Unlike Egypt and Tunisia, Yemen is a very backward nation. Situated on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula, this impoverished state has also been swept up in the Middle Eastern tide of revolutions.
Political skeptics point out that lasting reform, if any reform at all takes hold, will struggle far more to take root in this country. Notwithstanding the vocal opposition of intellectuals and political activists against the 23-year reign of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, numerous warring tribes in the vast rural outreaches of the country are demanding change from their government, too. Instead of favorin democratic processes with liberal Western values, these tribal leaders want to impose sharia law, which would make the current Saleh regime look like a liberal paradise in comparison.
Though these factions of middle class and tribe oppose the current corrupt autocratic regime, the war between them after removing Saleh from power would devaste to the region. This presently latent conflict would compromise liberalizing trends taking shape in the Middle East. From the power vacuum which would ensure between secular intellects and tribal chieftains, who knows what worse evil would manifest itself? Al-Qaeda has already directed a number of sinister operations from Yemen, where political instability would further afford them opportunities to branch out their terrorist networks.
The potential outcomes of the Middle Eastern populist revolts in Yemen underscore the caution that the world must exercise in evaluating the short and long-term effects of revolution in this part of the world.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Ohio Governor Goes Further in Weakening Public Sector Unions
Ohio Governor John Kasich is expected to sign into law a bill which would outlaw strikes by public employees in his state as well as limit their collective bargaining rights. Their proposed bill from his Republican-dominated Legislature goes further than the Wisconsin Legislature's proposals, since it will impact all public sector employees, including police and fire.
These Midwestern governors are taking an impressive stance on behalf of their state and citizens. At last government leaders are advocating for the interests of the entire community, not just for powerful public employee unions. No matter what locality or state, a civil servant (police, fire, public works, library, etc.) serves at the behest of the community, receiving their pay and benefits from the taxes paid by current and future citizens. It is unjust for these works to organize and hold state affairs hostage to get everything they want, including obscene pensions and exorbitant health care benefits, all which come at a insane cost to the taxpayer.
Despite the less aggressive approach of the Wisconsin bill, I still respect Governor Stan Walker's endeavor to bring fiscal stability to his state. Wisconsin's legislature had to take smaller steps compared to Ohio for two reasons: the Buckeye State's industrial sector has been decimated far worse than in the Dairy State. Moreover, Wisconsin has a more progressive history, which has strengthened the public sector unions. Even though Walker did not initially press for stronger measures to return union power to the people, at least he made strides to change state government's relationship with its employees.
Having served as a model for other states to take on their public sector unions, perhaps Walker will follow the example of states like Ohio, which are stripping powers from every public sector union, including those workers dedicated to public safety. Beyond that, as a resident in California, I hope that the electorate in my state will challenge the statist status quo which has crippled Sacramento into a public employee headlock, impoverishing our state, diminishing vital services, and bankrupting future generations with unsustainable entitlement liabilities.
These Midwestern governors are taking an impressive stance on behalf of their state and citizens. At last government leaders are advocating for the interests of the entire community, not just for powerful public employee unions. No matter what locality or state, a civil servant (police, fire, public works, library, etc.) serves at the behest of the community, receiving their pay and benefits from the taxes paid by current and future citizens. It is unjust for these works to organize and hold state affairs hostage to get everything they want, including obscene pensions and exorbitant health care benefits, all which come at a insane cost to the taxpayer.
Despite the less aggressive approach of the Wisconsin bill, I still respect Governor Stan Walker's endeavor to bring fiscal stability to his state. Wisconsin's legislature had to take smaller steps compared to Ohio for two reasons: the Buckeye State's industrial sector has been decimated far worse than in the Dairy State. Moreover, Wisconsin has a more progressive history, which has strengthened the public sector unions. Even though Walker did not initially press for stronger measures to return union power to the people, at least he made strides to change state government's relationship with its employees.
