and south of the equator, establish the objective reference lines of the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. The earth can be evenly divided, using these 3 lines as reference points. These lines do not change, and they are factually based.

Vertical Lines of Longitude however, are just the opposite, being completely arbitrary. By that I mean that while any circle may be divided into 360 equal degrees, where they are placed is entirely subjective. The only reason they exist where they are placed, with Greenwich, England being 0°, is because the English were the first to discover how to establish, locate and use them when traveling over the earth’s oceans. Since they figured it out first, they felt entitled to pick the starting point for the longitudinal degrees and, the world concurred. It’s still 360 degrees around the circle with the same spacing as the latitudinal lines. But the exact placement of Longitudinal Lines is entirely a matter of arbitrary whim.

At this point some may ask, why does this matter and how does it apply to the issue of same-sex marriage?

Lines of Latitude are black and white with no room for doubt. Lines of Longitude, while valid, are an arbitrary, intellectual construct. Any place on earth could be 0 degrees Longitude, if enough of us should agree to it.

In the past, when virtually everyone in society accepted that marriage could only be between a man and a woman, it was because they accepted that GOD had ordained it as so. This has been of great importance to society.

It is important to avoid the distraction of whether God has in fact ordained it or not, as this is irrelevant to the central value to society of believing it to be so. It was in the acceptance of the infallibility of God’s word, as it applies to marriage wherein its entire inherent value to societal cohesion lay.

Man’s laws and moral precepts can change, based upon the times, level of public awareness and the powers that be. But the presumption is that God knows what’s right and true without doubt or equivocation. Whether actually true or not, once society steps away from the certainty of belief we enter into the quicksand of arbitrary social whim and, social cohesion begins to be lost. Cohesion is lost because all of the public’s many and various points of view, inevitably replace the certainty of agreement. The Biblical story of the Tower of Babel is an appropriate analogy for the societal consequences.

Is this demonstratively true, or simple exaggeration and fear?

It is logical consequence. Basing marriage laws upon religious beliefs as to whom and who cannot marry has had the effect of establishing them in the certainty of a “higher power”, one beyond mankind’s whim. It’s not a particular religious belief that’s’ important here, or even religious belief itself, it’s group allegiance to a standard that is acknowledged as based in certainty, wherein society is in agreement as to its perception as fact, not whether it is actually a fact or not.

At this point, it’s fair to point out that regardless of certainty’s value to societal cohesion, a secular society cannot base plainly discriminatory laws upon a rationale grounded in religious beliefs.

Fortunately, it is not necessary to do so.

There are valid secular, non-religious reasons for society placing the line of demarcation in a position that limits societal recognition of marriage to a man and a woman.

Natural biological function is the objectively definite line of demarcation in marriage. As only a man and a woman can naturally produce a child.

The issue is not whether a couple wants or can even have a child. The importance of biological function as the determining factor in determining where society may place the line between whom may and may not marry is that biological function is the only non-religious, objectively definite position wherein society may place the dividing line.

Any other choice by a society, in legally defining marriage is arbitrary whim.

What’s wrong with moving that line from an objective standard to a subjective standard?

Inherent to subjectivity is its arbitrary nature. The logical consequence of arbitrariness is social instability. Social instability is implicit in moving the Line of Demarcation defining marriage, from the objectively defensible to a subjectively and arbitrarily chosen point of reference.

Here is why a subjectively chosen, arbitrary line of demarcation, predictably, necessarily and inevitably will lead to social instability:

Subjective, arbitrarily chosen lines are legally indefensible under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

This is true whether or not the equal protection clause is used to initially procure SSM.

If the Supreme Court does NOT eventually rule in favor of SSM but SSM is approved legislatively, it will merely delay the inevitable consequence; an arbitrary line of demarcation that cannot be held because it is rationally indefensible.

Moving the limitation of marriage from the biological, objectively determinable to solely between any two people; rather than between multiple partners is NOT demonstrably self-evident to people who do not share the premise of monogamy. And if the premise is not agreed to, then the supporting logic is once again, sequential nonsense to those who disagree and thus, societal momentum is given to the accusation that invalid discrimination is occurring.

Society, having abandoned the biologically objective line of demarcation in marriage in favor of the solely numerical and, necessarily arbitrary line of monogamous marriage between any two partners, will be unable to defend that line of demarcation because it depends upon a subjective definition of marriage and as subjectively determined, it cannot, in a secular society, be compulsorily determinative for all.

The discrimination and equal protection argument that supporters of SSM presently use, if held to be valid as the primary determining factor by the courts, necessitates the legal finding that any desired marriage arrangement, must be held as legally valid. For to NOT do so is plainly discriminatory under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

This assertion is logically and most importantly, demonstrably true.

The far-reaching and across-the-board nature of consequence to this level of social experimentation cannot be overstated.

Supporters of SSM who possess the intellectual courage and honesty to confront the societal consequences implicit to legalization of SSM, based upon the proposed legal arguments, must acknowledge the far-reaching consequences for society or they reveal themselves to be intellectually dishonest.

How far does the societal consequence extend?

If the equal protection rationale is accepted and same-sex marriage becomes judicially mandated, with the legal imprimatur of the state, all rational basis for denying that same benefit to any other desired marriage arrangement is immediately lost. Drawing a new line of demarcation of whom may or may not marry, with legal acceptance of same-sex marriage, while denying it to other groups is an intellectual position that is logically and, most importantly, legally indefensible.

