Online Gambling

On October 6, the George W. Bush signed into law the Safe Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 which created funding for several port related anti-smuggling/terror measures. The bill I believe is a sound one, however, similar to the way "pork-barrel" spending is snuck into other bills; the bill included a provision to prohibit Internet gambling by outlawing financial transfers to overseas casinos. Presumably the provision appeals to several groups; the Christian Right is certainly pleased by federally imposed limits on what they consider vice, while others legitimately believe it is a way to restrict money laundering.

I am against most federally legislated restrictions on individual liberties, particularly when issues of morality are imposed by government. I do appreciate the money-laundering argument. However, I do not think that blocking online gambling is necessary to achieve that end. Once the law was passed the London-traded gaming companies' equity lost approx. 50% of their market values as traders believed that it would severely limit the ability of these companies to grow earnings considering their largest markets were in the U.S. Surely these companies would have happily worked with U.S. regulators in order to create transparency in their cash flows and even acquiesce to taxing gains rather then losing that business altogether.

Further, the legislation seems to be a blatant violation of WTO rules, as brought to my attention by this blogger, he explains, "the WTO allows a country to ban some goods and services within its borders (Muslim countries with alcohol, for example), but you can't ban a good or service from another country while allowing it to be sold from domestic providers. That's sort of the whole point of "free trade." The gambling ban does exactly that."

Metamorphosis

As the Republican party becomes more and more theological, and the current Republican administration pays lip-service to the historically conservative ideals of fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and small government, many Republicans have found themselves outside of the main-stream Republican Party. In fact, numerous pundits and authors have been harping on this very subject for some time. It has now become apparent that many Republicans are trying to distance themselves from the current Administration. For evidence of the split one can need not look further then the current mid-term campaign as many Republican incumbents and hopefuls shun the President's stumping. As one of the classical liberals now on the outside, it makes sense to wonder what has caused the division, and what in those causes can help us create a viable solution.

I have often lamented this very issue, commenting on these pages how persons who cannot identify with the shift the Republican Party has taken, have very few, if any, options when it comes to selecting public officials. The Republican Party astutely noticed the shift in the United States towards Christian Conservatism and early on aligned itself with that movement, taking away the Democrat's natural tie to Christian ideals. Many conservatives now consider the Republican Party not to represent their ideals and politics, commenting that the party has been somehow hijacked either by the religious right or by those savvy enough to realize that demographics were in favor of the shift. Either way us classical liberals (Conservatives) could fall back on our belief that we are not willing to compromise our core beliefs in order to win the popularity contest that is modern politics.

The argument raises a philosophical debate: at what point does the zeitgeist of the Republican Party replace the history of the Conservative movement? How long does the Republican Party have to remain in the grip of the Religious Right before that ideal becomes the most defining characteristic of its members? At what point do Classical Liberals as myself simply relinquish our claim to the title of Conservatism? Those on the other side of the argument would surely respond that parties and movements evolve, and that if you are not part of the modern evolution of the Republican Party then you are simply not a Republican at all. Perhaps from ego, or perhaps from my disgust of what the movement has become, I prefer to fight the battle, but in the interest of the movement itself, when is it smart to split?

The fact that recently several Republican campaigners have shunned the President provides me little solace, as the split is for all the wrong reasons. Those who shunned George Bush on the campaign trail are not doing so out of a difference of ideals, they are doing so out of a difference of popularity; they maybe (I am doubtful) acting out of a belief that the administration has flawed execution, but even if that were to be true it would not signal a rally against the ideological shift of the Republican Party.