Having served as a model for other states to take on their public sector unions, perhaps Walker will follow the example of states like Ohio, which are stripping powers from every public sector union, including those workers dedicated to public safety. Beyond that, as a resident in California, I hope that the electorate in my state will challenge the statist status quo which has crippled Sacramento into a public employee headlock, impoverishing our state, diminishing vital services, and bankrupting future generations with unsustainable entitlement liabilities.
Unrest Boils Over in Iraq
Finally, the International Media is paying attention to Iraq.
I am not at all dismayed by the political upheaval erupting in Baghdad. This is all part of the natural progression of liberty. Freedom isn't free, the path to democracy is not short and sweet, and an enlightened and enraged public has to speak out many times to effect lasting change in its nation's government.
From the signing of the Constitution, to the Compromises over Slavery, to the Civil War, to the Civil Rights Acts of the 1870 until the 1960s, freedom and Democracy followed a slow, steady, sometimes even slighted, but ultimately successful path in the United States. The world should expect nothing less from the countries just now breaking free from decades of oppression.
A nation of endemic corruption like Iraq was not going to rapidly change with the ouster and execution of one dictator, Saddam Hussein. A fledgling police force (security), stock market (commerce), and press (publicity) must flex their muscles over time in order to achieve a more responsive society on behalf of the Iraqi people.
American nationalists decried President Bush 43's invasion of Iraq as myopic and fantastical nation-building. True, nations must reform themselves from within, and we are witnessing that reformation transpire throughout the Middle East, including Iraq. In 2003, Coalition forces helped nudge that nation closer to freedom by getting rid of a brutal dictator who not only terrorized his own people, but set surrounding nations on edge.
If we consider the tumultuous course of events which Iraqi has borne over the last few years, they are ahead of the revolutionary tide sweeping the Middle East. Having witnessed the downfall of one dictator, having elected a parliament and prime minister, they have more experience behind them to react, rebel, and reform their nation's government in the months to come.
I am not at all dismayed by the political upheaval erupting in Baghdad. This is all part of the natural progression of liberty. Freedom isn't free, the path to democracy is not short and sweet, and an enlightened and enraged public has to speak out many times to effect lasting change in its nation's government.
From the signing of the Constitution, to the Compromises over Slavery, to the Civil War, to the Civil Rights Acts of the 1870 until the 1960s, freedom and Democracy followed a slow, steady, sometimes even slighted, but ultimately successful path in the United States. The world should expect nothing less from the countries just now breaking free from decades of oppression.
A nation of endemic corruption like Iraq was not going to rapidly change with the ouster and execution of one dictator, Saddam Hussein. A fledgling police force (security), stock market (commerce), and press (publicity) must flex their muscles over time in order to achieve a more responsive society on behalf of the Iraqi people.
American nationalists decried President Bush 43's invasion of Iraq as myopic and fantastical nation-building. True, nations must reform themselves from within, and we are witnessing that reformation transpire throughout the Middle East, including Iraq. In 2003, Coalition forces helped nudge that nation closer to freedom by getting rid of a brutal dictator who not only terrorized his own people, but set surrounding nations on edge.
If we consider the tumultuous course of events which Iraqi has borne over the last few years, they are ahead of the revolutionary tide sweeping the Middle East. Having witnessed the downfall of one dictator, having elected a parliament and prime minister, they have more experience behind them to react, rebel, and reform their nation's government in the months to come.
Obama's Stance on Gadhafi
For the first time, President Obama has spoken out boldly for the removal of an Arab dictator in the Middle East. He has acknowledged that Moammar Gadhafi has lost the respect and allegiance of his people, and that he must step down.
Where was President Obama during the Green Revolution in June 2009? Millions of Iranians protests in the streets against the fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Some people gave their lives speaking out against that corrupt, menacing, and tyrannical regime. Now, in 2011, the people of Iran have risen up again against their "president" and the religious zealot Mullahs who pull all the strings in that country. Yet President Obama will not speak out against the oppressors. He will not champion the common noble desire for freedom which the Iranians are crying out for.
What is motivating President Obama's selective support for freedom?