On what legal basis would we deny marriage to consenting adults wishing to enter forms of group or plural marriage? Other than arbitrary whim, how could we rationally relegate them to second-class status, as we logically would be doing, if we didn’t extend legal acceptance?

Religious groups promoting polygamy, etc. would have every legal basis for claiming discrimination.

Indeed, why should it stop there? We already have the means to certain avoidance of pregnancy and birth. What basis then in logic, for denying consenting adults who wish to form legally recognized, incestuous unions of marriage? After all, the only non-religious rational basis for banning incest between adults is because of a statistically small percentage of birth defects. But genetic deformation only shows up in progeny when incest becomes the generational norm. Today, we have the means to avoid even accidental conception, i.e. the morning after pill. Under those circumstances, banning incestuous marriage becomes self-evidently discriminatory.

How about group, plural incestuous marriage between adults?

What about transgender groups, bi-sexual, and sado-masochistic groups?

On what legal basis do we deny them “full participation”?

But wait, there’s more…

Groups in favor of adult/child sex already promote the view (NAMBLA)1 that sex between an adult and a child is only harmful, if the adult doesn’t actually love the child. In fact, the American Psychiatric Society has debated whether to officially remove pedophilia as a mental disorder.

Some will say that could never happen, but they would do well to reflect upon a recent introduction of state legislation in California to grant the right to vote to 14 year olds. If a fourteen year old is old enough to vote, why are they not old enough to decide whom they shall ‘sleep’ with?

Both the Catholic Church and psychologists agree that the usual age when we know right from wrong is 7 years of age. There have been calls to bring eight year-olds to trial in adult courts for heinous crimes. If an 8 year-old can be tried in an adult court, under adult laws and consequences, why are they not old enough to engage in adult behavior of their own choosing? After all, implicit in holding an 8 yr-old responsible for heinous criminality is the presumption of knowing choice…

Once homosexuals, based upon the equal protection clause, have the judicially imposed right to marriage, every other group outside the norm will demand the same benefit, with the same legally compelling argument that they are being discriminated against and relegated to second-class status.

All of this is unlikely in our lifetime of course; there are limits to every generation’s willingness to accept change. Yet historically speaking, generational changes can happen in a remarkably short time. Every generation accepts a little more stretching of the limits, boundaries and taboos.

Demands for social change are inherent to adolescence and the primary method of adolescent individuation. Once marriage laws are based upon arbitrary whim, there will be no going back. There’s no putting the horse back in the barn once it starts to burn down. Pandora’s box will have been opened and whatever lies down that road will be our collective future.

Before we as a society overthrow the apple cart of tradition, we had best reflect upon whether it is wisdom or simple arrogance that leads this generation to think it knows better than countless prior generations.

Times change but human nature has not changed in all of recorded history. Had we a time machine, a Cro-Magnon cave man of 35,000 years ago, given a shave and a haircut and dressed in modern attire, would be indistinguishable in a crowd. A Cro-Magnon child, raised from birth in the modern world, would provide no basis for discerning its origin.

Everyone in our society accepts the value of freedom. Many however are less sanguine in accepting that Freedom carries with it great responsibility. Freedom without the “handmaidens” of responsibility and wisdom is immature excess. Freedom requires understanding that just because we can do something, doesn’t make it necessarily wise to do so.

Each generation helps to create the world that succeeding generations inherit. We have an obligation to consider all of the consequences of our actions. To do less, is to dishonor previous generations’ sacrifices in passing on to us civilization and that most precious of gifts, freedom.

For better or for ill, our children’s children will reap what we sow.

1.) North American Man Boy/Love Association: http://www.nambla.org/

The Emergence of an American Margaret Thatcher.

Most men intuitively understand what is required for command. Though most do not have the personal qualities necessary for command, they recognize it when embodied in another. Many women have long chafed at the seeming unwillingness of men to cede command to a woman. They have railed at the ‘glass ceiling’ in vain, puzzled at its stiff resistance and laid the blame upon men for its continued existence. As is so often the case, the reality of circumstance is both simpler and more complex than a quick, facile examination might indicate.

In regard to the glass ceiling, what American men have been waiting for is the emergence of an American ‘Margaret Thatcher’.

I use Ms Thatcher not because of her politics which are entirely irrelevant but rather as an example of a strong woman, one who likes men and who can be depended upon when the really tough decisions need to be made. One who won’t wimp out, should principle and necessary circumstance demand sacrifice.

The President is the Commander in Chief and the greatest test of a President is during times of war, as it is then that the gravest decisions must be made. Throughout history leaders have had to send good people to their death. They have even had to allow good people to die when doing otherwise would lead to even greater tragedy. Truman had it right when he proclaimed, “The buck stops here”.

Good leaders intuitively recognize the right thing to do, even when that path may lead to the tragedy of innocent lives lost.

The Civil War’s Northern General Sherman recognized this when he said that “war is hell”. He also understood that ending the war victoriously was of more importance than even the destruction of the South, a South whose children certainly did not deserve the destruction that befell them. He understood this even in a war that would ultimately leave almost 600,000 dead. He understood that preserving the ‘union’ was a nonnegotiable principle and that the South’s commitment to its way of life would not allow them to capitulate without the certain prospect of absolute destruction.

That same understanding was shared by Truman when faced with the decision to drop the atomic bomb upon Japan. Truman well knew the terrible destruction it would bring and the many innocents that would die. He also understood the lessons of Tarawa, Saipan and Okinawa. Where nearly every Japanese soldier had fought with fierce determination, many to the death and where even the old and women with their children had committed suicide rather than surrender. Those events had decisively demonstrated that Japan was a culture that would resist surrender and invasion whatever the cost.

