The elections in Iran are over and, according to the official news agency, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reelected with 63% of the vote, nearly twice that of his nearest competitor, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who officially got 34%. Pretty much everyone except the Iranian government, however, has denounced the elections as fraudulent.
This doesn't come as much of a surprise. What is surprising, however, is the reaction on the streets of Tehran, where supporters of Mr. Mousavi have taken to the streets in their thousands to protest the results of an election they believe to have been rigged. Violent clashes with riot police are now taking place, and the protestors are chanting "Down with the dictator!"
The Iranian government has responded as oppressive regimes generally do: by attempting to block information from the people. Apparently all BBC websites have been blocked and cellular telephone service has been cut in Tehran. They're clearly frightened of the demonstrations and are hopign to nick them in the bud. Let's hope they fail.
Thomas Jefferson believed that human nature was the same for everyone, no matter what culture they happened to be born into. That's a philosophical question that will be endlessly debated, but I do think we can safely say that the yearning to be free is an innate part of being human. Look at the Iranian demonstrators on the streets of Tehran today, and they don't seem all that much different than the colonial Americans protesting the Stamp Act in 1765.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Wal-Mart Wants to Build Supercenter on Civil War Battlefield
Looks like Wal-Mart is up to its old tricks again. According to local media reports, the megacorporation wants to build one of its signature massive "supercenters" in Orange County, Virginia. A new Wal-Mart is regrettable enough, of course, but this one is a special case: it's being constructed right next to the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, putting at risk priceless historical sites.
During the Civil War, between December of 1862 and May of 1864, four major battles were fought within a few miles of Fredericksburg, Virginia. Tens of thousands of Americans died, many more were wounded, and the course of American history was changed. Fittingly, we have set aside the land as a permanent historical memorial to the men who fought and died, as well as to serve as a history lesson to all the generations of Americans to follow.
Wal-Mart has a history of trying to muscle their way into communities, even when citizens organize and make clear that they do not want them there. With unrivaled cash reserves, public marketing experts, and legions of high-paid lawyers, Wal-Mart simply uses brute force to badger the local political leaders into accepting their terms. The end result is often (though not always) an ugly blue building blighted the previously attractive landscape, as well as more pavement, more traffic, and more development.
In this particular case, the land that will be blighted will be the same land over which the Union and Confederate armies fought one another in the Battle of the Wilderness, in early May of 1864. The newspaper article quotes Wal-Mart attorney Tim Kleine as saying that "no evidence of military engagements was found at the site." But any high school student can look at a map and a quickly flip through a general history book about the Civil War and see immediately that Kleine is lying through his teeth. One wonders how a man like him can look at himself in the mirror every morning.
But the retail giant has run into opposition. The citizens of the community are generally outraged at the proposal and are fighting it with every means at their disposal. Hundreds of historians, including Pulitzer-Prize winner James McPherson, have appealed to Wal-Mart not to build the supercenter on the location. The Civil War Preservation Trust has organized a campaign called Stop the Wilderness Wal-Mart.
The decision is apparently up to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The citizens of the community should appeal to them to reject Wal-Mart's proposal. Any supervisor who votes to approve the plan should be voted out of office at the next election.
21st Century Jeffersonians should do their part, through the very simple expedient of never shopping at Wal-Mart.
During the Civil War, between December of 1862 and May of 1864, four major battles were fought within a few miles of Fredericksburg, Virginia. Tens of thousands of Americans died, many more were wounded, and the course of American history was changed. Fittingly, we have set aside the land as a permanent historical memorial to the men who fought and died, as well as to serve as a history lesson to all the generations of Americans to follow.
Wal-Mart has a history of trying to muscle their way into communities, even when citizens organize and make clear that they do not want them there. With unrivaled cash reserves, public marketing experts, and legions of high-paid lawyers, Wal-Mart simply uses brute force to badger the local political leaders into accepting their terms. The end result is often (though not always) an ugly blue building blighted the previously attractive landscape, as well as more pavement, more traffic, and more development.
In this particular case, the land that will be blighted will be the same land over which the Union and Confederate armies fought one another in the Battle of the Wilderness, in early May of 1864. The newspaper article quotes Wal-Mart attorney Tim Kleine as saying that "no evidence of military engagements was found at the site." But any high school student can look at a map and a quickly flip through a general history book about the Civil War and see immediately that Kleine is lying through his teeth. One wonders how a man like him can look at himself in the mirror every morning.
