 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
What They Thought January 30, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins As I wrote two weeks ago, the primary goal of Al-Qaeda was to put us in a position where we would start a very broad war and rile the ire of the entire region. That was supposed to cause the citizens of the corrupt regimes to topple their governments so a new Caliphate could rise to power. Of course it was supposed to be a Sunni-Wahabbi Caliphate. It looks as though their dreams have been dashed upon the rocks of reality. So sorry! What they have actually achieved is, at best, the exact opposite of what they wanted. They may very well end up with a Shiite Caliphate or something that moves and breathes like one. The United States has been working with the Iranians since at least ‘91 to help the Shiites. The last attempt didn’t turn out very well and that was one of the reasons they received us without celebration during our advance towards Baghdad. One of the most common complaints I get in email is that we aren’t taking the Saudis to task for being so duplicitous. The government of Saudi Arabia isn’t funding Al-Qaeda, but the general population is. Once it became obvious that we wouldn’t be able to pin down all of Al-Qaeda, a new approach was devised. We would try to make the Saudis clean up their own house in order to cut Al-Qaeda's funding. But when we look at the fact that they got rid of their head of Intelligence and replaced him inexplicably two weeks before 9/11, one can’t help but wonder if it is a lost cause. The only help we’ve gotten from them has been token efforts and window dressing. They are afraid of their own people. They have allowed the Wahabbi sect to become far too powerful. It turns out that the Saudis don’t think that we have the ability to stick it out. Even they think we lost the First Gulf War with Iraq because we didn’t go to Baghdad. Never mind the fact that was never in the cards. The whole coalition was based on us promising we weren’t going to do that. The view of a weak America was later fueled by lame retaliations by the last administration. It is no small wonder that they think we are weak. That is why they kept giving us only token efforts. The House of Saud has also looked down on their neighbors and treated them like the proverbial redheaded stepchildren of Islam for years. They were able to do this because of our backing. When the Saudis told us to leave our bases in Saudi Arabia, they thought we would stop talking about invading Iraq and those pesky demands regarding their own citizens would stop. We left our bases in Saudi Arabia and took up with those redheaded stepchildren who welcomed us with open arms. By invading Iraq and staying there, we are reclaiming our place as a force that doesn’t tolerate duplicity. We have stepped away from an ally that was double-dealing with us. As this conflict started, many things changed. France and Germany were no longer with us, but everyone else was, along with a bunch of new friends who were formerly of the Eastern bloc. Because Israel, Turkey and the United States in Iraq now surround Syria, they may well become more civilized. Some pretty ticked off redheaded stepchildren with a new big brother now surround Saudi Arabia. And last but not least, Iraq will now have the majority in charge for once instead of being pummeled by the Sunnis. What does this mean for Al-Qaeda? Several weeks ago, I read a commentary where it was claimed that the only reason Al-Qaeda hasn’t done anything in the United States since 9/11 is that we threatened to nuke Mecca if they did, and the entire region would then be looking at them as the cause. As far as I can see, for the Sunnis and Al-Qaeda this is pretty much the same thing. So as you can see the Saudis are paying dearly. Now I did say in the title people need to learn how to read between the lines when they don’t understand something. George Friedman of Stratfor wrote an excellent book on this subject called America's Secret War. If you’ll simply read that book, you will gain a very thorough understanding of how the world really works. You will be able to read those statements made by governments and fully understand them. The book is much larger than it seems at first glance. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
