Something happened yesterday. An accident. Two unfortunate deaths. Sadness and loss.
However, based on the news stories, the inuedno, and the fear it would appear that “liberal mainstream media” is participating very willingly in promoting the war on Terror. Read the rest of this entry »
The entire duration of John Adams’ presidency was complicated by the threat of war with France. No one was sure how things would turn out as the Jacobins battled the old aristocracy and Bonaparte for control. The French were capturing U.S. merchants vessels and behaving as if the U.S. were only a transient entity on the world-stage. In the U.S. politicians, the media, and the people had divided themselves into two camps: the Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton), who pushed for war with France to establish the U.S. as a power and to push attain vengeance for prior bad acts by the French; and the Republicans (mainly Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) who pushed for reconciliation and almost capitulation to the desires of France.
During the 4th century BC, Athens dominated the Eastern Mediterranean artistically, economically, politically and philosophically. Sparta remained a power because of its military structure and political stability, but economically she exerted little influence. Fast forward 2500 years. The U.S. dominates the world politically, economically and sadly, culturally (Michael Jackson, Brittney Spears, etc.). There are a few militaristic nations that remain a power (China and Russia), but the U.S. is the sole superpower. Does Athens’ behavior have any correlation with its fate, and is the U.S. falling into the same situation?
The headlines don’t read so blatantly, but the failure of the Doha round of the WTO talks essentially results in the above title. With the U.S. unwilling to work to eliminate farm subsidies and the European Union and the U.S. unwilling to open their markets to poorer countris, they have only perpetuated the protectionism and poverty and limited the opportunities for third world countries to enter the world market. No wonder Hugo Chavez can argue that capitalism doesn’t work to take care of the poor and that the U.S. practices unfair economic policies because he is right on both accounts.
The U.S. demands that third-world countries open their markets, but as the richest, most prosperous nation, is unwilling to do so. If the U.S. is going to be a lasting world leader, they must lead by example, by implimenting the law of universality and allowing for application to itself the restrictions and recommendations it essentially imposes on other countries.
Bolivia president Evo Morales announced that he has initiated a program fundamental to his victory in late 2005. He promised indigenous Bolivians that if elected, he would redistribute farm land to them. This weekend, the program got underway with Morales giving state-owned land to indigenous communities. Privately-owned, non-productive farm land is next.
This is the outline of a speech I gave for a current events seminar. It’s somewhat rough, but gets out the ideas. I’m sure this will provide plenty for discussion and argument.
Equal opportunity is the bedrock of freedom. This nation was established to preserve, protect, and ensure that opportunity. The United States (and the world) will need to make a very important decision over the next 30 years: whether to choose democracy or capitalism. One system protects equal opportunity while the other stifles it. These opposing approaches to political economy have been bed-partners for over 150 years, being bound more tightly during the 20th century as the world attempted to settled the question of totalitarianism (as the face of fascism and communism) vs. parlimentarianism (as the face of capitalism).
Latin America provides an interesting focal point to discuss this split. Over the next few minutes we will discuss 10 questions that lead us through the issues. In order to explain this decision, we must first define our terms.
The war in Iraq had never made sense to me. First we were told there was a connection between Al-Queda and Sadaam Hussein. Then we were told it was because they had weapons of mass destruction and were progressing toward nuclear capability. After the U.S. military arrived and toppled Sadaam and there were no WMDs we were told that the war was to eliminate a ruthless dictator and establish a foothold for democracy in the Middle East. I agreed that Sadaam was a bad dude, but there are a lot of other bad dudes in the world, so that made me ask: why Iraq? Was it about oil? Haliburton? And how seriously do we believe that Iraq will become a foothold for democracy, given that there is no history of this form of government in the region? Read the rest of this entry »
The Republican party is oblivious on many accounts (as is the Democratic). However, one which seems obvious to me is the role and values of Latin American immigrants. Most latinos have what conservatives would term “strong family values.” Most value traditional families, small community-based action and involvement, fiscal responsibility (they can’t get credit so they buy everything the old-fashioned conservative way: they save their money and buy it). Most latinos have strong religious and moral values. So why are they so drawn to the Democratic Party??? It is because the Demos tell them that they represent their interests. They court them and attempt to bring them into their camp. Meanwhile, the party of Lincoln attacks illegal immigration as if, as I heard today, they are “robbing a bank,” breaking the law and attempting to get something for nothing. Read the rest of this entry »
Peru and Mexico are holding elections this summer. They could be the latest in a string of Latin America countries to move left of center on the political spectrum. The question is, is this a good move for Latin America and for the U.S.?
Venezuela and Cuba aside, the other Latin American governments appear to be very willing and desirous to continue to maintain good relationships with the U.S. (including Evo Morales, indigenous president of Bolivia who has been very friendly with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez). The problem is in a post 9/11 world the U.S. has essentially been ignoring Latin America (which isn’t wise for many reasons which we will explore in the future) and it seems that relationships are deteriorating.
The current leadership in Latin America seems to be dedicated to opening up markets, if the U.S. and Europe will do the same. They seem to be desirous to root out corruption and create an environment where democracy can truly take hold. The problem may be that the U.S. continues to ignore the region and approach the relationship condescendingly at best and quasi-imperialistically at worst. U.S. protectionism of agricultural markets does nothing to encourage free trade and only strains the economic ties and therefore the political relationship. Also U.S. policy of pushing for privatization of nation mineral and petroleum reserves (which dramatically benefit large European and U.S. companies at the expense of the native peoples) has moved many Latin American countries to push for nationalizing these resources.
If the international relationships worsens throughout the hemisphere, security risks increase. Only through establishing workable and more equitable economic and political relationships will the U.S. be able to encourage Latin American help in accomplishing the goals of prosperity, peace, and progress for the entire region.