Had Truman withheld use of the bomb and invaded instead, many, many millions more would have died. At the time that the decision had to be made, our best estimate was that 5 million American men and 15-25 million Japanese would have died in the invasion and conquering of Japan. Had we suffered those loses, America would have been greatly damaged and in all probability would not have had the strength to rebuild Europe. That great a loss would have inexorably led to the triumph of isolationism within America and thus the inability to resist the soon-to-follow advance of Soviet aggression.

Japan was the aggressor and given their cultures’ militaristic values, anything less than unconditional surrender would have led to the eventual rebuilding of the Japanese war machine. Truman understood human nature and the irresistible lure that empire and nationalism had for Japan’s leaders and its compliant populace.

All of this led Truman to unhesitatingly make the decision to drop the bomb and most importantly, he did not second guess the decision, evidenced by his declaration that “he never lost a minutes sleep over the decision”. It is not that Truman lacked empathy, he was a loving father and husband. Rather it was that his empathy was balanced with another quality.

Empathy is a wonderful quality and we are not really human without it. But it is not the only quality of worth. Empathy, especially in a leader must be balanced with mental allegiance to objective principle.

Governor Palin is that rarity; a likable female leader who evokes both male and female approval, one who exudes confidence and the ‘right’ kind of toughness. This ‘toughness’ is mental, not physical, though mental toughness leads to the ability to endure physical challenges, as John McCain’s life so eloquently demonstrates. The ‘right’ kind of mental toughness is of a special quality.

Mental toughness or fortitude has no ’shrillness’, shrillness is an unerring indicator of weakness. This is why children do not listen to a parent whose voice exhibits that quality. And weakness revealed cannot lead because it lacks the strength of fortitude required of leadership. It is the quality of mental allegiance to ‘objective principle’ that leads to mental toughness.

Hillary Clinton has the required toughness but it is not the ‘right’ kind of toughness. She literally exudes the shrill ‘odor’ of complaint and anger and men intuitively sense it. Yes, men have intuition too, especially in sensing whom they shall follow. That is why ‘manly’ men want nothing to do with her and why only the hyper-sensitive, feminized and emasculated metro-sexual man can tolerate her presence. She has the ability to make the required decisions but she ‘leads’ out of demand and that leads to men distrusting her leadership.

Ironically, it is Hillary’s and most feminists psychic embrace of victimhood from which their anger arises. Their shrillness merely confirms their embrace of what disqualifies them from the very thing they seek, which is respect. Respect is not demanded, it is earned and when earned it is the ‘gift’ the recipient receives because no other response to their demeanor is possible. That is what is meant by ‘commanding’ respect. Others cannot help but respect those who, out of allegiance to principle, respect themselves. Narcissistic ego cannot substitute for the ‘currency’ required for true leadership.

Governor Palin embodies the quality of empathetic mental toughness and therefore commands respect. For those young women open to emulation, she truly points to, not just the ‘right’ way to break through the ‘glass ceiling’ but the only way to do it.

Breaking through the glass ceiling is not something that can be seized, which is why so many feminists have failed; transcending the glass ceiling is achieved when the many, willingly support the offer of leadership to those whose ‘worth’ compels recognition.

Just as Sarah Palin is demonstrating at this extraordinary moment in history.

The Best Way to Address the Energy Crisis

Rep. Maxine Waters recently threatened oil companies with nationalization.

Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil demonstrates this to be a very bad idea. In fact, any politician so deeply ignorant of economics as to suggest oil nationalization is unfit for office.

The best way to address the energy crisis is through a mix of measures:
Development:
1. Issue permits and tax incentives for new nuclear power plants to be built.
2. Issue permits for new oil refineries (no major US refinery since 1976).
3. Open the entire Gulf of Mexico for exploration and development.
4. Open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for oil exploration and development.
5. Mandate that tax incentives for alternative energy be tied to oil ‘exploration & development’ fees.
6. Don’t drill in ANWR. Leave it as a strategic reserve.
Safeguards:
7. Review relevant laws to ensure adequate and reasonable safeguards for environmental protection.
8. Pass legislation with mandatory imprisonment for lawbreaking owners and upper management.
9. Provide tax incentives for technology development in solar and offshore wind power with yearly reviews for possible inclusion of promising new technologies.
Long-term energy independence:
10. No government funded technology initiatives are needed; let capitalism work its magic.
11. Continue research into bio-fuels but It’s stupid to use corn a food stock, for a fuel source.
12. Windfall taxes discourage investment in exploration and development and increase imports. The way to ensure ‘reasonable’ profit is to increase supply.

There. Simple. Complete.

If Congress passed legislation addressing only items 2 and 3, the very next day the price of oil would drop $10-15 a barrel. The more items implemented, the greater the drop in the price of oil.

To get the economy moving:
1. Submit and approve a balanced federal budget.
2. Increase interest rates at least a full point to strengthen the dollar.
3. Lower federal tax rates by 2-3 points in each tax bracket so as to stimulate the economy and counteract the slowing effect of an increase in interest rates.

Since this is an election year, don’t look for this to happen any time soon. As always, the longer the Feds wait, the more painful it is going to be when they are forced to do something. They are waiting until political pressure escalates to the point of providing political cover.