Ripped from today's headlines and ushering forth the terror we face the world over, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell (based on Ubi Soft's bestselling game) is now available for the first time in print. Featuring Sam Fisher, a top-secret lethal weapon himself and a part of the Third Echelon, Splinter Cell will leave you unable to put the book down. The growing sophisticated digital encryptions being utilized by terrorists spanning across the globe, along with the murders of several NSA agents, leaves our US government only one choice, and that is to send their best man to find the terrorist suppliers and buyers. Splinter Cell brings together the names that still haunt us after 9-11, names such as al-Qaeda and other nomadic independent terrorist factions.Splinter Cell introduces us to a terrorist group known as The Shadows who operate out of the Middle East region. With the terrorists of radical Islam blowing up busy intersections and bridges, you will swear the book at times almost seems prophetic. Sam Fisher works alone, and if he's caught, United States government will claim he is unknown to them. Traveling the world over, Fisher works single-handedly, but fights for us all. As Fisher continues to get closer to the truth of where the illegal weapons are coming through the area of Iraq, his mission to find out who The Shadows are, and the connections they have to The Shop, bring about the kidnapping of his daughter, Sarah, and the murder of her best friend, Rivka. Tom Clancy's creation does what author Clancy does best, and that is take you into the world of espionage, intrigue, and believing in the right to do whatever it takes to protect American freedoms. Splinter Cell was created by New York Times bestselling author Tom Clancy, and was written by David Michaels. A five star book. Available through Amazon.com Published by Berkley Publishing Group. December 2004. Lady Liberty notes: For those of you with privacy concerns, she recommends you make your book purchases through Powells.com instead. Powells will gladly accept your credit card online if you choose to risk it, but they'll also take your telephone order or your snail mail order (order online, indicate you're paying by check, and print a complete order form with an itemized total due and a mailing address). In her opinion, Powells.com also has a significantly better overall privacy than does Amazon.com, which is why she personally works only with Powells. Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
In last week’s column, I referred to myself as a libertarian, which I defined as “nicepeoplespeak for a ‘guy who doesn’t like government.’” After that article published, I got a letter from a guy named Mike. Mike’s worried that many of his friends are becoming self-professed libertarians without really knowing what libertarianism is. “It seems to me that they are anti-establishment because they believe it is trendy,” he says, “rather than because of some rational thought process.” With Mike’s email in mind, I’d like to take this chance to answer the age old question, once and for all: What the heck’s a libertarian? With any luck, I’ll end up providing some insight. Now, I should probably start by telling you that the exact definition of the word “libertarian” is a point of controversy within the libertarian community. Part of the problem is that libertarians, by nature, don’t really belong in communities. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be libertarians. They’d just be curmudgeons. Or communists. I’m not sure I’d be highly regarded in the libertarian community anyway—even if there was one. But this is a good thing. The less fellow libertarians respect your libertarianism, the better a libertarian you are. It means you’re objective. Which is how I’ve justified writing this article. Anyway, there are many strains of libertarianism—and we’ll get to them in a moment—but, basically, it can be boiled down into a single, four-word phrase: “What’s this ‘we’ stuff?” Another one that’ll work is: “To each his own.” These phrases describe the philosophy by which libertarians live. For example, suppose you have a roommate. And suppose your roommate marks his name—let’s call him Carl—on an unfinished carton of vegetable lo mein, which he puts in the fridge. Well, now let’s suppose you come home one night after four hard hours of partying. Your stomach is grumbling, so you rummage through the fridge. All you find is half a head of lettuce, some ketchup and mayonnaise, and Carl’s clearly marked lo mein. You opt for the latter and devour it whole. The next day, Carl comes into the kitchen and finds the empty carton near the microwave—where you left it—a dirty fork and scattered pieces of white rice by its side. Carl comes running into your room, shouting: “You bastard! You ate my lo mein!” You open an eye. “So what? I was hungry.” You try to fall back to sleep. “It doesn’t matter if you were hungry,” Carl says. “It had my name on it. It was mine.” Well, there you go. The lo mein was his; you had no right to eat it. That’s the basic philosophy. To each his own. In fact, this idea is so integral to libertarianism that some libertarians would suggest Carl is now entitled to shoot you. And that doesn’t mean he should shoot you. He probably shouldn’t. I mean, it’s just lo mein. But that’s not the