Thursday, September 3, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
George Will is Right
It's time for the U.S. to leave Afghanistan
David Harsanyi | September 2, 2009This week, prominent conservative pundit George Will wrote a column advocating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. His piece, not surprisingly, was met with instantaneous anger, disdain, and derision from most of the right.
"But let's be honest," wrote noted neoconservative William Kristol on The Washington Post's blog. "Will is not calling on the United States to accept a moderate degree of success in Afghanistan, and simply to stop short of some overly ambitious goal. Will is urging retreat, and accepting defeat."
Tossing around the words "retreat" and "defeat"—or, as one critic more creatively asserted, Will's column "could have been written in Japanese aboard the USS Missouri"—is the rhetorical equivalent of the vacuous "chicken hawk" charge leveled at any civilian who supports military action. It's emotive and hyperbolic, and I probably have used it myself, but it's not an effective argument.
Judging from their harsh reaction to Will, it's not clear when, if ever, some conservatives believe the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan. Even less clear is how the victory narrative is supposed to play out. Does this triumphant day arrive when every Islamic radical in the region has met his virgins? If so, after eight years of American lives lost, the goal seems farther away than ever.
Or is victory achieved when we finally usher this primitive tribal culture, with its violent warlords and religious extremism, from the eighth century all the way to modernity? If so, we're on course for a centuries-long enterprise of nation building and baby-sitting, not a war. The war was won in 2002.
If the goal is to establish a stable government to fill the vacuum created by our ousting of the Taliban and al-Qaida, we've done quite a job. Most Americans can accept a Marine's risking life and limb to safeguard our freedoms. But when that Marine is protector of a corrupt and depraved foreign parliament—one that recently legalized marital rape and demands women ask permission from male relatives to leave their homes—it is not a victory worth celebrating. READ MORE REASON
Rethinking the Good War
"Rarely in history has a war seemed so just to so many." ~ Michael Bess
"Participation in the war against Hitler remains almost wholly sacrosanct, nearly in the realm of theology." ~ Bruce Russett
On September 1, 1939 – 70 years ago – Germany attacked Poland and officially began World War II. Although over 50 million people died in the war – including 405,000 Americans – it is considered to be the Good War. The fact that most of deaths were on the Allied side (the "good" side), the majority of those killed were civilians, hundreds of millions were wounded – including 671,000 Americans – and/or made refugees, homeless, widows, or orphans, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of property was destroyed, hundreds of billions of dollars more were wasted on armaments, and untold millions underwent an incomprehensible amount of suffering, misery, and loss doesn’t seem to matter either. World War II is still universally recognized as the Good War.
How is it possible to make such a description of such carnage on a grand scale?
As John V. Denson explains in his essay "Franklin D. Roosevelt and the First Shot" in his book A Century of War: Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt:
Part of the mythology that surrounds this war is that it was the "last good war." It was a "just" war because it was defensive. Despite President Roosevelt’s supreme efforts to keep America neutral regarding controversies in Europe and Asia, the Japanese launched an unprovoked surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, thereby "forcing" America into the fray. It was also a "noble" war because America fought evil tyrannies known as Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy and Japan.
From the American point of view, World War II is basically considered to be the Good War for two reasons: Pearl Harbor and Hitler.
But setting aside for a moment the facts of Roosevelt’s duplicity and culpability, as well as the U.S. provocation of Japan: Was it necessary for 405,000 American soldiers to die to avenge the 2,400 (1,177 were from one ship, the USS Arizona) who were killed at Pearl Harbor? Was it moral to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japanese cities because Japan bombed the Pearl Harbor Naval Base, a military target? And setting aside for another moment the folly of U.S. intervention in World War I, which prevented a dictated peace settlement and paved the way for the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, thus facilitating the rise of Hitler: Was it necessary that tens of millions were slaughtered to prevent Hitler from slaughtering millions? Was it wise to join forces with a brutal dictator like Stalin, who had already killed millions, with the result that he enslaved half of Europe under communism?
It is time to rethink the Good War. READ MORE AT LEW ROCKWELL
Circumcision for All; Free Choice for None
I was shocked, surprised, and flabbergasted to hear it. I’m sure that you'll never believe it, either. The federal government is – get this, readers – butting into your most personal and private business.