Another interpretation of the Bible’s message: Part I

Recently I ran into this post:

The primary message of the Gospel is:
1) God is real; God is perfect and God loves you.
2) Humans are sinful by nature, and no matter what we do we cannot make ourselves righteous before a perfect God.
3) The penalty of our sin is death, or separation from God.
4) Jesus Christ came and lived a sinless life, being both God and human, and died a sacrificial death on the cross as an atonement for the sins of all humans.
5) Those who believe and accept Jesus’ sacrifice will spend eternity with God; those who do not will spend eternity separated from God.

This is the accepted Christain interpretation. the poster then says:

“People may misinterpret what the bible says to conform to their own views (nonbelievers and Christians alike) but the bible’s main message has not changed in the two thousand plus years it has existed in recorded form.”

I started to respond but by the time I had arranged my thoughts the moment had passed, so I am posting here.

Indeed, the Bible’s primary message hasn’t changed but other than popular agreement, to what do you point to dispute the assertion that men’s interpretation of that message may be flawed?

For your consideration I offer the following alternative ‘interpretation’;

The primary message of the Gospel is:

1) God is real; God is perfect and God loves you.

2) Humans are sinful as a consequence of gaining ‘knowledge’ prematurely and, the practical consequence is separation from God.

3) No matter what we do, we can’t cure ourselves from separation from a perfect God.

4) The consequence of our unavoidable inheritance of sin is separation from God, which prevents life from continually renewing, resulting in death.

5) Jesus, a human being, lived a sinless life, someone whose ‘spiritual umbilical cord’ remained intact, allowing him to stay fully connected with the divine. Who, after attaining the ability to fully embody the ’sonship’ of God, the ‘Christ’, then conducted his ministry of example and accepted a sacrificial death on the cross as a symbolic message for all of humanity.

6) Those who accept Jesus’ message and surrender their individuality to God for renewal and cleansing, will spend eternity with God; those who do not make the free-will choice to do so, will remain separated from God.

Another interpretation; Part II

Explanatory thoughts for the post above:

Humans are not sinful by nature, for how can a perfect God create imperfection? God created us as perfect because he is incapable of doing otherwise. To use a computer analogy, we screwed up our operating system but our basic hardware/base code remains perfect, otherwise we would have no hope of being ‘born again’.

Mankind’s operational software is dysfunctional, (as we ‘think’ in our hearts) resulting in an inability to refrain from error, regardless of intention. Adam & Eve’s ‘sin’ was the premature ingestion of the knowledge of good and evil, prior to the attainment of the wisdom necessary to handle it. Just as ignorant children indulging in sexual activity before emotional maturity results in unwanted and premature pregnancies.

The ‘virus’ of ‘original sin’ is inherited through the father, which is why God used the very rare but scientifically established methodology of a ‘virgin birth’ with Jesus. Simply because it was the only physical way God could bring into existence someone ‘free’ from original sin, yet born of woman.

God does not penalize. He’s not ‘into’ punishment.

He does allow consequence, accountability and responsibility because otherwise you cannot have a universe of cause and effect. Reality as we know it could not exist otherwise.

No one can ‘atone’ for your sins but yourself. For Jesus to atone for our sins would be for God to absolve us of any responsibility for our own actions.That would violate a universe based in cause and effect. It would undermine accountability.

Our sins are forgivable because our ‘sins’ are the result of our inheritance; we really, truly, do not ‘know’ what we do.

Just as the insane do not ‘know’ right from wrong…and we do not hold the criminally insane responsible… Would God be less understanding? But in order for us to be cured of this dis-ease we must allow God, our personal physician, to do the work within that is needed.

Not because God wants to rule us, for how then to explain our free will? No loving God could be simultaneously a sadist, giving a gift but then insisting we not use it. We do misuse our free will, using it in ways that are neither to our or our brothers and sisters benefit. Surrender is necessary because it is the only way to cure us! Just as, when we have a ‘cancer’, we have to trust the modern physician who recommends the seeming ‘death penalty’ of radiation and chemotherapy.

We didn’t eat the ‘apple’ but we do have to live with the consequences of our ancestor’s actions. And yes, all of us would have behaved exactly as Adam & Eve did, because Eve’s curiosity and willingness to ‘take a chance’ and Adam’s love for Eve are symbolic of our nature.

Islam’s central premise that we must freely surrender our will to God is correct.

The Bahai’s are right that all religions are divinely inspired attempts by man to understand his existence. Each ‘religion’ is but part of the truth and all are partially distorted by man. All represent efforts by God to ‘reach’ mankind.

Hinduism’s central premise that we come into existence multiple times with the goal of gradually increasing the embodiment of our ‘Christ’ self is self-evident. What kind of ‘loving’ parent gives a recalcitrant child but one chance to repent? Remember the prodigal son? He had a symbolic lifetime to return.

Buddhism is right in its premise that we are all on the road to our own ‘Buddha hood’ (awakening to our true spiritual nature). That we are all blind and, see but part of the ‘truth’ (reality).

Native American spiritual practice is right in its perception that all existence is just different aspects of the creator. Including us and, if we are but one aspect of God, his most self-aware creation, i.e. all children of God, then by definition we are he…

Judaism is right in its central premise; the metaphoric explanatory message contained in the Genesis story. It’s how we got to be in this mess and where we come from and of what our true nature consists.

Christianity is right in its central premise that Jesus found the way that leads to reunion with God. Jesus embodied that way to the extent that he became that way and fully embodied the Christ, making him permanently one with God. That is why he must be accepted (followed) because only one-way leads back to the godhead (the source of divinity) simply because God’s nature is singular and undivided.