point. It’s a matter of principle: As long as the threat of being shot exists, no one will ever eat anyone else’s lo mein without asking. Besides, you started it. Of course, you could always lobby your landlord to buy lo mein for every person in the building. The only problem is he’ll have to raise Carl’s rent to afford it. That, and he’ll want to skim a little money off the top of the order. So instead of calling the expensive Chinese restaurant down the street, he’ll just call the crappy take-out place around the corner. You know, the one the Board of Health closed down six times last year? So now you and Carl will both have lo mein, but you’ll both end up puking your guts out. Is this what you want? And how’s that fair to Carl? Libertarians believe government is a lot like your landlord. Or: It’s a lot like puking your guts out. Either way, government can provide any service you ask for, but that doesn’t mean it’ll do it well (and, usually, it doesn’t). For this reason, libertarians believe we’d be better off if government left well enough alone. This perspective informs their opinion on every issue of the day. Because libertarians hold steadfast to one guiding principle, it can be tough to determine where they stand politically. Some libertarians lean right, while others lean left. Many, though, manage to lean left of the Left and right of the Right at the same time—like extremists with split personalities who happen to hate each other. On issues like gun control, free trade, and taxes, for instance, libertarians resemble Republicans. On issues of war, civil liberties, and drug prohibition, however, libertarians resemble Democrats. In each case, libertarians attempt to treat humans not as means to an end but as ends unto themselves. Neither major party is likely to please them, because the parties only pay lip service to the platforms libertarians genuinely believe in (see: “anti-war” Democrats and “free trade” Republicans). Plus, libertarians are idealists. This means they can never be happy. Now let’s take a look at a few libertarian archetypes. 1. Big “L” Libertarians: Basically, libertarians who join the Libertarian Party, thus earning a capital letter and membership card. While many Libertarians are also libertarians, not all libertarians are Libertarians. This is because Libertarians believe it’s possible to restrain a government (and believe they’re the ones to do it), while some—but not all—libertarians wouldn’t agree. The other main difference is Libertarians have a website. 2. Small “L” Libertarians: Opponents of tyranny wherever it lives—in capital letters, or on Capitol Hill. Most of them would probably prefer I call them “small ‘l’ libertarians,” as opposed to “Small ‘L’ Libertarians.” However, I don’t like how “small ‘l’ libertarians” looks in print. So I won’t use it. Anyway, these are libertarians who either put their beliefs ahead of their party affiliations or don’t believe in party affiliations at all. Thus, no capital letter. And thus, no official website. 3. Bad Libertarians: Libertarians who’ll write in complaint of this article. This includes yours truly. I think this article stinks. 4. Losertarians: Libertarians who listen to talk radio. 5. Libertarian/Other: People who profess to be “sort of libertarian, actually,” then turn around and support lots of dumb laws. Also called Pot-Smoking Republicans. Of course, none of these are technical terms. But you get the idea. Finally, I would like to close by saying that, while I’ve defined a “libertarian” as a “guy who doesn’t like government,” the truth is I personally love it. Without government, who would I make fun of? So when it comes right down to it, I suppose I only went libertarian for the jokes. Yes, I’m offended by all the senseless, government-sponsored violence throughout the world. No doubt about it. But the way I figure, nonpartisanship doubled my source of material. And who doesn’t like having fun at the establishment’s expense? So in answer to reader Mike’s question, I guess you can say libertarianism is a lot like life: It’s whatever you make of it. In other words, I have no idea what libertarianism is. And yet that’s the point. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
The following quote, from an article in MyrtleBeachonline, (Tuition bill back in House for 2nd go-round) is indicative of the limited knowledge required of a public school official charged with formulating public policy in education.
Not only is this an extremist position, but she is completely incorrect when she suggested that the framers guaranteed an education to the citizens in the United States. In a piece by David W. Kirkpatrick, a Senior Education Fellow with the U.S. Freedom Foundation, he quotes Thomas Jefferson on Education:
A second source verifies that Jefferson was not alone in his thinking on this matter.
