In Search of Libertopia (2)

(Please note that my views have changed sinced this debate. While most of my points remain intact, I no longer believe in the power of government to solve a problem that is much bigger than what simple government programs can solve. Simply put, while most American liberals only want to treat the symptoms, I want to cure the disease).

Again, Brian's words are teal; mine are white.

Joey seems to think that spending more money of failed federal welfare programs is a solution to the social ills of society. In fact, he blames the failure of these programs on cutbacks by conservatives.... Many of these programs were failures before conservative cutbacks began with the election of a Republican Congress in 1994.

Actually, I specifically stated that the cutbacks began shortly after the programs were instituted, and have largely been executive, not legislative! President Johnson himself originally limited the scope of the War on Poverty programs to fund the Vietnam War (which, as I said, was his greatest failure). Still, they accomplished a lot during the approximately six years of his presidency. Then, more cutbacks were instituted during the Nixon and Ford administrations, with the Office of Economic Opportunity being abolished along with many of its programs to help people become financially independent and self-sufficient. The “Reaganomics” of the 80’s limited social uplift programs even more, coupled with their starving for the benefit of military buildup. George Bush Sr. actually did alright (for a Republican), and Clinton accomplished a lot for what he had to work with in Congress. By the time Republicans took over Congress with their counterfeit “Contract with America,” the War on Poverty had already been pushed to the side for three decades.

There are indeed plenty of success stories [from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid]. Every day I'm around people who are walking and breathing and manipulating and enjoying everyday life because of their Medicare benefits. But, the perception is that there should be more. Many of the people where I work have worked hard all their lives and have earned their benefits. They are thankful for them. They are available to them, so they use them.

Good! I’m glad you agree.

The issue here isn't really the success of the program as much as it is the government's role in them. The Medicare ship is sinking. For someone my age, the age of recieving benefits is already moved back to 67 and may be as late as 69 by the time I'm ready to retire. This is not the result of the government conservative holding down spending. It's from the fact that the government can't afford to keep up the spending at its current levels.

It’s that the government can’t afford to keep spending in the current way--i.e., in war and all manner of defense excess, and kickbacks to defense contractors, for one. I acknowledge that the Medicare and Social Security systems are in need of revision--even Democrats know that (and I believe better personal health practices and medical advancements hold much of the answer). There are many factors in the age of benefits and the pool of potential recipients that have changed since the programs were instituted; the world is not static, and it is changing faster now than it ever has before. Average lifespan and healthy working age has increased. Baby boomers, the largest aging generation ever, are nearing retirement age and will live significantly longer than their parents. And, with the dynamic, democratic system we have by and for the benefit of all citizens, we can meet those challenges and transformations as they come; they may take creative solutions. People should be provided adequate health insurance by their employers, or pay for it themselves if they can afford it. But we should not entrust the health and very lives of American people, not just the elderly but the poor and the children of poor families, over to companies that have more interest in money than human life.

Over and again it has been demonstrated that if individuals had control of the money that the government takes through taxation, individuals would be further ahead, with greater funds available. This holds true for Social Security benefits also.

It has been demonstrated? When, and by whom? Does their money somehow multiply beyond what it is in the hands of the government for their benefit? Perhaps, for wealthy investors utilizing tax shelters and loopholes.

The solution is not to allow more money to go into government hands. It is to let people keep their money so they may better control their own health care and retirements.

How can people control their own health care and retirements when they can hardly even afford to live while they’re working?

I have to think that if people were given the opportunity to manage their own money all along, rather than the 15% picked from wage-earners' pockets for Social Security, and the additional filched through income taxes, even many of those needs would be greatly reduced.

How? How would I (a poor person) be better off keeping all of my as-of-yet insufficient income than giving, along with everyone else, to Social Security and income tax what comes back to me (with more) through the way those taxes are spent to ensure my welfare and increase my opportunities?

The issue comes down to who is responsible for me and my family and our care. In short, I am responsible for me and my family. Not Joey, Not George W. Bush, not Senator Lugar, not anyone but me.

So if we consider, say, a below-poverty-level inner-city child with a bleak future, you and I and all other Americans have nothing to do with him or her and no responsibilities towards his or her welfare and education, even though his or her parents can’t sufficiently provide for either? What about the fact that we are all in an interdependent web of social interaction and existence?

The track record is simple: socialism requires dictatorship. Whenever a free person is required to surrender what is his/hers, freely and legally earned, whether he wants to or not, it is either theft or dictatorship.

That is simply incorrect! I have given numerous examples of democratic socialism.

Places where socialism has been chosen democratically have also been places where it has been democratically rejected later - whether it is the U.K., Germany, and (by some counts) even Mexico.

That is highly inaccurate. Those countries have never been socialist. You’re merely observing the cultural ebb and flow of general liberalism vs. general conservativism--of center-left vs. center-right--that has taken place in those countries, as it has in our own. The U.K. government has now shifted to more to the left since the days of Margaret Thatcher, and the Germans’ popular opinion is back in favor of the Social Democratic Party.

The places you mentioned, "Norway, Sweden Denmark, Canada," have a mixed track record. They are certainly prosperous economically, but Canada just elected a right wing government.

How is economic prosperity and a high general standard of living a mixed track record? Canada did elect a conservative president; we’ll see how that plays out.

I admit that Stalinism is an extreme, but it is the natural outgrowth of Leninism, which is the largest manifestation of Marxism....[Stalinist dictatorial regimes].... These economic systems, in order to function as 'socialist states' have had to rely on dictatorship. It's not a red herring. It's the natural course of big government.

Marxism in its historical context was about the rise of the people to throw off the shackles of industrial overlords, which was part of the reason for the Russian Bolshevik Revolution. Lenin had some ideas which were at odds with Trotsky’s democratic ones, which were based on the writings of Marx, and Stalin later hijacked the whole Revolution. Stalinism is not equivalent with democratic socialism! I’ve given several examples of democratic socialist countries, which are by definition the antithesis of dictatorial countries.

I've been to many places where people work many hours and pull themselves out of the welfare trap. However, more often I've seen people who see their welfare benefits as their 'pay check'. I have taken food to homes and families where there lottery tickets and beer cans sitting on the coffee table. Just this past Sunday I was asked by a woman for assistance with food who had the audacity to ask for milk for her dog. I got food for her and her live-in boyfriend, but no milk for the dog.