GOP – resusitating the brand -part II

I do have some caveats regarding the tenants of GOP 2.0

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENCE: I support strengthening the military and if necessary, to historical levels as a percentage of GDP. I’d like to hear from experts like Gen. Petraeus regarding his view as to exactly what is needed in economic terms to most effectively prosecute the WoT. As well as maintain our technological and military advantages, so as to be fully prepared for any future threat’s.

GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: Absolutely, however Long-term, only alternative energy technologies will prevent future energy crises. There is no substitute for development of new choices in energy sources; they are also a necessity and, a National Security issue as well.

Democrats have to agree to limited but adequate, development of short-term solutions.

Republicans have to agree to legislation with real technical safeguards, regulatory oversight and mandatory financial and legal consequences for businesses that violate environmental parameters regarding exploration, drilling and development of new oil, coal and nuclear resources.

Republicans and Democrats have to agree on federal legislation with near-permanent incentives and rewards for development of alternative energy solutions. Place a big enough carrot in front of companies, entrepreneurs and creative individuals and they will rush to fill the need.

SECURE THE BORDERS: immediately building physical barriers, as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy is only viable if coupled with real, undeniable and comprehensive immigration reform proposals. Physical barriers are at best a short-term ’solution’, insufficient to fully address the problem. And Democrats will never agree to even temporary barriers without their being convincingly coupled with comprehensive reform and a firm time-line for the barriers eventual removal. Barriers cannot be sold as a means of preventing immigration, they can be sold as a means of funneling immigration into controlled access points.

SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION: no government largesse, and yes free-market solutions… those principles alone however, are I suspect, insufficient to address the problem. Health care is increasing in cost expotentially with fundamental problems within the infrastructure of the American Health-Care system. Affordability is the principal problem of course and prescriptions such as medical pre-tax programs assume that someone is making enough to afford to have even more taken out of their paycheck. For the many millions of American families living paycheck to paycheck that prescription is unrealistic. Without affordability, health care becomes increasingly the privilege of the wealthy.

According to one report employee pay now makes up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960s. This disparity cannot be ignored by any fair-minded person.

The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, found productivity grew 17 percent nationally from 2000 to 2005, but median family income, adjusted for inflation, fell 3 percent. Millions of American’s are working harder, smarter and at best, just treading water. 

Until conservatives address the underlying issue of the have-nots in society, they will always face calls for government ‘largesse’. Capitalism is an economic system with undeniable benefits for society, it is also indisputable that under such a system the 80/20 rule is unimpeded. Regardless of the benefits, when 80% of a socety’s assets naturally gravitate into 20% of the society’s members, social unrest is inevitable.

The answer of course is to find methodologies that allow the middle class to expand and to do increasingly well. As an observation, in the 1950’s, the GI bill, affordable mortgages and an expanding economy resulted in just such an expansion of the middle class. We need to determine the government incentives and societal infrastructure that most encourages that paradigm to return.  

 

GOP 2.0 – resuscitating the brand

 From the Blog: Doug Ross @ Journal

Paul Mirengoff, writing at Powerline:

The Democrats appear to have picked up another House seat in a formerly “safe” Republican district tonight. The latest win for the Dems comes in Mississippi where Travis Childers, a county chancery clerk, seems to have edged out Greg Davis, a mayor. President Bush carried this district twice with about 60 percent of the vote each time. But Childers ran as a strong social conservative (Ed: pro-life and pro-gun).

…my takeaway is that the Republican brand is in such bad shape that the Dems can win virtually anywhere if they nominate a candidate whose position on key issues is, or can be made to seem, close to that of the Republican… Fortunately, the Democrats will not nominate such a candidate for president. And the Republican nominee, whether we feel comfortable about it or not, isn’t necessarily seen as intimately associated with the Republican brand. Even so, I think that Republican nominee is running uphill.

Indeed. The Republican brand has lost its way. I believe that it’s time for citizens to rise up and demand a new Republican Party! I’m calling it GOP 2.0. And I’m perfectly willing to throw out those “Republicans” who are stuck on stupid — and are stuck in the GOP 1.0 world.

 

The tenets:

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENSE – increase the size, capability and efficiency of our Armed Forces, bringing back our defense spending to historical levels as a percentage of GDP.

GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE – open up ANWR and the OCS to exploration; aggressively pursue nuclear energy and green technologies; with incentives for private industry to aggressively pursue clean, renewable energy sources.

SECURE THE BORDERS – build physical barriers immediately as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy. If the boat’s sinking, you plug the holes first.

DEATH TO EARMARKS – zero tolerance for earmarks.

DEATH TO CORRUPTION – zero tolerance for corruption.

ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE – national unity requires a national language. That language is English.

IMPLEMENT FLAT TAX OR FAIR TAX – simplify the tax system by eradicating a tax code gone mad.

REDUCE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT – provide “whistleblower-style” awards for reducing the size of government and task the IRS (which will no longer have to worry about enforcing the tax code) with achieving the reduction goals on an annual basis

SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION – Address health-care deficiencies – with competitive, free-market solutions, not Government largesse.

ADDRESS ENTITLEMENTS – engage a bipartisan consortium to create a multi-million dollar competition to encourage teams from private industry and academia to create solutions for our social security and Medicare liabilities.

This should not be a platform. It should be a promise — an ironclad commitment — to voters.