Chemical Weapons Found in Middle East

According to the the AP, "the Israeli army used phosphorous artillery shells against Hezbollah guerrilla targets during their war in Lebanon this summer, an Israeli Cabinet minister said Sunday, confirming Lebanese allegations for the first time. Until now, Israel had said it only used the weapons — which cause severe chemical burns — to mark targets or territory, according to Israeli media reports. The Geneva Conventions ban using white phosphorous against civilians or civilian areas and Israel said the weapons were used solely against military targets. Cabinet Minister Yaakov Edri said Israel used the weapons before an Aug. 14 cease-fire went into effect, ending its 34-day war against Hezbollah. Edri’s spokeswoman Orly Yehezkel said he was speaking on behalf of Defense Minister Amir Peretz. Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Israeli military said in July its use of weapons “conforms with international law” and it investigates claims of violations based on the information provided."

Further, regarding the use of cluster bombs, "Israel has been accused of firing as many as 4 million cluster bombs into Lebanon during the war, especially in the last hours before the cease-fire. U.N. demining experts say up to 1 million cluster bombs failed to explode immediately and continue to threaten civilians. On Sunday, a cluster bomb exploded in a southern Lebanese village, killing a 12-year-old boy and wounding his younger brother, security officials said. At least 21 people have been killed and more than 100 wounded by cluster bombs since the end of the war, the U.N. Mine Action Center said."

The Israeli government flaunts international treaties and conventions, regarding territorial occupations, the right to free movement, the use of chemical weapons, killing civilians, etc. Ironically, the AP report finishes with this statement, "Hezbollah, meanwhile, has been criticized for failing to distinguish between Israeli civilian and military targets. Human Rights Watch also said the militant group fired cluster bombs into civilian areas of northern Israel during the fighting." Are we supposed to hold Hezbollah to the same standard as the Israeli government? I think the comparison is absurd.

The duplicity of the Israeli government is without comparison. The Cunning Realist blog brought this exchange between Paula Zahn of CNN and Mark Regev, of the Israeli Foreign Ministry to my attention:

ZAHN: The Lebanese health minister today accused Israel of putting phosphorous in its bombs, which causes extreme burns upon impact. And we are going to show our audience now a picture of a severely burned child at a hospital in Tyre.

Is Israel using phosphorous in any of its weapons?

REGEV: Unfortunately, Paula, you have this sort of atrocity propaganda. It comes up especially in Arab media. We have had all sorts of stories of Israelis giving, deliberately, out bird flu, Israelis giving out AIDS deliberately to Palestinian children, Israelis...

ZAHN: But what about this particular...

REGEV: ... using depleted uranium.

ZAHN: ... charge? Are you using...

REGEV: Well...

ZAHN: ... phosphorous or not?

REGEV: ... I'm telling you, this particular charge -- this particular charge is simply not true.

The Religious Right and Faith in Politics

David Kuo's book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," alleged that Republican insiders used faith-based initiatives as a political tool to garner support from the Religious Right. Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives claimed that White House staffers ridiculed some of their evangelical supporters as "nuts" and "goofy" and that public events surrounding Bush's faith-based initiative were geared toward Republican electoral fortunes. Sensing the religious direction of the United States, the Republican Party smartly embraced religious conservatism by lumping it together with political conservatism. Unfortunately, the uninformed majority was unable to recognize the inherent contradictions between the two.

In fact, the pandering to the Religious Right by the Republican Party appears to have been just that, pandering. For example, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is somewhat of a misnomer. The group does have many community based social welfare programs, however, after reading through many of their initiatives there does not seem to be anything particularly "faith-based" about the programs. By virtue of its name I believe that many of the uninformed Religious Right would de-facto believe that George W. Bush and the Republican Party was "their" party. It would imply that the Office invests in programs that they believe in without having any material proof as to their efficacy. If that truly is what the program entails I believe even this Congress would have shot it down.