But the retail giant has run into opposition. The citizens of the community are generally outraged at the proposal and are fighting it with every means at their disposal. Hundreds of historians, including Pulitzer-Prize winner James McPherson, have appealed to Wal-Mart not to build the supercenter on the location. The Civil War Preservation Trust has organized a campaign called Stop the Wilderness Wal-Mart.
The decision is apparently up to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The citizens of the community should appeal to them to reject Wal-Mart's proposal. Any supervisor who votes to approve the plan should be voted out of office at the next election.
21st Century Jeffersonians should do their part, through the very simple expedient of never shopping at Wal-Mart.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Senators Wasting Taxpayer Money with Unnecessary and Expensive Air Travel
This story is the kind of thing that should cause outrage among American citizens. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have each racked up more than $140,000 dollars in charter air travel fees so far this year, far more than most of their colleagues. In both cases, commercial flights would have been far less expensive.
In one case, Senator Cornyn chartered a flight for nearly 60 staffers to a Maryland resort for a weekend retreat, spending more than $38,000 to do so. Is there any place in Maryland that is more than two hour's drive from Washington D.C.? Couldn't they have taken a bus?
Three other senators- Kit Bond (R-MO), Bob Corker (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA)- also spent more than $100,000 each on chartered air travel so far this year.
It might be argued that a couple hundred thousand dollars represent a mere drop of water in the bucket of the massive federal budget and that this is therefore not an important story. But that's not the point. Each one of those dollars came from a hardworking citizen, and this kind of activity reflects the irresponsible attitude that most of the current members of Congress hold towards their stewardship of the taxpayer's money. The fact that this is going on during a time of economic hardship for many citizens makes the insult all the worse.
21st Century Jeffersonians should remorselessly monitor the uses their own Senators, Congressmen, and state legislators make of taxpayer money for their own expenses and hold them to account.
In one case, Senator Cornyn chartered a flight for nearly 60 staffers to a Maryland resort for a weekend retreat, spending more than $38,000 to do so. Is there any place in Maryland that is more than two hour's drive from Washington D.C.? Couldn't they have taken a bus?
Three other senators- Kit Bond (R-MO), Bob Corker (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA)- also spent more than $100,000 each on chartered air travel so far this year.
It might be argued that a couple hundred thousand dollars represent a mere drop of water in the bucket of the massive federal budget and that this is therefore not an important story. But that's not the point. Each one of those dollars came from a hardworking citizen, and this kind of activity reflects the irresponsible attitude that most of the current members of Congress hold towards their stewardship of the taxpayer's money. The fact that this is going on during a time of economic hardship for many citizens makes the insult all the worse.
21st Century Jeffersonians should remorselessly monitor the uses their own Senators, Congressmen, and state legislators make of taxpayer money for their own expenses and hold them to account.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
America Should Leave Central Asian Air Base
According to this article in the New York Times, the government of the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan has asked the United States to vacate an air base which it has been leasing for the past few years. The base plays an important logistical role for the campaign in Afghanistan, and the United States government is trying to negotiate an extension of the lease.
While it is unfortunate that the closure of this base will hinder the logistics of the Afghanistan operation, we must respect the wishes of the Kyrgyzstani government and leave the base. We have no business operating a military facility in a country whose government doesn't want us there. And leaving the base will send a signal to the region that, contrary to what many have feared, the United States does not intend to set up a permanent military presence in Central Asia.
This may seem like a rather unimportant, technical issue. But even in small matters, we should remember our country's Jeffersonian values, among which are to avoid permanent military entanglements in foreign territory.
While it is unfortunate that the closure of this base will hinder the logistics of the Afghanistan operation, we must respect the wishes of the Kyrgyzstani government and leave the base. We have no business operating a military facility in a country whose government doesn't want us there. And leaving the base will send a signal to the region that, contrary to what many have feared, the United States does not intend to set up a permanent military presence in Central Asia.
This may seem like a rather unimportant, technical issue. But even in small matters, we should remember our country's Jeffersonian values, among which are to avoid permanent military entanglements in foreign territory.
60th Anniversary of George Orwell's "1984"
This week marks the 60th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's masterpiece, 1984. It has gone strangely unnoticed, considering the monumental importance ofthe work. But some people have taken the opportunity to write on the book's significance for our time. Take a look at this column by commentator Cathy Young, which examines the lessons Orwell's book has for us in the early 21st Century.