I’m asking for help here. If you agree, please email this post to your friends and/or post it on your blog (no credit or link needed). We need to resuscitate the Republican brand. ASAP.

Update: A Jacksonian published a comprehensive platform of similar traits in 2006.

In general, I like this proposal a lot. In my next post I’ll cover the details wherein my agreement is qualified. 

Explaining the High Price of Gas

There is lots of misinformation out there about why the price of gas is so high. I’m certainly not an expert but when I listen to the ‘experts’ not one seems to be able to offer a simple concise description of the problem. Listen to enough of them though and a pattern emerges.

It all boils down to the American public being caught between three interrelated factors: the oil exporting nations holding down supply, the industrializing nations like China & India greatly raising demand and US environmental interests blocking any changes they don’t like.

That’s it in a nutshell.

For a more complete explanation of these factors and real solutions in principle, read on.

The most active environmentalists and therefore the most influential are on literally a religious mission to ’save the planet’… facts and reason be dammed in the face of their sought for ‘holy grail’. Religious fanatics do not acknowledge facts nor do they listen to reason, their fanaticism does not allow for it.

Since the ‘environment’ has become a ’sacred cow’ within the Democratic Party, they are blocking any Republican congressional efforts to alleviate the problem. That is because they believe that the Republican ‘cure’ is worse than the disease. Short-term they are mistaken, long-term they are correct that short-term solutions are inadequate. But all they are looking at is the long-term issue, meanwhile the cost of energy is bankrupting the country and funding terrorism. Those are, at the very least, equally valid issues.

The rise of China, India and other industrially developing nations has greatly increased demand for oil on the world market. The importance of that factor cannot be overstated. To service that demand and keep worldwide prices for oil affordable, we have to increase supply. 

The Middle Eastern OPEC nations are using the situation and limiting supply so as to raise the price and literally sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of western and developing nations. (Incidentally, as this is a form of usury (interest) it is hypocritical in the extreme for Muslims to betray Islamic precepts by ignoring this reality.) The ME nations are then using the ‘profits’ to buy ’positions’ in key western companies…that reality alone makes this a National Security issue.

There are two aspects to the problem; short-term and long-term. The hard truth is that short-term there are no substitutes for nuclear power, coal to liquid processing, synthetic oil, offshore exploration and increased drilling.

Since we are in a crises situation, immediate short-term relief is needed.  

As long as this country is dependent upon foreign oil we will of necessity have an interest in the Middle East. At this time and for decades to come our dependence upon oil is as total as a newborn baby’s need for its mother’s milk. We cannot survive without it, our civilization would collapse and just in the US hundreds of millions would die should the oil stop or even fall below necessary levels.  

Most Americans have bought into activist/media hype surrounding environmental concerns. To such a degree that since the mid 70’s there has been no new oil exploration, drilling or new refineries built in this country or off our coasts.
 
The same situation applies to nuclear power. Earlier concerns regarding nuclear waste are no longer valid as the French have been reprocessing used fuel successfully for decades, greatly reducing the amount of waste (down to 3% of plants that do not reprocess used fuel).
 
Proven and established technologies exist for the conversion of coal into liquid form. US coal deposits alone are sufficient to provide for the energy needs of our nation for the next 200 years but environmental special interests are blocking their implementation. No company will even attempt to try to proceed with development given the regulatory and permit process (thousands of required studies & permits needed). All of this is of course intentional but it is no longer the 70’s. 

It is developing into a national security problem for the US but those are ‘dirty’ words among liberals. Just as Republicans focus exclusively on short-term solutions, Democrats focus only on the necessary cost and disadvantages of short-term solutions. Thus they attempt to obfuscate the problem. ’Misdirecting’ ordinary citizens with talk of the ‘evil’ oil companies and their ‘windfall profits’. But an ‘inconvenient’ truth is that the oil companies make less than a 9% profit margin.

That is hardly excessive. Oil companies have no control over the cost of crude oil. All they do is process it into gasoline. The oil exporting nations set the price of a barrel of oil, which directly determines the cost of gasoline ‘at the pump’. Windfall profit taxes will not lower the cost of gas at the pump so its disingenuous to tout it as ‘doing something about the problem’ at best it’s a delaying tactic.

By the way, ‘Excess’ profits go to shareholders, who are not just ‘fat cats’ but retirement funds, middle class investors, union and public employee pension funds. Profits do not “just go into greedy people’s pockets”. With the occasional exception of an Enron, in any major corporation every penny in a companies income is supervised, overseen and specifically directed. Management’s compensation is fixed both to salary and percentage of profits.

Profits also go toward exploration, research and development; such as Canada’s oil sands, a highly significant future source of oil for the US. Take away those ‘windfall’ profits and the law of unintended consequences will bite us right on the ass…  
 
Eventually, if the cost of gas rises high enough public outrage will compel Congress to actually do something to address short-term needs. Meanwhile it sucks to be us…doesn’t it?

However, Long-term, only alternative energy technologies will prevent future energy crises. There is no substitute for development of new choices in energy sources; they are also a necessity. They are also a National Security issue. In time, practical alternative energy solutions will be developed.

The resources do exist. Enough sunlight falls on just an area the size of Saudi Arabia to power all of the worlds present needs for electricity. The moon has vast quantities of helium3 lying on its surface. Helium3 is like uranium on steroids. That resource alone could power the world for millions of years. Clean fuel cells are mere years away from commercially practical mass-production.