But she, like so many others, is a victim of the trap. She has become dependent on assistance, with little or no incentive to get off the program.

First, conservatives aren’t the only ones to fight to make welfare more effective and efficient. Second, I believe that your idea of the welfare trap and lack of incentive to work is misguided. People don’t want to be on welfare; welfare is not a very good way to live and is not glamorous. Most people want more than that--they want more than just the needs of food and shelter and medicine (which is what welfare gives); they want to have an enjoyable life, to be able to buy the things they want, and, most importantly, to engage in something meaningful and contribute to society. Laziness is not created by welfare.

I’m intrigued by the idea of a living wage. The idea is that a small wage for simple living expenses is given to everyone. Everyone pays into it who makes wages, and everyone draws from it. Those who are well-off pay into it and get back from it regardless. But those who are unemployed and in lowing paying jobs and actually get more back than they pay into it have basic needs met, and opportunities provided to have and do and become more if they pursue it. We could also focus on whole communities and community programs. Top priorities would be affordable housing, better schools and social programs for the benefit of youth and adults to lift them out of the self-perpetuating system of ignorance and poverty.

You are correct instating there is a need for Head Start-type programs. But again, I have to ask if this is the government's job. Wouldn't the private sector be a much better avenue for this? Let free enterprise do it's thing. Even here in my little town of Roann we have two day care centers operated privately - no Head Start needed.

This is the debate between public and private education. If public education were to be abolished, who would pay for the education of poor children whose families can’t afford private school tuition? Should they simply not have access to education? It’s the same for a working-class or student single-mother who can’t afford day care. I’ve known mothers who were practically working just for their children to go to day care.

Regardless of the best method of social welfare, which is debatable, I believe the key in opportunity is education--with access to the right education, almost all people will want to be successful and find their place in human society.

Let me end with two quotes by an American from whom I draw a great deal of spiritual, political and personal insight, and whom you have said you admire as well:

“You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro [or in this case, any of the very poor] without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism.”

“Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both.”

-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I believe that it is towards the truths of both our personal drives and meaning and our interaction and mutuality as a human society that we will find the way for humanity to move forward to solve these problems. It will be a better society, not just for some people, but for everyone.

In Search of Libertopia

More of our discussion, and I believe it is getting deeper now to some of the underlying issues of both sides of the debate. Brian’s words are teal; mine are white.

I want to make one thing clear, which I think may be murky at this point. I am a Libertarian voter. I happen to vote Republican most of the time because of the lack of Libertarian candidates and (traditionally), Republicans have been advocates of a smaller/limited Federal government. The Libertarian Party's primary issue is that of very limited government and the freedom of persons to make decisions and govern themselves on their own. I am a social conservative on many issues (like abortion and gun control), I am also more liberal on others: I oppose the war in Iraq and I oppose capital punishment.

I apologize, Brian. All this time I’ve thought you were a Republican, when in fact you consider yourself a subscriber to a political ideology even less rational, in which pretty much the same people are in charge as under Republican government, except all safeguards in place to prevent their abuse of power are removed.

You have made many points, which I will address. But first:

About Libertarianism
______________________

I understand the vision of libertarians, the general idea of a world where everyone has the most possible liberty--and it is a vision I share. But when you go from there, into the practice of libertarian theory, things would inevitably break down into suppression.

Libertarianism works in Libertopia, where everyone has their niche and every niche is fulfilled, like a magical market-regulated ecosystem where a balance is always kept. Everyone has access to opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way, and for those who don’t, there is enough consideration in the minds of those who do have opportunity to share that opportunity and avoid human catastrophe. Employers respect and honor and take care of their employees, the market fills every need of human society and progress, and people respect each other and no one uses their money and/or power to take advantage of and dominate others.

We don’t live in that world. I’d like to, but we don’t. We live in the real world. Wealthy business owners and managers who control the means of production can wield power and shape society exactly how they want it, and oppress and exploit the vast majority of people. In the end the only right you hold, if you do not happen to be one of them, is the right to be a subordinate and/or slave to those who holds the means of production... or die. It is the same kind of tyranny that existed before the development of basic human rights. It is primitive; it undoes hundreds of years of human progress. It opens the door back up for child labor, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, oligopolies, trusts, cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.

We should also venture, for a moment, to a hypothetical place called Libertarian America. This is an actual possible place, not to be confused with the fantastical Libertopia. It’s a vision of what it would be like if the libertarian ideology (I’m not even going to talk about the actual Libertarian Party--which would be a true hell), with its extreme viewpoint, were to become prominent and gain majority influence in American government. In Libertarian America, the only state function, the only intervention of the government, is the protection of property rights. That pretty much eliminates all government functions except the justice system--police (and military), lawyers, and judges. All else is left to those who have means to themselves--the wealthy. The poor, having no means to acquire property/capital/wealth themselves, as the rich have commandeered all opportunity, must then either humbly accept their circumstance in life, or act as freedom-fighters and take from the rich. Then, however, the justice system acts on its sole function, and we see for whose purpose it is established: the property owners; the rich! The police are effectively owned by the rich, as the poor, who have little property besides their very lives, have almost nothing to protect. So the poor are prosecuted. Then, of course, as they cannot afford good lawyers as the rich can, they have no chance in court. The rulings of the Law, the existence for which the protection of property is the only reason, are for the rich.

Who are the oppressors in Libertarian America? Those who are forced to act to redistribute wealth themselves, or those who hold all the wealth and control society? In such a case, I say that the lawless freedom-fighters, who take away property from the wealthy, are the real heroes. I would gladly be one of Robin Hood’s Merry Men in such a place, to begin again to fight the power for real humanity and social justice. In truth, I don’t believe such a country would exist for very long (a decade, maybe two) before there arose a revolution--actually, it would by definition be a socialist revolution. That’s what this is really about: the means of production, the balance of opportunity, and whether it is held collectively by people as a society or concentrated in the hands of a few.