Soviet communism, the real target of Orwell's attack, has been cast into the ash heap of history, hopefully never to return. But one of Orwell's messages most pertinent to the modern age, and which Cathy Young comments on quite effectively, is the political usage of hate to maintain political loyality and to avoid the need to discuss actual questions.
As she puts it:
People on all sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this, and it was something Jefferson would have understood very well. Indeed his Federalist opponents were very good at whipping the American people into a fearful fury by evoking the specter of a French invasion, despite the fact that such an event could not possibly have happened.
1984 remains a boom with important lessons to teach, and all 21st Century Jeffersonians should have it on their bookshelf.
Soviet communism, the real target of Orwell's attack, has been cast into the ash heap of history, hopefully never to return. But one of Orwell's messages most pertinent to the modern age, and which Cathy Young comments on quite effectively, is the political usage of hate to maintain political loyality and to avoid the need to discuss actual questions.
As she puts it:
Looking at much of our political discourse today, from right-wing talk radio to left-wing blogs, it's hard not to think of such rituals as "Two-Minute Hate" and "Hate Week." On too many political websites, every week is Hate Week - whether the object of hate is liberals, Muslims, neocons, or Christian bigots. Partisan propagandists and professional hate-mongers bear a large share of the blame, but so do "regular" people who need little encouragement to demonize political opponents.
People on all sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this, and it was something Jefferson would have understood very well. Indeed his Federalist opponents were very good at whipping the American people into a fearful fury by evoking the specter of a French invasion, despite the fact that such an event could not possibly have happened.
1984 remains a boom with important lessons to teach, and all 21st Century Jeffersonians should have it on their bookshelf.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
President Obama Proposes Making "Pay As You Go" a Federal Law
If 21st Century Jeffersonians were to criticize a single action of President Obama's up to this point, it would be the massive increase in federal spending that has happened under his watch. While one could make a legitimate argument that the present economic situation requires such actions, the massive budgetary pressure, the rapidly expanding national debt, and the increasing accumulation of power in the central government certainly are a cause for concern for modern Jeffersonians.
Today, however, we have news that perhaps the winds are beginning to shift direction. President Obama has announced a proposal to enshrine the "Pay As You Go" rule, which require Congress to balance any increase in spending by making cuts elsewhere, into federal law. Currently, this rule (known as PAYGO) is simply an administrative Congressional action, which can easily be countermanded.
This will please the fiscally-conservative Blue Dog Democrats in Congress, while the liberal Democrats will clearly raise concerns. The Republicans are sure to find some way to criticize the President about this, but they would also criticize Obama if he said he thought the sky was blue. All in all, this is a positive move that 21st Century Jeffersonians should support.
Jefferson believed that any time the government spent more money than it brought it, a tax should be implemented to ensure that the debt was paid off within twenty years, so as to ensure that no generation would be required to pay for expenditures about which it had not been consulted. In Jefferson's mind, failure to do this was not only bad fiscal policy, but a crime.
President Obama deserves a lot of credit for many of his actions thus far, but the level of spending that we have seen since he has taken office should raise alarm bells. If he is serious about enshrining "Pay As You Go" into law, this concern will be greatly lessened.
Today, however, we have news that perhaps the winds are beginning to shift direction. President Obama has announced a proposal to enshrine the "Pay As You Go" rule, which require Congress to balance any increase in spending by making cuts elsewhere, into federal law. Currently, this rule (known as PAYGO) is simply an administrative Congressional action, which can easily be countermanded.
This will please the fiscally-conservative Blue Dog Democrats in Congress, while the liberal Democrats will clearly raise concerns. The Republicans are sure to find some way to criticize the President about this, but they would also criticize Obama if he said he thought the sky was blue. All in all, this is a positive move that 21st Century Jeffersonians should support.
Jefferson believed that any time the government spent more money than it brought it, a tax should be implemented to ensure that the debt was paid off within twenty years, so as to ensure that no generation would be required to pay for expenditures about which it had not been consulted. In Jefferson's mind, failure to do this was not only bad fiscal policy, but a crime.
President Obama deserves a lot of credit for many of his actions thus far, but the level of spending that we have seen since he has taken office should raise alarm bells. If he is serious about enshrining "Pay As You Go" into law, this concern will be greatly lessened.
Monday, June 1, 2009
20th Anniversary of the Tianamen Square Massacre
This week marks the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, when thousands of unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing were slaughtered by government soldiers using tanks and heavy machine guns. In a year in which democratic revolutions brought down Communist regimes across Eastern Europe, the Chinese Communist Party used brutal force against their own people to maintain their iron grip on power.