All things consider, Gadhafi is a fossil, a 42-year-old relic. His ouster would not have serious repercussions in the region. Even Israel has little to fear if Libya devolves into a chaotic civil war, for the Jewish state never had an open treaty with Libya, compared to Egypt or Jordan. There is no great harm to Obama's standing on the international stage in speaking out for freedom in a nation whose demise and dysfunction have no real consequences. At least that is the perception.
When will President Obama take a firm stand for anything? When will he speak out for repressed people around the world without trying to calculate the potential cost to the coveted stability and superficial adoration he enjoys in the Middle East?
Where was President Obama during the Green Revolution in June 2009? Millions of Iranians protests in the streets against the fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Some people gave their lives speaking out against that corrupt, menacing, and tyrannical regime. Now, in 2011, the people of Iran have risen up again against their "president" and the religious zealot Mullahs who pull all the strings in that country. Yet President Obama will not speak out against the oppressors. He will not champion the common noble desire for freedom which the Iranians are crying out for.
What is motivating President Obama's selective support for freedom?
All things consider, Gadhafi is a fossil, a 42-year-old relic. His ouster would not have serious repercussions in the region. Even Israel has little to fear if Libya devolves into a chaotic civil war, for the Jewish state never had an open treaty with Libya, compared to Egypt or Jordan. There is no great harm to Obama's standing on the international stage in speaking out for freedom in a nation whose demise and dysfunction have no real consequences. At least that is the perception.
When will President Obama take a firm stand for anything? When will he speak out for repressed people around the world without trying to calculate the potential cost to the coveted stability and superficial adoration he enjoys in the Middle East?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Don't Back Down, Governor Walker
 |
| Scott Walker |
Republican Governor Stan Walker of Wisconsin is facing quite a backlash for his efforts to balance the state budget and tame the power of public employee unions. To recap his efforts, not only is Walker requesting that public employee unions contribute more toward their health benefits and pensions, he wants to take away their collective bargaining rights.
In protest, public employees from all areas of civic responsibility have picketed the state capitol. Democratic legislators in the Senate have fled the legislature to prevent a quorum from passing the Governor's proposals.
I stand with Governor Walker. He has chosen a necessary and principled position. He has the legacy of progressive President Franklin Delano Roosevelt behind him: "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service" (1937). He has the brave example set by then-Governor Calvin Coolidge against the Boston Police strike: "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anyone, anywhere, any time" (1919). How can we forget President Ronald Reagan's unilateral termination of air-traffic control workers who went on strike, breaking an oath not to engage in such activity (1981)?
Public workers enjoy the public trust, funded by public money. Their collective actions disrupt everyone, not just the particular managing firms that supervise them. Civil servants have no right to demand more money from the public coffers without being held more directly accountable to those who have hired them, and to those who compensate them.
Stand firm, Governor Walker. Don't give in to the unions. End collective bargaining in the public sector, restore fiscal sanity to your state, and set the example that other states need to follow.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Entertainers Donating Ill-Gotten Gain
Associated Press has reported that Canadian pop singer Nelly Furtado will donate the $1,000,000 fee that she received for performing for the Gadhafis in 2007.
Reports also indicated Beyoncé, Usher, and Mariah Carey have also performed for the dictator and his family.
What have these entertainers done with their integrity? Have they no shame? Don't they realize that performing for tyrants validates them, and that the fees they receive are tainted with corruption and the blood of their people?
It's one thing to donate funds, the likely overage of ill-gotten gains.
It would have been far more admirable if these performers had declined to perform for that ruthless dictator and his extended family in the first place.
Reports also indicated Beyoncé, Usher, and Mariah Carey have also performed for the dictator and his family.
What have these entertainers done with their integrity? Have they no shame? Don't they realize that performing for tyrants validates them, and that the fees they receive are tainted with corruption and the blood of their people?
It's one thing to donate funds, the likely overage of ill-gotten gains.
It would have been far more admirable if these performers had declined to perform for that ruthless dictator and his extended family in the first place.