While scanning over one of several blogs I regularly visit, I came across this piece from the Minnesota Monitor. At an event at the Living Word Christian Center, Republican Congressional Candidate Michele Bachmann made in my opinion, several seemingly inappropriate comments including:

"God then called me to run for the United States Congress, and I thought “What in the world will that be for?” and my husband said “You need to do this,” and I wasn’t so sure, and we took 3 days and we fasted and we prayed and we said, “Lord. Is this what you want? Is this your will?” and after long about the afternoon of day two, he made that calling sure. And its been now 22 months that I’ve been running for United States Congress. Who in their right mind would spend 2 years to run for a job that lasts 2 years? You’d have to be absolutely a fool to do that. You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ. And in the midst of him making this calling sure, what has occurred now in this particular race is that this Congressional seat out of 435 in the country has become… it has been one of the top five races in the country, and in the last week this has become one of the top three races in the country, and you may have seen how God has in his own will, and his own plan, has focused like a laser beam after this scandal that came up about a week or so ago. He has focused like a laser beam in his reasoning on this race. The reason why this is one of the top three races is because this race will probably decide which way Congress goes this fall. We could talk more about what that means for this nation, what this means for defeating radical Islam, what this means for what the future of the family is going to be, what this is going to mean for the future of the freedom of religious expression."

You understand? God told her to run, God believes that if you don't vote for her then the United States will not defeat radical Islam, the family will disintegrate, and you will lose your right to freedom of religion. You believe in God don't you? When you look at the polling numbers it appears that at a certain point the dissatisfaction level bottoms out in the mid 30s. As long as George W. Bush and the Republican Party keeps its self appointed title of "the Party of Religion" it will not go any lower no matter what GWB does, in their eyes he is infallible.

Liberte

While it may only be an attempt by the French Socialist Party to garner Armenian votes in next year's Presidential Elections, the French Parliament passed a Socialist sponsored measure that would make it a crime to deny that Ottoman Turks committed genocide against Armenians. Opposed by the government and the EU, it is unlikely that the measure becomes law, however, it follows similar logic as the crime to deny the Holocaust that exists in many Western European countries: governments legislating belief. Although it seems nonsensical to refute the Holocaust to most, it is hypocritical for a democratic government to actually ban that belief. Such legislation at first blush seems unconstitutional. The pre-amble to the French Constitution, La Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen, "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression" and that the limits of those rights exists only as "the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights". Denying one the right to refutthe existenceeee of a historical fact or of any belief, however incorrect that belief, violates the basic tenants of natural rights and undermines European democracy.

Waste of Time, cont.

Continuing the line of earlier post's on Condoleeza Rice's trips to the Middle East, Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz comments on the uselessness of the envoys, fact-finding missions, and shuttle diplomacy the U.S. has played in resolving the Palestinian crisis, "it happens once every few months. Like a periodic visit by an especially annoying relative from overseas, Condoleezza Rice was here again...The same declarations, the same texts devoid of content, the same sycophancy, the same official aircraft heading back to where it came from."

More excerpts:

It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way. The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous and lengthiest conflict in our world? How is it that the world's only superpower, which has the power to quickly facilitate a solution, does not lift a finger to promote it?

Countless trips by presidents and secretaries of state, peace initiatives and peace plans aplenty, from the Roger's Plan to the Road Map, via "reassessment," fruitless talks and flowery declarations, pressure and promises, discussions and decisions - and nothing has happened. And in the background, a fundamental question echoes, without a response: Is America at all interested in bringing about a solution in the Middle East? Is it possible that it does not understand how crucial it is to end the conflict?

As things appear, America can and does not want to. No government in Israel, and surely not the most recent ones, which are terrified of the American administration, would stand up to a firm American demand to bring the occupation to an end. But there has never been an American president who wanted to put an end to the occupation. Does America not understand that without ending the occupation there will be no peace? Peace in the region would deliver a greater blow to world terrorism than any war America has pursued, in Iraq or Afghanistan. Does America not understand this? Can all this be attributed to the omnipotent Jewish lobby, which causes Israel more harm than good?

The declared aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East is to bring democracy to the region. For this reason, ostensibly, the U.S. also went to war in Iraq. Even if one ignores the hypocrisy, self-righteousness and double-standard of the Bush administration, which supports quite a few despotic regimes, one should ask the great seeker of democracy: Have your eyes failed to see that the most undemocratic and brutal regime in the region is the Israeli occupation in the territories?