Ironically, as is generally the case in a dispute, each side is partially right. The problem is that neither side will acknowledge the valid points each side is making. As always, there is no substitute for sincere cooperation in achieving solutions.

On a positive note, all of this is temporary (20-50 yrs), once we develop truly practical alternative energy technologies these problems will fade away. But right now, it’s a serious problem.

Democrats have to agree to limited but adequate, development of short-term solutions.

Republicans have to agree to legislation with real technical safeguards, regulatory oversight and mandatory financial and legal consequences for businesses that violate environmental parameters regarding exploration, drilling and development of new oil, coal and nuclear resources.

Republicans and Democrats have to agree on federal legislation with near-permanent incentives and rewards for development of alternative energy solutions. Place a big enough carrot in front of companies, entrepreneurs and creative individuals and they will rush to fill the need.

That is the proper role of government. Set the rules of the game, make it worth playing on that field and fairly referee the action! Then get out of the way and let the players, play!

Geoffrey Britain

Iraq, Invasion, NeoCons and the War on Terror

The real NeoCon rationale for invading Iraq.

Since this is a new blog, I’ll briefly touch on a few pertinent points about myself. I am a neoconservative.

I reached that intellectual position independently, never having read anything about neo-conservaticism prior to forming my views. In fact, it was quite a while after 9/11 before I even realized that others had reached the same conclusions and that they were called neo-conservatives.

Obviously there is some individual variation in views but for the most part I am firmly in that camp.

However, I am not Jewish and only sharpen my fangs every other night, so I realize that for those reasons some may disqualify me from being considered a true neoconservative ;-)

Having reached my neoconservative views independently, after long and deep reflection on the issues of Islamic terrorism, I believe I can offer insights into the neoconservative rationale in the WoT. I trust reasoned presentation will demonstrate the veracity of my assertions.
Reportedly, some NeoCons are now denying that the administration ever claimed that the primary reason for invading Iraq was to remove Saddam’s ‘non-existent’ WMD’s. That is a hypocritical falsity as that was the primary rationale put forward to the American public and International community. But it never was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Yes, we did go into Iraq hoping to find WMD’s, while knowing that the WMD’s might not be there by the time we invaded and, yes we knew there might not be any WMD’s… But everyone in possession of intel believed Saddam had them; Gore, Kerry, Reid, Hillary, Pelosi, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are all on record asserting that to be their belief, so while Bush may have been mistaken, he cannot fairly be accused of lying in saying that he believed Saddam had WMD’s.

That said, the Administration was less than frank in giving the impression that WMD’s was the primary reason we were invading Iraq. That mistake has led to great difficulties in responding to criticisms of invading Iraq.

There is an “Axis of Evil” that is as much an enemy of our way of life as the Nazi’s and Communists were previously. To deny this is to reveal either profound ignorance, insane denial or purposeful deceit. Saddam’s Iraq was part of the Axis of Evil, and though potentially dangerous, one of the lesser players.

NeoCon’s themselves haven’t been very forthright with the American public as to the complete NeoCon rationale.The reasons for the ‘misdirection’ in the public Neocon arguments are understandable, though I have argued from prior to our invasion of Iraq that this was a fundamental strategic mistake and that it would come back to haunt us and, it has. The reason for disingenuousness was twofold, consisting of a domestic reason and an international rationale.

Domestically, it was decided that the true NeoCon argument was ‘too complex’ for the American public to easily grasp. An arrogant, if somewhat arguable presumption, especially with the counter arguments that the left and the MSM were certain to mount against it. Therefore it was decided to ’simplify’ the rationale in hopes that this would ensure that the Neocon strategy in the WoT would be implemented.

Internationally, because we couldn’t fully reveal publicaly our strategy, as that would benefit those at odds with our national interests, especially with the MSM determined to undermine any confrontational strategy.

It is important to note that the NeoCons in the Bush administration sincerely believed their analysis of the Islamic terrorist danger the West faces to be correct and that only one ’solution’ had a chance for success.

That of course is debatable and that debate did take place but the NeoCon’s carried the argument, at least with Bush. They ‘won’ the debate because Bush is a ‘bottom line’ kind of guy. He does not like complexity and evaluates analysis and ’solutions’ based in fundamental principle; asking himself, does this make sense on a basic level?

Arguments as to whether this is ’smart’ miss the point, it’s simply one way of evaluating information. As in any methodology, with advantages and disadvantages. Its effectiveness is a matter of ‘quality of execution’ rather than its value ‘per se’ as a method of decision making.

The primary reason for invading Iraq was not even the very real danger that one day, when able, Saddam would gain and then give WMD’s to terrorist groups. It was reasonable to presuppose that Saddam, in all probability was at the very least maintaining the capability to resume WMD development programs . While an important reason, it was not the essential reason for the invasion of Iraq.

The primary reason(s) for the invasion of Iraq was twofold: and of a short-term tactical and long-term strategic nature. Those reasons were; First, to send a very clear message to other nations that the ‘game’s’ rules had changed. That the US was now serious, that al Quada and Islamic Terrorism had, in the words of Yamamoto, once again “awoken the sleeping giant”… AND to establish a ‘beachhead’ of democracy in the very heart of the Axis of Evil. NeoCons posit that in the long term, the surest way to defeat Islamic terrorism is the growth of democracy within the ME.

In order to understand the rationale driving the NeoCon strategy in the WoT it is essential to understand the NeoCon analysis of Islamic Terrorism. It is simple but never articulated clearly, cohesively and directly. Woven throughout Bush’s speeches are all the elements of the NeoCon rationale but Bush’s great weakness is his inability to articulate the entire argument in a concise, cohesive manner.