In essence, states may mandate that an education be made available but not necessarily cover all of the costs associated with taking advantage of the opportunity. That being said, we’ve come a long way from the original intent for the federal government to leave un-enumerated authority over education to the local communities residing in the states. By going over the history of the federal role in education, it is clear that it is only in the last 50 years or so that public education has been unduly influenced by the promise of state and federal money. Fred G. Burke, the author of Public Education: Who's in Charge? provides a great synopsis of the events leading to the No Child Left Behind Act which has so divided the educational community. He begins by explaining that in l867, the U.S. Office of Education was established; its role limited to “the gathering of statistics and later to research on teaching methods.” In response to a
threat to our national security, the Smith-Hughes Act (1917) was established
to provide federal funds for vocational education to secure more skilled
manpower. An unforeseen consequence was that it diluted “local
control” over education and began legitimizing “an expanded
federal role in education.” During WWII and the Korean War, the government provided general aid to local school districts to help supplement the cost of providing services to children of military personnel. The NEA sought to use this precedent to legitimize “non-categorical federal support” for education and lobbied for such legislation. However, the National School Boards Association resisted any federal funding which might eventually result in the encroachment on local school control. Opponents of school desegregation had their own concerns about government mandated desegregation of the schools. Parochial schools feared that supplemental funding for public schools would make it more difficult to compete for students. In Painful trade-off: Good news for city schools could be bad for parochial system, Richard Schwartz echoes that same concern today.
Kirkpatrick provides yet another great Jefferson quote, with regard to the judiciary, perhaps revealing an even further reaching vision than to which he’s previously been credited.
In instances such as the above, judicial activism continues to advance the monopoly of public education by usurping the authority of the legislature and deciding on the dollar amount necessary to fulfill the mandate of government funded education for all. But I digress. Going back to the l950’s, the “Space Race” between the United States and the Soviet Union became the catalyst for the National Defense Education Act (NDEA, 1958). The fear generated by Sputnik’s launch was that our students were receiving an inferior education in science and technology to that of the Soviets. NDEA provided a solution in the form of federal funds earmarked for science, math, and foreign language instruction. Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) further expanded the federal role in education by raising awareness to the long term implications and consequences of severe educational inequality. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964 was successfully passed because it provided funding “for carefully targeted programs” reflective of social policy being implemented to address societal concerns. Since their inception, interest groups actively lobby for the continuation of these programs and the federal money to keep them alive. The Department of Education was established during Carter’s administration in the l970s. Reagan felt that the Founding Fathers would not have approved of a Department of Education and wanted it dismantled. His administration tried to “roll back” federal encroachments on the states’ educational domain. One way was to provide block grants as opposed to categorical funding, giving more control over money to the states. Furthermore, he planned to massively reduce federal expenditures for education, his goal being to return education to “state and local jurisdictions and, where possible, to the family.” His supporters firmly believed that schools should be created through free enterprise. Congress prevented him from abolishing the Department of Education. Fast forward, through the Clinton years, and it brings us up to date with NCLB. The No Child Left Behind Act changed the rules again, attaching a few seemingly simple conditions to the federal funds: students who benefit from such money must receive an appropriate education. To ensure that students were getting a fair shake, teaching methods must be based on sound scientific research on learning. States were to decide on the specific ways to meet these conditions. A time frame of one generation of students was given to make adequate yearly progress and eventually accomplish this goal. There was one catch: parents could take the money earmarked for their child and move them into a school of their choosing—one able to provide an adequate education—if the local school could not meet the conditions required of the mandate. Unfortunately, the “Educrats” hijacked the language of the bill and limited alternative options to schools within the public school system. In this way, they were able to keep all the federal money in the present monopoly of public education. They were able to limit competition for students and preserve the “status quo” which NCLB was intended to break. NCLB might work in the end. If the ineffectiveness of the public school system continues to make headline news and parents finally decide to take a stand and demand that they keep the money required of an education instead of continuing to feed the bottomless pit of the public trough, the education monopoly may yet be dismantled. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate education for their children. It’s up to the parents to demand that they be given this right. The source for a significant amount of the history of education used in this piece was found in: Questia