For days before the massacre, the protesters had appealed to the soldiers to disobey their orders to clear Tiananmen Square and instead join with the protesters in creating a new, free China. One wonders how different the history of the last two decades might have been had the army had the courage to do so. Could China have been started on the road to democracy? We will never known, because rather than join with the protesters, the army obeyed the orders of its masters and butchered the people.
The demonstrators were ordinary people, students and workers, old and young, male and female. In a way, they were quite similar to the ordinary citizens in the American colonies who held protest meetings after the British passed the Stamp Act in 1765, except that the repression under which the Chinese people lived was orders of magnitude greater than anything experienced by the contemporaries of Thomas Jefferson. It still is.
Jefferson and his contemporaries (with the notable exception of Alexander Hamilton) believed that the American Revolution was about much more than simply securing the independence of the United States. They thought that it would be a beacon to all oppressed peoples throughout the world, inspiring them to rise up and overthrow tyranny in their own lands. The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 seemed to verify this belief. And it is true that, throughout most of its history, the United States has been seen as a model of freedom to be emulated (although it must be said that this image has been damaged by the actions of President George W. Bush).
The Chinese protesters in Tiananmen Square wanted to reform their country, to achieve freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to have some say in how their own country was run. They wanted, in other words, to have the freedoms enjoyed by the people of the United States. The leaders of the Communist Party wanted to maintain their control over the lives of the Chinese people. It was a clash between what Martin Luther King called "physical force and soul force." In this case, tragically, physical force won.
In the years since the massacre, China has liberalized its economy, with truly massive consequences both for its own people and for the larger global stage. China in 2009 is a completely different country than it was in 1989, with economic growth bringing uncounted millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class. But politically, the Chinese Communist Party maintains its iron grip and shows no sign of releasing it. The ordinary people in China may be materially better off than they were two decades ago, but they still have absolutely no say in how their country is run or what its policies may be. Prosperity without liberty holds little value. Besides which, rapid economic growth is bringing its own problems, as China struggles to deal with the social unrest common to industrializing societies.
As the Chinese people labor to produce the cheap consumer goods that fill the shelves of American Wal-Marts and Targets, and use their new-found prosperity to become consumers themselves, one wonders what they are thinking. The pressures that lead to the protests of 1989 are not as intense now as they were then, since economic liberalism provides a steam valve, precisely as the Chinese Communist Party intended. But the human impulse for freedom is not so easily extinguished, and only time will tell how long the Chinese people will remain oppressed, prosperity or no prosperity.
Watch this extraordinary 2006 documentary by South African filmmaker Antony Thomas, entitled The Tank Man. As well as providing an absorbing retelling of the story of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and its long-term implications for China, it explores the mystery surrounding the now-legendary unknown person who stood in the path of a column of Chinese tanks the morning after the massacre, whose photograph came to symbolize the entire incident and, indeed, the longing of the Chinese people for freedom.
I think American citizens should pay particular attention to the last portion of this remarkable movie, which examines the role played by American corporations, including Google, Yahoo, Cisco Systems and Microsoft, in assisting the Chinese government in the oppression of the Chinese people. Many Chinese pro-democracy activists have been arrested, and some doubtless killed, because of information provided by these American companies to the Chinese authorities.
As citizens, what attitude should 21st Century Jeffersonians adopt towards China? The economy of the United States is so closely bound up with that of China's that we are locked in a mutual embrace, so we could not cut our ties to the country without causing massive economic dislocation. Considering China's rapidly expanding military power and its nuclear capability, it would be unwise in the extreme to wish to provoke them. But can we morally adopt a friendly attitude to the Chinese government, considering the oppression they inflict upon their population?
Jefferson believed in honest commerce with all nations and the avoidance of unnecessary entanglements with any of them. He believed that America should stand as an example of what a people might achieve if they embraced representative democracy and the ideals of the Enlightenment. He would have opposed any blatant American interference in the internal affairs of China, but he would also have given unstinting support to the Chinese people if and when they made the decision to rise up on their own. Such support would necessarily have been limited by the need to ensure the security of the United States, but within those bounds he would have called on us to do all we can to help the pro-democracy elements within China.
One day, I hope, Tiananmen Square will again be filled with pro-democracy demonstrators, and this time they will succeed in toppling the Communist regime and replacing it with a democratic government. When that happens, if it ever does, I would hope that the spirit of Thomas Jefferson will be part of what inspires these brave people.