Here is the NeoCon analysis of Islamic terrorism in a nutshell.

First the context:

Islamic Terrorism is a world-wide radical religious philosophy absolutely dedicated to the destruction of Western values and institutions. It is a ‘clash of civilizations’ only in that individual freedom, democracy and separation of church and state are seen by Fundamentalist Radical Islamics as a direct and permanent threat to traditional Islamic values.

One that in a modern world of Television, the Internet, cultural interchange and the ability to rapidly travel to other parts of the world dooms ‘first wave*’ Islamic societies to cultural assimilation by the west if interacting freely with ‘third wave*’ information societies in the West and East is allowed to continue.

Now the structural make-up:

The phenomenon of Islamic Terrorism is threefold in nature. This is absolutely necessary to a full understanding of the threat it represents to Western values, institutions and societies.

The threefold nature of Islamic Terrorism consists of:

1.) Various ideologically disparate terror networks. Ideologically fueled by hate-filled radical Fundamentalist Islamic mullahs operating out of state-funded madras’s.

These hate filled mullah’s are key and they ARE promoting an interpretation of Islam that IS inherent to the religion. Apologists attempt to deny this observation by pointing to the earlier meccan part of the Koran’s very few tolerant verses.

But the later, medinan Koran contains many, many calls to jihad against ALL unbelievers until the entire world is under the control of Islam. ISLAM must change. It must have its reformation**. It is virtually the ‘Spanish inquisition’ of our times.

2.) The Rogue nations who use these networks as ’stealth’ quasi-military arms of aggression in a struggle with other nations to ensure the furtherance of their national goals and agenda.

3.) The ‘enabling’ status-quo nations, who out of short-term national self-interest, block as much as possible any effective actions against the Rogue nations, especially in the U.N.

It is impossible to defeat the terror networks without defeating the rogue nations. Either dissuading them from further support, as in Libya’s case or through direct overthrow and destruction of the underlying social structures that support terrorism within these nations. (As will eventually be the case with Iran.)

It is imperative that the ‘enabling’ nations, primarily Russia, China and much of the EU be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Direct confrontation is neither desirable nor practical. We must essentially ’sideline’ them through adroit diplomatic maneuvering. Bush tried that but the Mainstream Media effectively undermined support for that course of action.

It is imperative to recognize that the leadership of the enabling nations are NOT our friends. Put colloquially, they are the type of ’friend’ who seeks to ’stab us in the back’ smiling as they do it. Never revealing the internalized hate until the knife slips in and we turn to them surprised saying, “Et tu Brute?”

Iraq was chosen because it was overall, the best place to start among the Axis of Evil nations in implanting democracy.

Not as some have simplistically believed out of a frat-boy bravado by Bush over his father’s attempted assassination, though as any of us in his position would, he undoubtedly appreciates the ‘icing on the cake’.

Consider the advantages Iraq offered: No one would miss Saddam; he was a singularly unsympathetic figure.

The propaganda bonanza of 25 million people freed and the deaths of 300,000 per year stopped. A tremendously impactful reality for captive peoples across the ME.

Though clearly ‘perverted’, generations of Iraqi’s have been raised in a secular environment. Iraqi’s have been accustomed to living with real separation of church and state, arguably they are the ME nation most predisposed to acceptance of democracy and seperation of church and state.

Thus making the transition to democracy less problematic, raising the prospects for success from impossible to merely very difficult. Close proximity to the other Axis of Evil nations, providing immediate and unavoidable comparison by the citizens of Iran and Syria with their social arrangements and the new Iraqi freedoms.

Thus the resulting ‘revolutionary message’ that a successful Iraq presents; If Shiite’s, Sunni’s and Kurds can govern together in relative peace, then why not in their own country? Strategic military proximity to Syria and Iran thus creates pressure to ameliorate their behavior.

The final two truisms that fuel NeoCon analysis:

NeoCon acceptance of the proposition that free will and it’s necessary foundation freedom, is an innate human quality, a ‘universal’ human need, thus one that in time, transcends any culture.

Secondly, in crises situations, the choice is never between good and bad options. In a crisis, the options are very bad to even worse. By definition, it would not be a crises, if there was a good solution.

The key to understand is that invariably, in a crises, choosing the short-term, less-bad option leads to long-term much-worse results.These are the realistic decision-making principles that are driving Cheney’s advice and Bush’s choices.

There actually is a method to the administration’s ‘madness’…

Bush’s personal qualities, relative NeoCon silence and a leftist mind-set viscerally opposed to confrontation have led to the view that NeoCons are a secret cabal who do not have America’s interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth.

NeoCons are simply tough-minded former liberals who have sought refuge within the Republican Party in the face of today’s peace-at-any-cost, liberal mind-set ruled democratic party.

Just like Reagan, they didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the party left them.

Geoffrey Britain

* Refers to Alvin Toffler’s ‘wave’ theory of historical progress; The Agricultural, Industrial and Informational waves of historical dynamics and the resultant societies representative of those historical transitions. Islamic societies are fundamentally tribal, ’First’ wave societies. The US is the foremost example of a formerly ‘Second’ wave society transitioning into a ‘Third’ wave society. (this is why conventional thinking regarding the desirability & possibility of a return or reassurgence of manufacturing in the US is mistaken)

** Arguably, the Bahai faith is the reformatory engine that Islam has already rejected.