Response to Prager's Revolutionary Skepticism
In a recent article, conservative columnist Dennis Prager warns readers to temper their enthusiasm about the revolutions sweeping across North America and the Middle East.
He reserves his most wary caution for the recent capitulation of Hosni Mubarak.
Egypt has a history of Anti-Semitic undercurrents, with a very disorderly political process. The strongest political force in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, threatens the peaceful existence of the Jewish state.
On a more general note, Prager asserts, the ouster of homegrown dictators does not spawn liberal, democratic regimes.
To this concern I submit that we do not want purely Democratic regimes sprouting all over the Middle East, only to be taken over and transformed into greater tyranny. Natan Sharansky, former Soviet-dissident and current Zionist and civil rights activist, has outlined at length in his work The Case for Democracy that a full-function liberal state requires time, dedication, deliberate (and deliberated) reform, and a fundamental respect for human rights, including freedom of speech and religion.
True, the track record for tyrannical regimes transforming into civil republics is a poor one, but we should not disdainfully despair of its possibility.
Consider the United States, which began as a very weak regime that committed far too much power to the several states at the expense of a stable central government. The Framers of the Constitution may have exaggerated their healthy fear of an encroaching central power, but at least their work set the foundation for significant, albeit slow, reforms. For example, even though the United States Constitution originally endorsed slavery, the Framers incorporated a process whereby future stakeholders in the United States could make necessary amendments.
For a stronger example of slow but certain liberalization, consider the revolutions which plagued England, from the execution of Charles the First in 1649 until the Glorious Revolution of 1688. For nearly two decades, civil war ravaged the English countryside, only to be restored to order by a Puritanical dictatorship more loathsome than the Royal Despotism of the Stuart Dynasty. However, bloodshed eventually gave way to bloodless transition, with the a weakened co-regency extending greater powers to Parliament. Besides these political reversals, it is important also to keep in mind that the English citizens' very conception of right and due process evolved over centuries, from the Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Bill of Rights published in 1689. Despite the incredible length of time required to develop these institutions, liberal republicanism did take shape in the United Kingdom.
Though the world today should maintain some skepticism in the face of these dramatic political upheavals overtaking the Middle East, we must not discount the sincere opportunity that regimes more favorable to human rights and international peace may emerge in lands which have for so long been barren of individual liberty.
He reserves his most wary caution for the recent capitulation of Hosni Mubarak.
Egypt has a history of Anti-Semitic undercurrents, with a very disorderly political process. The strongest political force in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, threatens the peaceful existence of the Jewish state.
On a more general note, Prager asserts, the ouster of homegrown dictators does not spawn liberal, democratic regimes.
To this concern I submit that we do not want purely Democratic regimes sprouting all over the Middle East, only to be taken over and transformed into greater tyranny. Natan Sharansky, former Soviet-dissident and current Zionist and civil rights activist, has outlined at length in his work The Case for Democracy that a full-function liberal state requires time, dedication, deliberate (and deliberated) reform, and a fundamental respect for human rights, including freedom of speech and religion.
True, the track record for tyrannical regimes transforming into civil republics is a poor one, but we should not disdainfully despair of its possibility.
Consider the United States, which began as a very weak regime that committed far too much power to the several states at the expense of a stable central government. The Framers of the Constitution may have exaggerated their healthy fear of an encroaching central power, but at least their work set the foundation for significant, albeit slow, reforms. For example, even though the United States Constitution originally endorsed slavery, the Framers incorporated a process whereby future stakeholders in the United States could make necessary amendments.
For a stronger example of slow but certain liberalization, consider the revolutions which plagued England, from the execution of Charles the First in 1649 until the Glorious Revolution of 1688. For nearly two decades, civil war ravaged the English countryside, only to be restored to order by a Puritanical dictatorship more loathsome than the Royal Despotism of the Stuart Dynasty. However, bloodshed eventually gave way to bloodless transition, with the a weakened co-regency extending greater powers to Parliament. Besides these political reversals, it is important also to keep in mind that the English citizens' very conception of right and due process evolved over centuries, from the Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Bill of Rights published in 1689. Despite the incredible length of time required to develop these institutions, liberal republicanism did take shape in the United Kingdom.