OK, you’ve caught me in a rare moment of sarcasm. Maybe I wasn't really that surprised. After all, government bureaucrats attempt to control what types of substances you put into your body, what kind of work you do with your body, and even how you can legally dispose of your body after death; it makes perfect sense that they would also scramble for power over what parts of your body should remain attached. Yes, that’s right. The CDC is now considering a campaign for universal circumcision in the US.
The reason for pushing this one-size-fits-all policy stems from the results of several studies, all done in Africa, which have demonstrated the benefits of male circumcision for reducing the transmission of HIV.
The studies on circumcision and HIV transmission are very interesting. They are large, randomized, controlled trials; the methodology is solid. They show, on average, a 40–60% reduction in the risk of a circumcised, HIV negative man contracting the virus from an HIV positive woman, as compared to an uncircumcised man. The precise mechanism of circumcision’s protective effect is unknown. There are many potential explanations, none of which are mutually exclusive. First, the foreskin has a relatively high population of cells that are receptive to being infected by HIV. Second, it acts as a reservoir which may trap infected secretions. Third, the foreskin has a higher propensity to ulcerate (become scraped) and become infected with other sexually transmitted infections that cause open sores. It seems that removing the foreskin also removes several potential avenues for HIV entry into the body.
However, when considering the benefits of circumcision, there are some significant caveats. For one, circumcision is not a panacea; it does not completely prevent transmission of HIV, it just lowers the probability that a man will contract the virus during any given sexual encounter with an HIV positive woman. It should be noted that these studies only examined the effect of circumcision on transmission of the virus from an HIV positive woman to an HIV negative man. While this is a relatively common scenario in Sub-Saharan Africa, HIV epidemiology in the US is different. Overall rates of infection are lower. Also, HIV in the US is relatively more common among men who have sex with men (MSM). There is no evidence that circumcision protects against HIV acquisition in MSM. Circumcision also does nothing to protect anyone against acquiring HIV via bloodborne routes, such as sharing needles with an HIV positive person. It should go without saying that men can protect themselves from acquiring HIV in other ways besides getting circumcised, such as practicing safe(r) sex and avoiding intravenous drug use. These methods are much more reliable than the 40 – 60% risk reduction conferred by circumcision.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Missouri LP to testify at MIAC hearing
Missouri Libertarian Party Vice Chair Cisse Spragins will be testifying at a Missouri House of Representatives Interim Committee on State Intelligence Analysis Oversight public hearing August 31st in Grandview, MO.
In March, a "Strategic Report" on "The Modern Militia Movement" written by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) was leaked to the press.
The memo claimed that membership in, among other groups, the Libertarian Party and/or the display of what it calls “political paraphernalia” in support of the party or its 2008 presidential nominee (former US Congressman Bob Barr) could be an indicator that someone is involved in a “militant militia”.
The memo was retracted in late March and Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director John Britt issued apologies for the report’s reference to specific Presidential candidates, including Libertarian Bob Barr and Republican Ron Paul, and for the references to specific political organizations, including the Libertarian Party and the Campaign for Liberty. Van Godsey, the Director of MIAC who signed off on the report was reassigned.
By working closely with key lawmakers and continuing to apply pressure, the Missouri LP along with other freedom groups ultimately succeeded in getting the Legislature to create a special interim committee to investigate the report. Hearings are being held around the State. The first hearing was held in Jefferson City in June and the second in St. Louis in July. Hearings in Kansas City and Springfield are planned for later in August or September.
The successful media campaign resulted in a great deal of media coverage in Missouri, including TV interviews. Even some national coverage with the Missouri LP quoted in an article published by CNN and an appearance on Fox Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano.
Missouri LP Chair Glenn Nielsen testified at the St. Louis hearing.
For more information and video please see:
http://www.showmefreedom.org/2009/July/MIACHearing.shtml
Missouri LP Vice Chair Cisse Spragins is considering a run for the US Senate in 2010 to replace retiring Missouri US Senator Chritopher "Kit" Bond.
Glenn Nielsen
State Chair
Missouri Libertarian Party
http://lpmo.org
LP Monday Message: Voters want more options
August 31, 2009
Dear Friend of Liberty,
Like you, most Americans are unhappy with the Republican and Democratic parties. Earlier this month, a Zogby poll found that 58% of people think the U.S. needs more than two major political parties.
People are also unhappy with Congress. (No surprise there.) In fact, according to a Rasmussen poll released yesterday, 57% of people would like to throw out the ENTIRE CONGRESS and start over.
Many of these dissatisfied voters are libertarians -- but a lot of them don't know it. Past polls have shown that only about 2% of people identify themselves as libertarians, even though a much higher percentage have libertarian opinions on political issues.