A true democratic progressive society helps everyone find their full, true potential. It focuses on and unleashes human capital to make the world better, instead of just concentrating money capital in the hands of those few who already have it and enabling only their children to succeed. ____________________

I’ve made many of these points already, and you still haven’t addressed them. You continue to ignore the problem of the means of production being concentrated in the hands of the few, and the inability of people (save for the few lucky ones) in such a society to improve their situation, or that of their children, if that situation is indigent or less well-off to begin with.

Words for our time

"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love." - Accepting Nobel Peace Prize, Dec. 10, 1964.

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." Strength to Love, 1963

"Wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete. There may have been a time when war served as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force... If we assume that life is worth living, if we assume that mankind has the right to survive, then we must find an alternative to war." - The Christmas Sermon On Peace, Dec 24, 1967

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." - Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence

"Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America 'you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God. Men will beat their swords into plowshafts and their spears into pruning hooks, and nations shall not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore.' I don't know about you, I ain't going to study war anymore." - Where Do We Go From Here? Address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 16 August 1967

"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative."

(All quotes by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

'How would Jesus vote' continued: The Truth of the Matter

This is the latest response in my continuing discussion with my friend Brian about which side of our culture wars, the right of the left, more closely approaches the message that Yeshua of Nazareth, that great teacher, set out as he walked the land of Galilee millennia ago. I believe that the truth behind the debate is past the shades of obfuscation by the right that have clouded the minds of people who otherwise have a love of truth, justice, and compassion in their hearts--among those mislead of which I myself have been. Once that is understood, the question isn’t about two different ways to address the problems that plague our society. It’s about whether to proactively address them or not really address them at all.

Brian’s original point was that:

It is entirely Christian to lift the poor and afflicted, etc., but it's not the government's job to do that. America's heritage of charitable giving existed long before the federal government stepped in. . . . It's great that we have a government that does that, however, enforced giving (taxation) forces people to give in ways they may not like.

Mine was:

It is exactly the government’s job to help its citizens and enable the oppressed and afflicted to pursue their own happiness. . . . Even with all the charity and government money that is given for social programs, millions of people, including millions of children, live below the poverty line, don’t receive the quality of education as children in areas of higher socioeconomic classes, and usually live the lives of ignorance, poverty and/or crime that those factors so often predict.

Brian answers:

This is exactly the point... There is no amount of money large enough anywhere to remedy these problems.

That is exactly the point that I already addressed in my last response, when I wrote that it is the programs’ cutbacks by conservatives that prevent progress from being made, and that it is hard to accomplish something when you’re hands are constantly being tied behind your back!

Brian continues:

Even in those nations that have socialist/communist governments, poverty is rampant. The Soviet Union, East Germany, Yugoslavia, Red China, North Korea, even Cuba, all are communist/socialist states, using the resources of government to 'take care' of everyone. Yet poverty is worse there than in any free-market nation.

You are now arguing against something that has nothing to do with my argument. First of all, I said nothing against the free-market: I am for the free-market! You don’t have to be laissez-fare to be free-market. Second, these countries have nothing to do with what I’m talking about. The Soviet Communist countries and the governments modeled after them, like China, North Korea and Cuba, were/are dictatorial countries with a political system I despise! They have taken the writings of Karl Marx and turned them on their head; they have done what I say the Christian Right has done to the teachings of Yeshua. Autocracy and oppression have nothing to do with social and economic progressivism, but are obviously contrary to it. If you read the Russian history that encompasses the period before, during and after the Revolution, which involves a lot more factors than just the ideology of socialism/communism, you’d understand a lot better how and why it played out the way it did and led to the wrong kind of government and the wrong kind of example. The Revolution (aside from the notable fact that it wasn’t non-violent) began with virtuous, moral, and just potential, but the course of history was changed when it was taken out of the hands of Leon Trotsky, an idealist and true Marxist socialist, by his betrayal from his more sinister and less-idealist co-revolutionary Joseph Stalin, a tyrant in waiting.

Don’t throw out the red herring of Soviet Stalinist Communism to mislead the debate; talk about the governments that really model social progressivism, such as Norway, Sweden Denmark, Canada, and even the northeast and northwest United States. Poverty in such places is not rampant but is much less than in most places, and the standard of life is much better than most places. People have access to the food, medical treatment, and services they need for a suitable quality of life, and there is a high and a middle class and the ability to become or remain rich, but there is a much smaller low, poor class.

Brian had before written:

The largest single government welfare program was President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." and its "War on Poverty".... The result of the Great Society is abject failure. With the exception of the Civil Rights Acts... little good has come. Government agencies that govern these Great Society programs are models of inefficiency, waste, pork-barrel spending, and all manner of nonsense.

To which I responded:

Ah - taking one of President Johnson’s greatest accomplishments and calling it an abject failure--touché.

He answers:

I believe President Johnson's greatest accomplishment (and greatest failure) was that little todo over in French Indo-China commonly called the Viet Nam War.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by his greatest accomplishment. Actually, I can’t see any accomplishment in that part of his presidency. Going completely away from Kennedy’s example of reaching out and forming a dialogue, and going against the advice of and letting go of his capable Secretary of Defense, Joseph McNamara, was his greatest failure, hands-down. It contributed to nearly another decade of unjust and unnecessary war and the loss of many thousands more lives. To quote the man whom I consider to be the greatest Christians of his time, and one of the greatest Christians ever, Martin Luther King, Jr., “The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” I find it every bit as applicable today as when it was spoken.

I enumerated the many contributions of the Great Society, most of which still provide the framework for the programs of social good that exist today:

Civil Rights; Head Start, and the Primary, Secondary, and Higher Education Acts; food stamps; Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration (including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act); numerous consumer protection acts; Clear Air, Water Quality and Clean Water Restoration Acts and Amendments, the Endangered Species Preservation Act and the Wilderness Act, and other measures.

Brian responds:

First of all, all of these programs have had some measure of good. There can be no denying that. However, where in the Constitution of the United States does it state that any of these things are the responsibility of the federal government? They simply aren't. Education is specifically left to the states.