Though the world today should maintain some skepticism in the face of these dramatic political upheavals overtaking the Middle East, we must not discount the sincere opportunity that regimes more favorable to human rights and international peace may emerge in lands which have for so long been barren of individual liberty.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Gadhafi's Ironic Failure to Learn from History
It's unfortunate that for all of his shouting and fighting, Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi has failed to follow the learned advice from a celebrated philosopher who wrote nearly two centuries before Gadhafi's imperilled reign. This thinker even expounded his opinions wrote with Tripoli's head of state in mind.
In "Securities against Misrule and other Constitutional Writings for Tripoli and Greece", utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham outlined the necessary liberal reforms for Mediterranean States to establish stable and healthy democratic governments. The philosopher's main arguments maintained the superiority of elected representatives in serving the people and media publicity as the chief means for stopping the abuse of political power.
What a strange irony that the current, illiberal leader stationed in Tripoli, Libya, is resorting to Western media outlets to justify himself and shore up his role as firmly-established leader of his nation.
The very principle he employs, publicity, is the very resource which is his undoing: one of Bentham's original arguments. The chief security against misrule or abuse of power is . . .publicity. Trapped in his own arrogance, Gadhafi is proving a fundamental principle of the liberal state, originally published in support of the head of state in Tripoli!
"Those who fail to learn from history . . . ."
In "Securities against Misrule and other Constitutional Writings for Tripoli and Greece", utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham outlined the necessary liberal reforms for Mediterranean States to establish stable and healthy democratic governments. The philosopher's main arguments maintained the superiority of elected representatives in serving the people and media publicity as the chief means for stopping the abuse of political power.
What a strange irony that the current, illiberal leader stationed in Tripoli, Libya, is resorting to Western media outlets to justify himself and shore up his role as firmly-established leader of his nation.
The very principle he employs, publicity, is the very resource which is his undoing: one of Bentham's original arguments. The chief security against misrule or abuse of power is . . .publicity. Trapped in his own arrogance, Gadhafi is proving a fundamental principle of the liberal state, originally published in support of the head of state in Tripoli!
"Those who fail to learn from history . . . ."
Government Shutdown 2011: Something to Fear?
As the budget impasse in the Federal Government grows more protracted between Republicans who want to cut and Democrats who want to retain, the closing March 4 deadline for a plan grows more ominous. Without a budget with outlined appropriations, the U.S. Government will shut down.
Many pundits and policy wonks claim that a government shutdown would be disastrous for the United States. In reality, a government shutdown would stop everything except essential services in this country. The military will still stand guard. The post office will still deliver mail, but they and other federal employees will not get paid. Even Social Security checks will still be mailed out, if there are employees and resources still in place to process them. National museums and parks will close. Applications for passports, welfare benefits, and social security will not be processed.
In effect, a government shut down would provide an opportunity for the American people to witness how much they accomplish on their own without government. Do we not have private agencies which deliver our mail, and deliver it more efficiently? Would it not be better for elderly and retired persons to save their own money, ensuring for themselves a more secure future? Could not private and local interests fare just as well (if not better) in managing parks and recreational facilities in this country?
Notwithstanding legislators' wary recriminations about the 1995 shutdown, the Republicans now hold the high ground. Since Barack Obama became President, the United States electorate has grown much more aware, and outraged, by the deficit spending and the burgeoning national debt burdening this country.
The profligate appropriations, unsupportable entitlements, and utter irresponsibility of our lawmakers with tax-payers' money has brought this nation to this vulnerable turning point. A government shut-down may be just what it takes to shake loose services from the unconstitutional sway of the federal government and return them to state, local, and private initiatives, where they belong. If Americans realize that a stalled government hinders their daily lives far less than an active government, then the Republicans will have won the argument pressing for less federal regulation, intrusion, and control; and President Obama and the Democrats will have even fewer talking points to justify their statist agenda.