In the Middle East, the U.S. has an opportunity to fundamentally change its image, from a warmonger to a peacemaker. And how does the U.S. respond to the challenge? It sends Rice to tell the excited Ehud Olmert how she falls asleep easily on her unnecessary and ridiculous flights to and from the Middle East.

Lessons of Nuremburg

Senator Christoper Dodd (D-CONN) wrote an editorial for the LA Times drawing on his father's experience as a prosecutor during the Nuremburg trials to make a point on moral legitimacy. He writes:

The world had seen a monstrous regime try to conquer the world. It had seen them take the lives of more than tens of millions of men, women and children. Why not just give in to vengeance? Why not just shoot them, as Winston Churchill wanted to do? Why not just succumb to the law of power politics and impose our will without any regard to principle? Why not just give in to violence, which was certainly within our ability and, many argued, within our right? Why not? Because the United States has always stood for something more. When we entered World War II, we did not fight for land or for treasure — we fought for an idea. The idea that laws should rule the land, not men; that the principles of justice embodied in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution — of due process, of innocence until proven guilty, of the right to a fair trial — do not get suspended for vengeance. President Harry Truman understood that our nation's ability to bring about a world of peace and justice was rooted not in our military might but in our moral authority; not on the ability to compel people with our tanks and planes but to convince them that our values and our ideals were right. He understood that our ability to succeed in spreading American values of freedom and human rights are only as effective as our willingness to uphold them. We would do well to remember the words of Justice Jackson: "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

A Must Read

This essay by Nir Rosen, entitled Hiz ballah Party of God, is the best piece I have read that has come of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict of 2006. I do not agree with all of his opinions, but find the piece persuasive, well reasoned, and genuine. It carries special weight as it comes from an outsider. A must read for anyone attempting to grasp the intricacies of Middle Eastern politics.

Waste of Time, cont...

Continuing my earlier post on Condoleeza Rice's trip to the Middle East, today's WaPo has an article entitled "Rice Cites Concern for Palestinians, But Low Expectations Mark Visit."
The piece states: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pledged Wednesday to "redouble" U.S. efforts to alleviate the economic plight of Palestinians facing escalating tensions and the threat of a humanitarian crisis. But U.S. officials cautioned not to expect any significant breakthroughs as prospects for a renewed Arab-Israeli peace process seem further away than ever." Just in case you thought something might happen, U.S. officials made sure to temper any naive enthusiasm that may still have existed. Rice pledged to redouble (a strange choice of words that would imply that there had been an earlier "doubling" of efforts) U.S. efforts, lets do the math, 2(2 x 0) = 0.

The Daily Show - Question Marks

The absurdity of mainstream media.

Waste of Time

Officials have touted Condoleeza Rice's current tour of the Middle East as an attempt to reach out to moderate Middle Eastern leaders, including Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, etc. First, its telling who are considered the moderate Middle Eastern leaders, the Wahhabist Kings of Saudi Arabia indeed seem very moderate. Why don't we just call it what it is, a meeting with the: unelected, autocratic, population alienating, politically unimportant, nepotistic rulers of the Middle East. Some time ago Rice gave a promising speech at the American University of Cairo during which she stated, "for 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East and we achieved neither." Unfortunately, this Administration has not had the courage to stand up for the lofty rhetoric of the Secretary of State. Now on this Middle Eastern tour she is meeting with either those exact persons responsible for the stability that came at the expense of democracy, or their offspring.

I am pessimistic that anything of consequence will come out of this tour, at most it seems to be more intended to provide the illusion of action. If this Administration was serious about true reform it would be meeting with those authorities that actually have power to change the public's perceptions or have a hand in the current climate: Hamas, Syria, Iran and reform-minded Egyptians. Without engaging these players it will be impossible to have any real progress in the region. It seems the administration has taken a view that it should just ignore all those that truly matter and hope that the situation goes away. I am relatively confident that if any progress is made, it will not be as a result of American influence or efforts, at least not until 2008.