You have to remember that the world is drastically different in 2006 from what it was in 1789! That is why the Constitution that was drafted in 1789 was seen by its architects as a starting point for the wonderful experiment of the democratic republic that was just sprouting in the world. Knowledge and information traveled and diffused slowly, and its acquisition was much more simple and less important for life as it was known at the time. A uniform quality of education wasn’t hard to achieve. The exact opposite for all of that is now true. Education is one of the most important issues for our country; the future depends on it. And all of the other programs, which you say have done “some measure of good” (actually a tremendous measure), simply would not have been taken up at all had it not been for the Great Society.

Continuing:

There are few success stories about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - the only news about them is that there is never enough money. And why not? Because throwing more money at these things doesn't solve the problems!

For someone who works around a lot of old folks (Brian works at a retirement home), that sounds like a startling position. There are plenty of success stories for those programs in the lives of people who have benefited from them! The only trouble they face in achieving their goals is that the conservative government is always trying to cut them, usually by finding ways to make a small number of rich people richer off what they do!

He goes on:

I personally enjoy the programs of the Nat'l Endowments for Arts/Humanities, and I am a regular listener/member of my local public radio station. However, even those programs are not government responsibilities. In fact, they flourish without government assistance. Since funding for NPR was cut by the Federal Government, NPR has gotten more aggressive in its own fund-raising from private ventures. They now exceed funding for programming than when they were on the government dole.

The fact that NPR and PBS is always on the chopping block of conservatives has more to do with the information and truth that comes from them, which they determine as a “liberal bias,” than the subsidy required to keep them up. If they were spouting out neoconservative cant, they’d be calling it an essential public service and doing everything they could to fund them and keep them alive. And as far as staying alive, they are not doing great. As it is, it seems every plea for donations from their listeners/viewers is more desperate than the last, and they have specifically mentioned the difficulty of the recent federal budget cuts for their programming.

Private contributions are helpful for public broadcasting, but it is still just that, public broadcasting, and it is that for a reason. By not having its funding come solely from private supporters and endowments, it is able to remain straightforward and unbiased, without worrying about courting or keeping the support of particular contributors.

He continues:

As for Food Stamps: When I was a child, with a single mother and a father who did not pay his child support, my mother NEVER went on welfare. Instead, she took a second job. My brothers and I took paper routes to make extra money. I went to work in high school as soon as I was ready. In my adult life, there have been several times when we earned less than the poverty level and public welfare was available to us. But I would never think it correct to take a hand out from the government when I am perfectly able to work and earn the money myself. I have taken second jobs, my wife has taken second jobs, and we have gotten along well without Uncle Sam.

I’m glad your story went well, but the fact is that there are many who certainly are not doing well at all. I have some places I’d like you to see to get an idea of what I’m talking about. They are places where people work 40-60 hours a week and still do not have enough to feed their kids. They are places where the kids grow up and learn that it is a lot easier to make their living on the streets selling drugs and stealing than trying to make a living in a world that is heavily slanted against them. And personally, if I was in a position where I needed public welfare and it was available to me, I wouldn’t hesitate to take it (I could certainly have used a lot more help, many times, in going to school. As you can see, I’ve had to--hopefully temporarily--drop out despite my honors GPA). And as far as high school kids with jobs--if it is for extra cash, or for their car, or to save for college, then that is fine. But kids should not have to get jobs to support their families; that is a time for them to focus on school and to prepare for their future--a future in which education is becoming more and more important.

More:

When our children were little, my wife (who is a teacher), stayed home with them. There was no need for Head Start. The choices we've made in life made it unnecessary. We did without a lot - a second car, cable TV, computers, fancy clothes, travel/trips, etc. And yet those are some of the richest years of our marriage.

First your solution is for your wife to have a second job, then it is for her to have no job and stay at home with the kids. There is a need for Head Start in America, because for many of the children that benefit from it, it is the beginning of the determination of whether they do successfully in school or face developmental deficiency and eventually drop out. And, by the way, I’m not talking about helping people to pay for second cars and fancy clothes and vacations. I’m talking about food (and not the cheap crap most poor people eat--I mean healthy food), a place to live, medicine, and the means to obtain education.

Brian says:

...no organization with the notorious record that these bloated government bureaucracies have would be able to exist if they were operating in a free-market manner.

Unless you’re aware of some figures that I don’t have access too, that’s just more false and negative impression. The whole view, the whole picture, of inefficiency and “bloated government bureaucracies” is conservative propaganda. Even FEMA was a sufficiently resourceful until it met its match in a disaster bigger than any one the country has ever known. And now that those shortcomings have been discovered, the government is back at the drawing board to reorganize and recreate the agency to meet the bar that has been raised.

I wrote:

... it is not the amount of wealth that is the reason for poverty and hunger. There is more than enough to go around. It is the distribution of wealth.

Brian responds:

The point here is "who makes the distribution of the wealth?" I am not a wealthy man, yet the federal government takes almost $12,000 a year of my income that, frankly, I would like to 'distribute' myself. Why are the fat-cats in Washington allowed to rob me and other middle class people to pay for things we don't support? I can (and do) support many charities and we live a simply life style in order to do so.
The same holds true for the wealthiest and the poorest in America. Let them spend their own energies living their life as they wish.

Fat-cats in Washington? You’re talking about the Republicans with personal big-business interests! There are plenty of them, and they profit from their own legislation tremendously. This is the whole debate of a regressive versus a progressive tax system. In the regressive system, most of the tax cuts--like the current ones--wind up heavily favoring the rich and not doing much for the poor, except starving the programs that they benefit from. That actually diminishes the mere existence of the middle class. In the progressive system, taxes and tax-cuts affect people in a more balanced way. It sounds like you should be voting Democrat.

Private charities serve an important role in our society, and there are many that I believe more people should be supporting. However, if you let all charity go by who has the best platform and who has the best ads and ability to draw funding, then a lot of people and causes wind up not being noticed and falling through the cracks.

I had written:

The Constitution was written by men who envisioned a changing world, and allowed room for the governing of the nation to reflect that changing world and meet the needs of the people. At the time our nation began, life was simpler and more pastoral. Every family had the means to pursue their own happiness; there wasn’t
need for the government to do anything to enable them pursue it. However, the
Industrial Revolution allowed the means of production (power and wealth) to be concentrated in the hands of the few, at the expense of the many. It was a huge
change in the world, and a whole new ball game. Never before had barons and magnates been able to gain and wield so much political and economic influence.