I vaguely recall someone in President Obama's coterie asserting, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." The Republicans have nothing to lose in capitalizing on this extensive financial debacle to further their agenda, the long-term financial well-being of this nation.
Many pundits and policy wonks claim that a government shutdown would be disastrous for the United States. In reality, a government shutdown would stop everything except essential services in this country. The military will still stand guard. The post office will still deliver mail, but they and other federal employees will not get paid. Even Social Security checks will still be mailed out, if there are employees and resources still in place to process them. National museums and parks will close. Applications for passports, welfare benefits, and social security will not be processed.
In effect, a government shut down would provide an opportunity for the American people to witness how much they accomplish on their own without government. Do we not have private agencies which deliver our mail, and deliver it more efficiently? Would it not be better for elderly and retired persons to save their own money, ensuring for themselves a more secure future? Could not private and local interests fare just as well (if not better) in managing parks and recreational facilities in this country?
Notwithstanding legislators' wary recriminations about the 1995 shutdown, the Republicans now hold the high ground. Since Barack Obama became President, the United States electorate has grown much more aware, and outraged, by the deficit spending and the burgeoning national debt burdening this country.
The profligate appropriations, unsupportable entitlements, and utter irresponsibility of our lawmakers with tax-payers' money has brought this nation to this vulnerable turning point. A government shut-down may be just what it takes to shake loose services from the unconstitutional sway of the federal government and return them to state, local, and private initiatives, where they belong. If Americans realize that a stalled government hinders their daily lives far less than an active government, then the Republicans will have won the argument pressing for less federal regulation, intrusion, and control; and President Obama and the Democrats will have even fewer talking points to justify their statist agenda.
I vaguely recall someone in President Obama's coterie asserting, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." The Republicans have nothing to lose in capitalizing on this extensive financial debacle to further their agenda, the long-term financial well-being of this nation.
A Likeable (But Likely?) Presidential Candidate
So far, it looks as if Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels possesses the experience, credentials, and skills to take on the mantle of President of the United States.
Like Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, he has tackled the huge budget deficits which plagued his home state of Indiana. Even better, he has privatized core state functions like the roads in to independent operators, which has not only maintained the road and freeway systems in the state, but has netted the state coffers a tidy profit. While most states are still reeling from huge debt margins in their state budgets, Indiana has enjoyed a surplus in its coffers.
Daniels is a social conservative, but not brazenly so, which will prevent him from alienating independent voters and disaffected Democrats. Well-liked in his home state, he is even taking on the public employees unions' right to collective bargaining. This bold step has driven the shrinking minority of Indiana Democrats to flee the state, just like their craven counterparts in Wisconsin.
As already mentioned, Daniels is well-known and well-respected in Indiana. However, will this popularity engage the national electorate? Besides the problem of name recognition, Governor Daniels lacks charisma, a crucial factor in persuading others to vote for him.
Daniels is worthy to be President. On the other hand, is worthy to be elected President?
Like Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, he has tackled the huge budget deficits which plagued his home state of Indiana. Even better, he has privatized core state functions like the roads in to independent operators, which has not only maintained the road and freeway systems in the state, but has netted the state coffers a tidy profit. While most states are still reeling from huge debt margins in their state budgets, Indiana has enjoyed a surplus in its coffers.
Daniels is a social conservative, but not brazenly so, which will prevent him from alienating independent voters and disaffected Democrats. Well-liked in his home state, he is even taking on the public employees unions' right to collective bargaining. This bold step has driven the shrinking minority of Indiana Democrats to flee the state, just like their craven counterparts in Wisconsin.
I am not concerned by a long-past drug conviction which has recently come to late (as Republican contenders for the Presidency have to face sooner or later). In fact, it highlights Daniel's integrity, because since then he has been an able and responsible public servant.
Daniels is worthy to be President. On the other hand, is worthy to be elected President?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)