Media America, Inc. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
Witnessing the continuous replays from the massacre and destruction of the Twin Towers, one ordinarily seeks to understand the nature of the Evil that allows the commission of such dreadful crimes. As with most actions, behavior is motivated by the underlying beliefs, goals and aspirations of those involved. In this tragic event, we all have a difficult time accepting that such a callous disregard for innocent life is possible, from the hands of one man against another. So how can such cruelty be explained and how can it be averted from striking us again? 'Cosmic Consciousness', insight into the functional workings of our environment is always understood through the eyes, mind and culture of the observer. Values and world views are not universally shared. Our nature is similar, but our experience can be void of any resemblance from that of other Peoples. This reality of difference is hard to reconcile with the most basic moral principle, Thou Shall Not Kill. Is the taking of another life wrong, or not? Can it be justified, through rationalization or custom, or are we just playing semantic and intellectual masturbation with ourselves in a dangerous game of denial? The refuge that we all want is a sane world. Or is it? Some societies have a very different outlook of what the world should be to them. The failure to accept that most of the planet does not perceive political life from a Western viewpoint is crucial, if we wish closure of our collective grief and return to rational behavior. The argument for, and the defense of, Civilization; is a constant theme of these appeals. We attempt to use the audacity of offense, to accomplish the persuasion of intellect. Have we returned to that state of 'Normalcy', even if it is only semi rational; or are we still in our own mood of 'Cosmic Consciousness?' Our Civilization
is worthy of being defended. Accountability for ruthless criminals is
necessary and justice to achieve. The methods used to accomplish these
objectives are important, because we all want the benefit of being successful,
safe and secure. So far one of the few to benefit from the events of
clashing cultural madness, is Gary Condit. Omission is every bit as
significant as active involvement, or the means used can heap additional
incendiary combustibles onto an inferno. Rambo is alive and well, but he is not in Afghanistan. Those who condemn this message are experiencing their own version of 'Cosmic Consciousness'. Osama bin Laden & Co. are prepared to flood the world with stored stocks of heroin. These folks are not nice customers, but they may have to resort in placing advertisement, to sell their wears into a new market. It seems that many of their regular clientele and most vocal belligerent hawks are already high on their own testosterone hallucinogens. There is NO equivalency in EVIL between the Terrorists and those who call for accountability. That has never been the issue. As a Nation, America has been violated. But the culpability of those who have a distorted and perverted version of their own 'Cosmic Consciousness', leads the rest of us, and the country that we love, to have a liability from the consequences of their preferred misdeed. Some go so far as to border upon becoming 'voyeurs' in their lust for blood, anyone's blood. We can hear their call for a Peter Arnett play by play account of lighted skies with Triple A, and exploding 'collateral damage'. Maybe if we are lucky, Bernie Shaw can find another bed to crawl under? I can hear it now, sing it Archie: Boy, those were the days . . . Well I'm no Meathead, just because a sensible policy is advocated. The little 'Shrub' is growing out of being a Bush, and is starting to bloom into a flower. He is no flower child, nor do we expect him to become one. Action is warranted, but not the kind that the militarist want. At least that's the hope. How many times have we all been disappointed in the past! This one is too important to allow that to happen this time. So you arm chair Rambos need to learn from the man in the original 'First Blood'. "They drew first blood, not me..." you say! Well, he showed restraint in the beginning and by the end he was saying: "Where is everybody? Who are my friends? Back here there is nothing." Let's hope you will adopt the behavior of patience to achieve honor, so you will need not speak the lament of a lone warrior. One sunk in a sea of sand, in a ruined pursuit of your own version of 'Cosmic Consciousness'.
|
||||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, February 6, 2005 2:03 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||||