Brian responds:

Egad. That's why they sought independence? I thought it was so that everyone could seek their own way in life and to throw off the tyranny of an oppressive and draconian government. It seems to me that, as grandchildren of the Great Society, liberals have created and continue to feed tyranny of a different sort. Instead of a Monarch, the tyrant is bureaucracy.

I think you missed the whole point of what I wrote. One of the very first stated purposes of the existence of America as its own country was the pursuit of happiness--because they were being taxed, but their interests, and they, weren’t being represented. The Industrial Revolution allowed for the existence of what I described in my last reply, “oligarchy of a few rich businessmen.” You can’t pursue happiness without opportunity, and those few rich business men want to keep down their working class so they can maximize profit and maintain power. To call progressive ideas, the champions of people against that oppression, tyrannical, is just plain misunderstanding.

Drawing a page from a current issue, I wrote:

Let me remind you that a measure just went before Congress to raise the minimum wage of American workers, many of whom, at the current wage, are living below the poverty line. It was a wonderful opportunity to improve the lives of millions of hard-working, poor Americans, yet it was defeated--by the small-government, pro-business conservatives, at the opposition of the progressive, liberal lawmakers who introduced it. They did, however, vote to raise their own pay! I believe there is pinpointed the embodiment of your gratuitous back-slapping and monuments to ego and self.

Brian says:

I sometimes think you're arguing for my side, too, Joey.

(The feeling is mutual; as I said, you really should be voting Democrat).

Continuing, he says:

The minimum wage issue a case in point. Why is the government involved with that? You accuse the 'small-government, pro-business conservatives' for its defeat, yet isn't that what the government is supposed to do? Represent the constituents? And the constituents spoke up. At the same time, you argue my point exactly about smaller government. The Congressional pay raise was preposterous, unnecessary and exactly as you stated: the embodiment of your gratuitous back-slapping and monuments to ego and self.

Yes, the government is supposed to represent its constituents, and that is right now exactly what it is not doing. Those conservatives that voted the measure down were representing the interests of a very few number of their constituents, and doing something terrible for a much greater number of their constituents--whom they have been able to, by distracting them with “conservative values” campaigns and the illusion that they have anything to do with the teachings of Yeshua, convince to vote for them against their own interests! The constituents that “speak up” in cases like this aren’t the ones that speak in numbers; they’re the ones that speak with their many dollars. They are the ones that have spiritually bankrupted America.

And you say that, with the Congressional pay raise, I’m actually arguing your point for smaller government? How does that have to do with the size of government? Are you trying to say that you are in favor of the dissolution of Congress itself? The only congressmen that voted against that pay raise were the ones that were doing so in protest of the vote against the minimum wage raise--the Democrats and progressives. Things would be different if they were the majority--life would be better for a lot more people.

Expressing my central and underlying theme, I wrote:

The kind of government set forth in the Constitution, and the kind progressives strive for today, is government by the people, for the people. Considering the people he blessed in the Sermon on the Mount, and the people among whom he made his ministry, I think Yeshua would have related pretty well with the people of such a government. You might even say it more closely approaches the Kingdom of God of which he spoke.

Brian answers:

I think we're closer than you may think. The Kingdom of God transcends government and governments. Whether or not the federal government had it's Great Society, the Church has a responsibility to care for the poor and down trodden. In the communist government of China, Christians are obligated to stand up for the oppressed minorities (of every ethnicity and religion) that Hu and his cronies seek to obliterate. Under Hitler, it was Christians who created escape routes for the doomed Jews. It doesn't depend on the government to carry out the work of the Kingdom of God. It depends on Christians to do it.

Yeshua said the Kingdom of God was coming. What does that mean? Most Christians now think of it as something to hope for in the future, or after this life. I don’t think of Heaven as a place to go after you die, but a place to work on creating in this world we all share, and in the lives that all of us are living right now. Yes, it does depend on Christians to carry that out. It also depends on Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus, and Buddhists, and atheists, and agnostics like myself. It depends on everyone, and what we all have in common, our great society of people and the social web that binds us all together. That is, after all, why we are supposed to have a government that is by the people, and for the people.

Israeli police investigate the bloody scene at a train station in Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, hit by rockets from the militant group Hezbollah after days of Israeli attacks on the city of Beirut. 

Lebanese women console each other in a rubble-reduced neighborhood. 

A Lebanese civilian escapes the rubble in Beirut; the flag of Germany, whose soccer team is popular in the neighborhood, is seen in the background. 

smoke rises over Beirut after a nightime airstrike of the city 

Lebanese citizens and a medic flee from Israeli airstrike 

'How would Jesus vote?' continued: the role of government

Part two of the discussion on Jesus and the role of government. Brian, a friend of mine and a pastor in Indiana, believes that government oversteps its role and interferes with the true Christian mission. I contend that fighting for social justice is the real heritage of Yeshua.

Brian originally wrote:

"It is entirely Christian to lift the poor and afflicted, etc., but it's not the government's job to do that. America's heritage of charitable giving existed long before the federal government stepped in. Schools, orphanages, hospitals, social service agencies (like Red Cross and YMCA) were all started by Christian groups seeking to address those concerns, long before the government was involved in any of it. It's great that we have a government that does that, however, enforced giving (taxation) forces people to give in ways they may not like."

I replied:

"It is exactly the government’s job to help its citizens and enable the oppressed and afflicted to pursue their own happiness. That’s the whole idea of government by the people and for the people. Charitable non-government organizations like the Red Cross and YMCA are great in their sphere of influence, but they don’t do nearly enough, and many independent charities that are subsidized by the government wouldn’t be able to function without that subsidy. Even with all the charity and government money that is given for social programs, millions of people, including millions of children, live below the poverty line, don’t receive the quality of education as children in areas of higher socioeconomic classes, and usually live the lives of ignorance, poverty and/or crime that those factors so often predict."

To which Brian responds:

"The largest single government welfare program was President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society.' and its 'War on Poverty.' The scope of it dwarfed President Roosevelt's New Deal during the depression. The result of the Great Society is abject failure. With the exception of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964-65-68 and their provisions for equal treatment for all irregardless of skin color or ethnicity, little good has come. Government agencies that govern these Great Society programs are models of inefficiency, waste, pork-barrel spending, and all manner of nonsense."

