A Warning to Heed

I put off my political blogging for a year but I couldn't stay away any longer. I became very discouraged to what was happening in this country and the world around us. I became despondent and further just numb to it all. It's easy to get a defeatist mindset when you see great injustice, great ignorance, and great violence-not just physical violence you see in the world by extremist groups or brutal dictators; but also the violent legislative assaults on freedoms, individual rights and liberty we see in more free democracies. I began to think writing, advocating, stirring discussion and educating were worthless endeavors. I missed the entire reason why I should keep writing. The mere fact that I have the freedom and a guaranteed right to be able to express freedom of thought through blogging or any type of writing venue should be put to use. This is a cherished freedom that so many people throughout the world do not have. One of the main superpowers who we have a very cold relationship with, China, is still a Communist dictatorship where freedom of thought, expression and especially what I'm doing here, blogging, is highly restricted and controlled. There is a constant geopolitical struggle with China in the Asian hemisphere. The struggle also deals with ideology. America stands for the free nation states of the West. China stands for the authoritarian states of the East. There is a place now where the struggle is at a fierce head. The place is the South China Sea. I chose this story about our old enemy, China, and the South China Sea as my first blog piece in a while. The reason is pretty simple. There is a warning to heed. There is a global race for resources and power. China sees this very valuable area of water as their's and their's alone. Any other countries' claim to areas of the South China Sea are being dismissed by China and China has been rapidly building artificial islands/military bases in the sea. The South China Sea is so stratigically important for resources and for shipping. There are vast oil reserves there and China are drunk on the oil there with there massive drilling activities. In the original article I began with, there is a warning. China has explicitly warned us militarily and said they are ready for a fight over their rapid and threatening expansion in the South China Sea.

The red line is China's claim in the map above. I don't want to focus on the warning that China has offered for what "may" happen if we interfere. I want to focus on the warning of what already "has" happened. China is there and has been growing without any constraint or action from the free world. They are entrenched and will continue their hostilities toward the free world and their global commerce. Hell, they are even threatening fellow authoritarian states like Vietnam. So, the warning we need to heed is that China is in a fixed, immovable (without force) position from their military expansion into the waters of the South China Sea. The name China is in it, so I guess that means it can be all theirs, right? Well, they are here to stay and not going away. So, this is in the lap of the free world to make a decision. We can respond with words such as "unprecedented move" or "illegal move." We could get certain think tanks involved to offer their analysis to counter China's arguments. But there requires more action. Remember we are in a very historical moment. The History books that will be written about this time will either show the free world shrink in power toward China and the authoritarian states; or they will show a pivotal moment where the free world makes a stand.

How do we approach this warning and geopolitical situation from a classical liberal perspective? War is something that we should avoid in most situations. History shows us where ill advised and unconstitutional warfare has cost us in human lives, standing in the world and financially. An interventionist strategy and democratizing of the world tends to lead to terrible unintended consequences. I believe with China there is a difference to what we've tried in the Middle East. There's no nation building or interventionism involved here. China poses a real threat to us and the free world. There is a fight for not only international commerce with shipping lanes and the race for resources, but also an ideological fight. Furthermore, China has explicitly threatened us militarily which must be responded to with a show of power of our own. This doesn't mean a preliminary military attack. I am also not saying that America is this powerless nation in the world. We in fact do have a lot of power in the world and one reason why is that we have great cooperative relationships with many states including some authoritarian states (except North Korea with some very good reasons). Many cooperative relationships are based on friendly actions by those nations we cooperate and trade with. China has no intentions of a friendly foreign policy. America has made some mistakes as well in the "friendly" department but that doesn't excuse China's actions nor excludes us from responding. We have an intertwined economy with China but that doesn't mean we should allow them to threaten us and make insane claims to areas of water as their complete own. America has the absolute right to respond to threats even if its from a country that we trade with. Not many Americans will care about this but we all should. It is a warning we should heed. We've had two World Wars that were not so far back. We also had the Cold War not too long ago and it seems we are yet involved in another Cold War. There are so many countries at odds and moving in threatening and defensive positions preparing for another world conflict. The Middle East, East Europe and Africa are grounds where world superpowers are preparing. Now we have the South China Sea where China is on the war path and with their bold explicit warnings they sound the beat of the war drums. Will we heed the warning?

Our Foreign Policy and Treaties

An interesting article that brings to light our entangling alliances.

'But Beckley concludes that today American wars are due less to these treaties and more to "the tendency of U.S. leaders to define national interests expansively, to exaggerate the magnitude of foreign threats, and to underestimate the costs of military intervention."'

http://theweek.com/speedreads/558111/obliged-war-67-countries-including-cuba

"The Founders’ Model of Welfare Actually Reduced Poverty" via The Daily Signal

This is the most important article I've read regarding American history and Welfare policy.