For days before the massacre, the protesters had appealed to the soldiers to disobey their orders to clear Tiananmen Square and instead join with the protesters in creating a new, free China. One wonders how different the history of the last two decades might have been had the army had the courage to do so. Could China have been started on the road to democracy? We will never known, because rather than join with the protesters, the army obeyed the orders of its masters and butchered the people.
The demonstrators were ordinary people, students and workers, old and young, male and female. In a way, they were quite similar to the ordinary citizens in the American colonies who held protest meetings after the British passed the Stamp Act in 1765, except that the repression under which the Chinese people lived was orders of magnitude greater than anything experienced by the contemporaries of Thomas Jefferson. It still is.
Jefferson and his contemporaries (with the notable exception of Alexander Hamilton) believed that the American Revolution was about much more than simply securing the independence of the United States. They thought that it would be a beacon to all oppressed peoples throughout the world, inspiring them to rise up and overthrow tyranny in their own lands. The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 seemed to verify this belief. And it is true that, throughout most of its history, the United States has been seen as a model of freedom to be emulated (although it must be said that this image has been damaged by the actions of President George W. Bush).
The Chinese protesters in Tiananmen Square wanted to reform their country, to achieve freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to have some say in how their own country was run. They wanted, in other words, to have the freedoms enjoyed by the people of the United States. The leaders of the Communist Party wanted to maintain their control over the lives of the Chinese people. It was a clash between what Martin Luther King called "physical force and soul force." In this case, tragically, physical force won.
In the years since the massacre, China has liberalized its economy, with truly massive consequences both for its own people and for the larger global stage. China in 2009 is a completely different country than it was in 1989, with economic growth bringing uncounted millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class. But politically, the Chinese Communist Party maintains its iron grip and shows no sign of releasing it. The ordinary people in China may be materially better off than they were two decades ago, but they still have absolutely no say in how their country is run or what its policies may be. Prosperity without liberty holds little value. Besides which, rapid economic growth is bringing its own problems, as China struggles to deal with the social unrest common to industrializing societies.
As the Chinese people labor to produce the cheap consumer goods that fill the shelves of American Wal-Marts and Targets, and use their new-found prosperity to become consumers themselves, one wonders what they are thinking. The pressures that lead to the protests of 1989 are not as intense now as they were then, since economic liberalism provides a steam valve, precisely as the Chinese Communist Party intended. But the human impulse for freedom is not so easily extinguished, and only time will tell how long the Chinese people will remain oppressed, prosperity or no prosperity.
Watch this extraordinary 2006 documentary by South African filmmaker Antony Thomas, entitled The Tank Man. As well as providing an absorbing retelling of the story of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and its long-term implications for China, it explores the mystery surrounding the now-legendary unknown person who stood in the path of a column of Chinese tanks the morning after the massacre, whose photograph came to symbolize the entire incident and, indeed, the longing of the Chinese people for freedom.
I think American citizens should pay particular attention to the last portion of this remarkable movie, which examines the role played by American corporations, including Google, Yahoo, Cisco Systems and Microsoft, in assisting the Chinese government in the oppression of the Chinese people. Many Chinese pro-democracy activists have been arrested, and some doubtless killed, because of information provided by these American companies to the Chinese authorities.
As citizens, what attitude should 21st Century Jeffersonians adopt towards China? The economy of the United States is so closely bound up with that of China's that we are locked in a mutual embrace, so we could not cut our ties to the country without causing massive economic dislocation. Considering China's rapidly expanding military power and its nuclear capability, it would be unwise in the extreme to wish to provoke them. But can we morally adopt a friendly attitude to the Chinese government, considering the oppression they inflict upon their population?
Jefferson believed in honest commerce with all nations and the avoidance of unnecessary entanglements with any of them. He believed that America should stand as an example of what a people might achieve if they embraced representative democracy and the ideals of the Enlightenment. He would have opposed any blatant American interference in the internal affairs of China, but he would also have given unstinting support to the Chinese people if and when they made the decision to rise up on their own. Such support would necessarily have been limited by the need to ensure the security of the United States, but within those bounds he would have called on us to do all we can to help the pro-democracy elements within China.
One day, I hope, Tiananmen Square will again be filled with pro-democracy demonstrators, and this time they will succeed in toppling the Communist regime and replacing it with a democratic government. When that happens, if it ever does, I would hope that the spirit of Thomas Jefferson will be part of what inspires these brave people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)