Ah, taking one of President Johnson’s greatest accomplishments and calling it an abject failure--touché. It’s effects must now be so ubiquitous that you’re not even noticing them. Most of the government programs that have helped improve things since the 60’s, and that now help people, are the legacy of the Great Society initiative:

-Civil Rights (as you acknowledged)

-Head Start, and the Primary, Secondary, and Higher Education Acts

-food stamps, upon which many families depend so their children don’t go malnourished

-Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

-the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

-the Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration (including the very important National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which has by now saved millions of lives--inspired by a hero of mine, Ralph Nader),

-numerous consumer protection acts to prevent dangerous products and shady business (also largely thanks to Ralph)

-the beginning of protecting the environment and natural heritage with the Clear Air, Water Quality and Clean Water Restoration Acts and Amendments, the Endangered Species Preservation Act and the Wilderness Act, and other measures.

“Inefficiency, waste, pork-barrel spending, and all manner of nonsense” are buzz-phrases spread by the programs’ enemies to give people a negative impression. No organization or program runs with perfect efficiency, including charitable agencies, part of the proceeds of which go to the agency. For-profit businesses, of course, generally serve the interests of the company executives, the shareholders, and the board--and they don’t often do too much for employees and consumers (i.e., the people, and especially the poor ones).

The Great Society started out with many ambitious goals--some of which were realized quickly, others of which took some time, and yet others which, for the deep, underlying root of the problems they sought to address, and/or the conservative opposition to the measures implemented, are still as yet unrealized. The War on Poverty is one such an aspect of the latter. It achieved a lot in its time, such as bringing the portion of Americans living below the poverty line from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent between 1963 and 1970--the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in the past century. However, funding for the programs became very difficult because of the costliness of the Vietnam War. Important programs of the War on Poverty, such as the Office of Economic Opportunity, were dismantled by Nixon and Ford--and then even deeper cuts were made by President Ronald Reagan in favor of his record spending on (largely unused and Cold War paranoia-induced) military buildup. And today, advocates for measures to help those in poverty are still fighting the conservatives to get them passed. It’s hard to carry out your goals when you have your hands tied behind your back.

So if they’re always shot down while they’re still ideas, how do we know how they work in practice? Look at the places where a majority of government are in favor of working on these issues, and are able to pass measures to improve life for people. These are places like the northeast and northwest, which are among the lowest-poverty, highest-quality of life places to live in the US.

Brian continues:

"What does this mean? Simply that more dollars don't solve the poverty problem. Most of the world lives in poverty but I would assert that most of the world is happier than most Americans. (Obviously, areas that are infested with disease and other maladies are the exceptions. ) It is a blessing that so much American revenue is used for the fighting of hunger, disease, and poverty around the world, but even here in the wealthiest nation on earth, there is poverty. Why? Because more money doesn't end poverty. Even Jesus Christ Himself said, 'the poor you have with you always.' The truly poor are those who have great wealth and who do not surrender it freely on their own - not by taxation, but by charity and love."

Yeshua was referring to the fact that you need to spend your efforts on helping the poor as they are people always among you--not saying that they will always be poor. What you’re right in is that it is not the amount of wealth that is the reason for poverty and hunger. There is more than enough to go around. It is the distribution of wealth. In the United States, 10% of the population owns 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controls 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% own less than 1% of the total wealth. Dollars do solve the problems--that is, when they’re not spent on frivolous and excessive consumerism by a culture that is at the whims of marketing. Dollars buy food; dollars buy textbooks and interactive learning systems, and better and more teachers and school counselors; dollars help set up after-school and community programs; dollars buy medicine and medical treatments; dollars buy sanitation and a clean and healthy environment. Dollars do make life better; it’s just in how they’re spent.

I asked:

"Is there anywhere that the Constitution says that the government shouldn’t address and work on public issues?"

To which Brian answers:

"There is nowhere in the Contitution that says government should do it, either.
On many issues, both liberals and conservatives might say 'Jesus is on our side.'…. Whether or not Jesus is on any particular side on these issues is debatable. However, the limited government of the Constitution certainly couldn't have anticipated a bureaucracy in Washington that is bloated on its own spending, not even flinching as it spends trillions of dollars that belong to the people it supposedly represents."

The Constitution was written by men who envisioned a changing world, and allowed room for the governing of the nation to reflect that changing world and meet the needs of the people. At the time our nation began, life was simpler and more pastoral. Every family had the means to pursue their own happiness; there wasn’t need for the government to do anything to enable them pursue it. However, the Industrial Revolution allowed the means of production (power and wealth) to be concentrated in the hands of the few, at the expense of the many. It was a huge change in the world, and a whole new ball game. Never before had barons and magnates been able to gain and wield so much political and economic influence.

Brian reflects:

"A preacher (I believe it was Tony Campolo) once said that we know we are truly Christian when our hearts are broken by the same things that break the heart of God. The federal government has proven that it only works to perpetuate itself. More gratuitous back-slapping, more monuments to ego and self, more war-making machinery, more of the same."

It’s a good thing I’m not an experienced public servant who takes great pride and satisfaction in his or her work, or I might be offended by that. Let me remind you that a measure just went before Congress to raise the minimum wage of American workers, many of whom, at the current wage, are living below the poverty line. It was a wonderful opportunity to improve the lives of millions of hard-working, poor Americans, yet it was defeated--by the small-government, pro-business conservatives, at the opposition of the progressive, liberal lawmakers who introduced it. They did, however, vote to raise their own pay! I believe there is pinpointed the embodiment of your gratuitous back-slapping and monuments to ego and self.

Those who work for social justice and try to enact beneficial programs are not working for the benefit of the government. They understand that the government is there for the benefit of the people. It is the powerful representatives of big business who are out to serve their own interests. The idea of the trickle-down effect, that what’s good for business is good for everyone, is a myth. Business interests are the interests of shareholders, company executives, and board members. It is solely about profit, and it is profitable to take advantage of people; it is profitable to deny your employees, and cheat and brainwash consumers. It only widens the gulf between rich and poor, and allows the wealthy to better grind upon the faces of the underprivileged.