There has been a shift from a more common sensed approach based on the understanding of human character. A system that "helps drive people out of poverty" and "minimize incentives" that lead to abuse of the system. It has  become more of a "generational inheritance." Welfare has become more of a "living wage."

Another thing that this article pushes is something I've been advocating personally; which is more State autonomy and local administration of welfare benefits. A more localized approach can help eliminate abuse and more accurately weed out who are truly in need of it.

Here is an excerpt:

Rather than making welfare a generational inheritance, Franklin thought it should assist the poor in overcoming poverty as expediently as possible: “I am for doing good to the poor.…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”

Moreover, local, rather than federal, officials administered this welfare, since they were more likely to know the particular needs of recipients and could distinguish between the deserving poor (the disabled and involuntarily unemployed) and the undeserving poor (those capable of work but preferring not to).

The Founders sought to provide aid in a way that would help the deserving poor but minimize incentives for recipients to act irresponsibly. They wanted to protect the rights of taxpayers by preventing corruption and abuses in welfare aid.

Above all, the Founders saw the family and life-long marriage as the primary means of support for everyone, rich and poor alike.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/30/the-founders-model-of-welfare-actually-reduced-poverty/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

"History Rhymes"

Oh Hill no! Clinton's stale presidential plan wrong for nation. http://tiny.iavian.net/4uxk

This is the most honest and poignant piece on Hillary's 2016 run I've read thus far. A Clinton running for office seems to be just another robotic move in American politics with nothing fresh, new, or riveting. The writer says the following:

Fish gotta swim, and a Clinton’s gotta run, so there was never an iota of doubt.

But time has marched on and the world has changed, making The Plan, and her, look stuck in the past. What the great Murray Kempton wrote in 1965 of John Lindsay’s first mayoral run — “He is fresh and everyone else is tired” — is not something anybody says of Hillary these days.

Furthermore, there is a heavy cloud of dishonesty that follows Clinton. The article mentions a poll taken showing many Americans believe exactly that.

The timing just doesn't seem right. Her best chances were in 2008 but we saw how a fresh, new, and riveting young challenger named Obama end that run as well.

Pharmacists and Death Row

Pharmacists Group Votes To Discourage Members From Providing Execution Drugs http://n.pr/1ytSbSa

The APA says providing drugs to States for use in executions is "fundamentally contrary to the role of pharmacists as providers of health care."

In essence, Pharmacists are health care providers. Hence, Pharmacists assisting in providing death totally contradicts what they stand for. Although, it could be argued that there are medications that kill people. However, that is off topic here. 

I can understand the APA's (American Pharmacists Association) decision here. It reminds me of the "firemen" in the powerful future dystopia classic, Fahrenheit 45; who's job was the exact opposite of what firemen are supposed to do. Actually and darkly ironic, it was more accurate to their name. They set the fires instead of putting them out. So, maybe Pharmacists are failing to fight death and ill- health when they provide drugs specifically for use in killing humans. What is more, they might be fanning the flames of death instead of putting them out.

Power's Great Soul

http://theweek.com/articles/544553/democrats-shameful-double-standard-abuse-power

This great article by Bonnie Kristian in The Week brilliantly points to the fallacy of the political mindset that "Our Party can use it right" and how certain powers are inherently dangerous. Power in general is corruptable, seductive, and unpredictable without limits. Your political party cannot "use it better" and thus have more leeway on not following constitutional restrictions.

Below is an important excerpt:

There is no partisan monopoly on corruption, no R or D stamp of guarantee to ensure power, once acquired, will not be misused. For every Nixon, there's an FDR; and if House of Cards has taught us anything, it's that most people in Washington will get away with whatever they think they can get away with, regardless of party affiliation.

In a 2008 speech now frequently cited by his critics, President Obama seemed aware of the hazard in amassing power in one branch of government. "I take the Constitution very seriously," he said. "The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America."

Six years in, it's clear that there will be no such reversal.

The powers Obama and his fellow Democrats want are dangerous not because they may fall into Republican hands, but because they are inherently dangerous. As Adams wrote to Jefferson, "Power always thinks it has a great soul." It cannot be trusted unchecked to anyone of any party, no matter how great their personal confidence in their own integrity.

The Audacity of Grope

“You have one f#@king job!”: Jon Stewart mocks Joe Biden’s groping: http://youtu.be/ehHGT4RREvI

I'm gonna miss Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. He left me in stitches over his mocking of Biden's touchy encounters with females. It's so damn uncomfortable to watch him. He's one creepy acting VP.