The Libertarian Party is working to change that. We are out there, showing that there's more to politics than "Democrat or Republican," and more than "liberal or conservative." We are bringing the desperately needed libertarian option to American voters.
The Democrats and Republicans are working hard to take away our liberties, but with your help, the Libertarian Party can become a major political force and restore those liberties.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
P.S. If you have not yet become a member of the Libertarian Party and wish to do so, please click here and join the only political party dedicated completely to cutting taxes and maximizing liberty. If you need to renew, please do so by clicking here.
A Path to Fiscal Sanity
Cut the deficit by spending less? Sounds crazy, but it just might work.
It has been known since the early 1980s that the U.S. federal budget embodies a large structural imbalance — one that persists through the economy's ups and downs. In 1980, Ted Kennedy referred to this during his campaign for the presidency; Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama commented on it during theirs.
Estimates of how large this imbalance is, and of what it would take to solve it, have been available for two decades. These analyses consistently show two things: It would be costly to put off dealing with the problem, and federal debt will surge once the baby-boomers begin to retire during the late 2000s.They are retiring now.
When questioned on entitlement reforms, legislators dutifully genuflect to the need for policy adjustments. But until now, that budget fix was one for the future. Immediately after being elected, lawmakers adopted a "business as usual" attitude, seeking more benefits for today's voters by appropriating vast sums for their pet projects.
And again, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown, policymakers on both sides of the aisle scrambled to bail out banks, automakers, insurance companies, traders, consumers, and so on, and the Fed injected huge amounts of cash into the financial markets. The cherry on top of this spending binge is the Obama administration's proposed health-care "reform" — which entails additional trillions of dollars.
The recent announcement that U.S. deficits will total $9 trillion over the next ten years suggests that "business as usual" will rapidly come to an end. That's the problem with long-term budget constraints — they inexorably draw closer, eventually forcing hasty and ill-conceived policies via a budget crisis.
What to do?
Estimates from the Social Security and Medicare trustees and the Congressional Budget Office, academic studies, and other reports suggest that the total federal fiscal imbalance amounts to 8 percent of future U.S. productive capacity. Since only about one-half of the nation's total income is subject to taxes, Americans would have to immediately and permanently devote another 16 percent of their taxable incomes toward resolving it. READ MORE
Kennedy's Big Government Paternalism
Remembering the darker side of the liberal senator's legacy
The praise bestowed on Kennedy today by political allies and rivals alike is testament to his superb political skills, including his capacity for bipartisan legislative work. Yet the grief that accompanies the passing of a public figure of such stature should not obscure the fact that his career also illustrates the darker side of the liberal legacy.
Kennedy championed a plethora of liberal causes that are surrounded by an aura of nobility: the defense of the poor, the disabled and the sick, the rights of women and minorities. Yet many of the measures he supported are prime examples of the discrepancy between idealistic causes and unintended effects. Thus, the vast majority of economists agree that increasing the minimum wage—one of the legislative achievements with which Kennedy is credited—leads to increased unemployment among the most vulnerable portion of the labor force, pricing the least skilled workers out of the labor market. Affirmative action, which Kennedy helped uphold on the federal level, tends to result in race discrimination against working-class whites (and, in many cases, Asians as well) and often backfires against its supposed beneficiaries as well. Some of Kennedy's other noble causes have been largely symbolic: thus, the Violence Against Women Act and hate crimes legislation create federal penalties for offenses that are already criminally prosecuted by the states.
Kennedy's liberalism was rooted in the belief that guidance by the government, especially the federal government, is the most effective way to improve people's lives. Indeed, the bipartisan efforts for which he was often hailed were invariably about collaboration with nanny-state Republicanism—the "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001 being a prime example. This "Uncle Sam knows best" mentality extended to some sympathy for regulation of the media market for the "common good": Kennedy led an attempt to restrict Rupert Murdoch's ownership of local media in Massachusetts and, in 2007, foiled a Republican effort in the Senate to bar possible reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (which would cripple the independent media by requiring equal time for different points of view).
Support for interventionist government was hardly a viewpoint unique to Ted Kennedy. What Kennedy brought to this political philosophy, however, was the paternalistic mindset of noblesse oblige: the idea that the aristocracy has a special responsibility to protect and look out for the little people. The Kennedy clan is probably the closest there has ever been to an American aristocracy. READ MORE REASON