Finally, Brian states:

"I believe it is responsible to vote in such a way that those who represent us will empower us as individuals to do what we are able, without the constraints of bureaucracy."

I believe it is responsible to vote in such a way that those who represent us will empower us as individuals to do what we are able, without the constraints of limited means and the oligarchy of rich businessmen. Right now there are inner city and underprivileged children who have all the inherent potential of anyone else to become something great, but will never become doctors, never become engineers or artists or visionaries of the future, because they are now living in poverty, not getting the right nutrition, not getting a good education, and do not have access to the things that can make their lives something more. They drop out of school, fall into crime or low-paying jobs for the rest of their lives, and their contribution is lost. If I were a God, that’s what would break my heart. It’s what breaks my heart as an empathetic human; it’s a tragedy.

Ending, he says:

"After all, the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Sanhedrin were a government bureaucracy. Look at how well Jesus related to them ;-)"

The Sadducees, Pharisees, and Sanhedrin did not have political power; they had religious authority only, and were subject to the Roman government--of which Yeshua said, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” However, what power they did have was theocratic, not democratic. The kind of government set forth in the Constitution, and the kind progressives strive for today, is government by the people, for the people. Considering the people he blessed in the Sermon on the Mount, and the people among whom he made his ministry, I think Yeshua would have related pretty well with the people of such a government. You might even say it more closely approaches the Kingdom of God of which he spoke.

'How would Jesus vote?' continued: would Yeshua condemn abortion?

In this continuing discussion between my ministerial friend Brian and I on the trueness of the left and right in approaching the virtue of the teachings of Jesus, or Yeshua, I’m going to break my response into two parts based on subject. In this post, I will address the abortion debate. The next post will take on the discussion of the proper role of government.

Originally, Brian wrote:

“One cannot oppose war and capital punishment and be consistent if they also support abortion. The termination of all human life is wrong, despite the wishes of the child's mother. The government doesn't really control a woman's ability to make personal choices about her body - it protects the life of the one in side her, who has a separate body, separate mind, separate personality, separate emotions, etc.”

To which I replied:

“The same principles that apply to abortion cannot and do not apply to capital punishment and war, because capital punishment and war concern sentient human life, which has consciousness, and therefore, an identity, personhood, and rights. A ‘person’ doesn’t exist without consciousness; it follows from Descartes’ one certain truth, cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’”

Brian writes, in response:

“My wife teaches special needs children. At times she has children with an IQ of less than one. These are children who are unable to do little more than lay on a mat on the floor and respond to external stimuli. The only identity-personhood-rights they have are those which are provided for them by their parents. Their consciousness is next to nothing. Those children who are blind and uncommunicative are nearly entirely isolated. How does the standard of 'sentient' life apply to those children?”

If there is truly no consciousness, then it is not a person. How can there be a person who does not exist as a conscious entity? It may be a living organism, but it cannot even consider itself or its world, or anything. However, the IQ is not really good for determining consciousness (I personally don‘t even think it‘s that great for determining intelligence). You have to ask yourself, “does it have even the slightest capacity to care what happens to it?” If it does, then I say it has personhood rights. And don’t misunderstand--like the inspiring Helen Keller, blind, uncommunicative and nearly isolated children may be conscious and sentient, and may become free from their internal prison.

I wrote:

“A fetus does not have a separate mind, personality, or emotions from the mother until it develops the neural capacity for consciousness (and what is a “soul” but mind, personality, and emotions?).”

Brian responds:

“Ask any woman who has had more than one child if this is true! Even in utero some children are active, some passive. Unborn children respond to light, music, touch, voices, affirmation, negative remarks, etc. And each unborn child responds differently. (What is a 'soul' will need to wait for abother blog!)”

The fact that a fetus is merely unborn, still in the mother’s womb, is not what the issue of personhood and rights is about! The issue is about sentience and consciousness. By the time the fetus has developed a personality, and is able to consciously respond to stimuli, the time for legal abortion has passed. I’m not, nor are pro-choice activists, talking about aborting the baby that is deliberately kicking around in mommy’s tummy!

I wrote:

“As that happens, of course, the fetus does gain the rights of personhood, and by the time the brain has developed to that degree, near the end of the second trimester, the legal abortion term limit has passed. The same goes for embryos used in stem cell research and treatments--an embryo is a clump of cells; it doesn’t think, and doesn’t have an intrinsic value greater than that of any other simple multi-celled organism.”

Brian responds:

"Please clarify for me how a fetus at three days is a different entity than the same fetus at three weeks, three months, and three trimesters. That 'clump of cells' is part and parcel of what the child is on its birthday. When the 'clump' is destroyed, the child is destroyed. Everything about the child's 'personhood' is in the genes and chromosomes of those cells.”

No, the ‘clump of cells’ is not part and parcel of what the child is on its birthday, and everything about the child’s personhood is certainly not in the genes and chromosomes of those cells! You’re missing, I think, what personhood is. It isn’t a set of chromosomes; it isn’t simple genetic identity. When a woman’s eggs are fertilized, it happens to several of them, and most, having deleterious genes, lead to the zygote’s failure. It has 46 chromosomes, yes, just like you and me, but it is not a tragedy, because it has never had a thought at all. Even a viable embryo’s potential to become a person does not make it a person. Your personhood is in your brain, your mind, your thoughts, memories, emotions, habits, your existential identity--not your genes. Even at the very beginning of the development of mind and awareness, I argue that there are rights, but not until then. Having 46 chromosomes of certain genes means nothing for identity--I could have an ‘identical’ twin with the exact same genes that not only is not me, but is nothing like me.

I originally wrote:

"The concept of 'personhood' is really what theories of ethics and rights arise from. A woman has personhood, and the rights over her body until that body carries something that is a person in its own right."

Brian’s response:

"I agree with this, but the unborn child is not 'her body.' In the crudest terms, a fetus is a foreign organism in her womb, but it is an organism none-the-less. In an abortion, no part of the woman is removed . . . but all of the foreign organism is. It ceases to exist.

"In any other procedure, part of the woman is removed - a cancerous tumor, an amputated toe, an unwanted wrinkle. Left unattended, a tumor grows into a larger tumor, an unamputated toe might grow into a case of gangrene, an unwanted wrinkle into a full blown sag. BUT, left unattended, a united egg and sperm become a clump of cells that becomes a fetus that is a child."

A woman can have any number of foreign, parasitic organisms living in her body, but it doesn’t mean she can’t rid herself of them! It doesn’t make sense to say “it ceases to exist,” if, in the sense of being a person, it never existed in the first place.

Brian also writes:

"That the unborn child is a person in its own right is different from the fact that the child is dependent on its mother. All human children are entirely dependent on their mothers, from conception through at least the first 18 months. They are mostly dependent on their mothers from 18 months through the next several years, and the still partially dependent through adolescence.

"According to your definitions of 'personhood,' a human child isn't really a person until it is an adult. This can't be really what you think, is it?"

No, of course not! Again, basic misunderstanding of what I’m saying personhood is. Personhood is not independence, it is not being in or out of the womb, it is not anything like that. It is having a mind, having and being a self.

What the hell is wrong with Israel?

“But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them;” (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

“So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.” (Joshua 10:40).

Why am I one of the only few Americans that would criticize the actions of our friend Israel? I feel a special connection with Israel, and support Israel’s peace--the overwhelming majority of Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors do, too, and badly want peace themselves. And I don’t support militant groups or acts in any form. But why do we, the United States, favor one people so much above the other? Why would we condemn Arab/Palestinian groups’ attacks and not express a shade of disappointment with Israel’s much more aggressive acts of destruction? Why would we give tremendous amounts of military and economic aid to Israel, one of the wealthiest per-capita nations, and yet do nothing even to acknowledge the Palestinian National Authority, which represents the poorest people in the region? Is it too much of a sin to see the plight of a group of Arab people? Maybe we don’t want to risk offending an ally--you can’t talk bad about a friend no matter what they do, right? And, of course, the Bible-believing, Old Testament-thumping Christians of the nation feel a religious obligation to stand behind “God’s Chosen People.” Well, if today’s Israel is representative of his chosen, I think I’d rather not be associated with such a one as God--because he’s clearly a violent terrorist.

Let’s review the chain of events. An Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, is kidnapped by Hamas, with the reason given of leverage for negotiating the release of Palestinian women and minors as prisoners (probably behind bars for throwing rocks at Israeli tanks). His abduction, for certain, isn’t excusable, even if he is safe. But what would Israel then do for fair measure? Fire rockets into the Gaza Strip, blowing up buildings, and invade with tanks the narrow streets of the impoverished region, tearing up the shops and roads of people several times poorer than Israelis. Scores dead--scores of civilians who had nothing to do with the kidnapping, dead.

Then, Hezbollah (which is a militant group in Lebanon not condoned or supported by the Lebanese government) kidnapped two more Israeli soldiers for a similar reason--the release of Hezbollah fighters. Some fighting erupted in northern Israel and southern Lebanon, with the group firing some rockets into Israeli towns across the border, killing one civilian, and fighting between the army and Hezbollah fighters resulting in the death of eight Israeli soldiers. In retaliation, Israel has invaded the state of Lebanon and bombed Beirut with air strikes, destroying the airport and many buildings, killing scores more civilians and wounding over 100. What is the image there? Reads one article of the Associated Press, “Middle East satellite TV stations focused on the violence, and one station showed a man holding the head and torso of a baby killed in the Israeli bombings.” There is no sense of balance in these measures. Tit for tat? More like KABOOM for tat. It is a head for an eye, and the whole jaw for a tooth.

We, the United States, are to Israel the blind friend who can’t see any fault, even when they are clearly wrong. We say we hope they don’t get into a fight, but we are the ones that bought the gun. Indeed, we are somewhat similar to that violent deity of the Old Testament: patient in carnage, longsuffering with destruction, slow to chastise his people, and quick to justify.
Pres. George W. Bush, commenting, said, “Israel has a right to defend itself.... Hamas doesn’t want peace, Hezbollah doesn’t want peace.…” What does it seem like Israel wants? Riding tanks through and tearing up the narrow streets of Gaza and bombing mainly civilian targets in Beirut don’t seem like acts of defense, and they certainly will not bring peace. If you want the safe return of your soldier and native son, then yes, by all means take the actions necessary to secure his safe return. But leave the Palestinian people out of it; they have nowhere to which to flee as you destroy their home. If you want to bring violent Hezbollah militants to justice, then use intelligence to find and bring them to justice. Israel has the capability to do so; the Israeli Defense Force has one of the most expert special ops divisions in the world. But instead, they’d rather send massive force into Lebanon and kill people who have nothing to do with it, and leave civil infrastructure in ruin.

Israel is a military state. Armed service is mandatory for both men and women. It’s defense spending, much of the funds for which comes from the United States, is far out of proportion to its civil spending, including measures to improve the poor Palestinian regions it controls. It has one of the strongest militaries in the world, while it is one of the smallest countries. And yet this strong military is not primarily used for defense purposes, but is almost always on the attacking side. And it is one of the few developed countries that has still not agreed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, or the Biological Toxin Weapons Convention. Israel has become an imbalanced aggressive country, hopped up on steroids and prone to violent mood-swings.

You know what kind of friend we need to be to Israel? The kind that says, “What is happening to you, man? I used to think you were cool.”


“We--that is to say, the Arabs and ourselves--have got to agree on the main outlines of an advantageous partnership which shall satisfy the needs of both nations. A just solution of this problem and one worthy of both nations is an end no less important and no less worthy of our efforts than the promotion of the work of construction itself.…

"We are assembled today for the purpose of calling to mind our age-old community, its destiny, and its problems. It is a community of moral tradition, which has always shown its strength and vitality in times of stress. In all ages it has produced men who embodied the conscience of the Western world, defenders of human dignity and justice….

"We need to pay great attention to our relations with the Arabs. By cultivating these carefully we shall be able in future to prevent things from becoming so dangerously strained that people can take advantage of them to provoke acts of hostility. This goal is perfectly within our reach, because our work of construction has been, and must continue to be, carried out in such a manner as to serve the real interests of the Arab population also.”
-Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, 1934