hawabarry

Here in New Jersey, the Garden State, we have a governor who has just proposed to make $500 million in permanent spending cuts, refinance state debt, reduce municipal aid, eliminate two cabinet departments, and introduce tougher standards in math and science education.

These are proposals that you might expect from a Republican, but Jon Corzine is a fiscally conservative, moderate to liberal social issues Democrat. Corzine, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, one of the oldest white-shoe Wall Street investment firms, governs New Jersey as if he doesn’t need the job. He’s taken his budget on the road to the voters; for the most part the media has shown that they have a tough time swallowing the bitter pill, but they are willing to listen. New Jersey does not have the best reputation for honest politics; two journalists just came out with a book calling Jersey the Sopranos State, but Corzine may be just the man to turn that image around.

There is a difference between Jon Corzine and the so-called compassionate conservatives who try to sell tax and spending cuts, as well as standards, and hope things all work out before the next election.

The debate in New Jersey is not over what government should give up, but on what it should do well. Garden Staters north and south place a premium on environmental protection, toll roads and public transportation, given New Jersey is sandwiched between New York City and Philadelphia. We’re also a state with over 570 municipal governments and over 600 school districts; local control is sacrament in education more than any other public service.

Corzine is not trying to force-feed draconian cuts or impose values on others; he’s raised a debate to tell the legislature and the voters that the state can’t afford to be business as usual. His own proposals are a challenge to Democrats — who control the legislature - and Republicans to put up or shut up and come up with a plan. There are services that every state government must perform for its citizens: law enforcement and public safety, judiciary, Medicaid disbursement, K-12 and higher education, maintain state highways, negotiating compacts with other states on transportation and environmental issues, being examples. Then there’s the rest of the budget.

For instance, on the surface, Corzine’s proposals to eliminate the departments of Agriculture and Personnel make more sense than other cuts. Agriculture is but one sector of our state’s economy; it makes no sense to give a cabinet level position to a single industry. We don’t have a secretary of technology or pharmacy. Agriculture is but one plank on an economic development platform in any state government. There’s no need for a state department of personnel when each and every state agency has their own human resource professionals who can align their work, jobs and wages to their agency’s mission. There’s no need for another set of bureaucratic hoops.

When this was proposed I had to wonder: why didn’t a previous governor think of it before? This makes perfect sense.

It’s the kind of creative thinking we need in our state.

(Originally published at Educated Quest blog and reprinted with permission of the author, Stuart Nachbar).

Contact Stuart Nachbar at Educated Quest, a blog on education politics, policy and technology or read about his first book, The Sex Ed Chronicle, a novel on education and politics in 1980 New Jersey, at Sex Ed Chronicles.

Exactly where are we in this conflict? It’s difficult to cut through to the truth with so much hot air coming from all sides. I decided to go back and read the Joint Resolution approved October 2002 by the President and the Senate authorizing the invasion or liberation (take your pick) of Iraq.

It begins with a bunch of whereas clauses summarizing the then current situation: Iraq had been kicked out of Kuwait and had agreed not to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and Iraq would not support terrorism; weapons inspectors had been forced to withdraw in 1998 and Congress had declared that Iraq’s continued development of weapons of mass destruction threatened world peace; the Iraqi regime continued to brutalize its civilian population; Iraq showed its hostility toward the United States by attempting to assassinate Bush 41 and shoot at US planes enforcing the no-fly zone; members of al Qaida are known to be in Iraq; the regime continues to harbor other terrorist organizations; Iraq might launch a surprise attack on the US or provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Therefore, the Joint Resolution authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

A review of this document indicates the US had several objectives, at least initially, in the war against the Iraqi regime.

• To eliminate weapons of mass destruction stockpiled or under development by Iraq as called for by various UN resolutions.

• To implement democracy within Iraq and eventually throughout much of the Middle East.

• To free the people of Iraq from a brutal dictatorship.

• To eliminate a dangerous enemy.

• To prevent Saddam Hussein from working with international terrorist groups that might threaten the US.

Although not specified in the Iraq War Resolution, it seems clear to me that the US was intent on making sure that control of Iraqi oil was taken from Saddam and turned over to a friendly Iraqi government. Removing Saddam also eliminated his threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other oil rich Middle East nations.

As everyone knows, we did not discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Although there are rumors that these weapons were shipped out of Iraq shortly before the invasion, no hard evidence supports this theory.

Therefore, we must conclude that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during the days leading up to the war. It appears there was a massive intelligence failure not only in the US, but in many other nations as well. Some have claimed that the Bush administration knew all along that there were no such weapons in Iraq, but this claim isn’t justified with evidence. Basically, it was a screw-up of massive proportions.

Iraq does have a democratic government, a parliamentary system where the people vote for their representatives, who join together in political parties and elect a Prime Minister. As described in Wikipedia, a permanent 275-member Iraqi National Assembly was selected in a general election in December 2005, initiating the formation of a new government. The Prime Minister of Iraq is Nouri al-Maliki, who holds most of the executive authority and appoints the cabinet. The current President of Iraq is Jalal Talabani, who serves largely as a figurehead, with few powers. The vice presidents are Tariq al-Hashimi and Adel Abdul Mehdi, deputy leader of SCIRI, the largest party in the Iraqi National Assembly. Although the government at times seems ineffective, it is an honest democracy. It remains to be seen if additional democracies will be established across the Middle East.

The US-led coalition has freed the people of Iraq from Saddam’s brutal dictatorship, and the new government is not oppressive. However, a violent Sunni/al Qaida insurgency has continued to murder thousands in an effort to plunge the nation into chaos and civil war. The US-led Surge, actually an increase in troops and a change in strategy, has splintered the insurgency and reduced the violence. Although the war is moving in the right direction, Iraq is still a dangerous country, both for the Iraqis and US troops.

The elimination of Saddam’s regime removed a dangerous enemy without question. However, the insurgency is equally dangerous. If our enemies are able to win in Iraq, they may be able to spread their hatred of the US beyond the borders of Iraq and across the region.

There is no hard evidence that Saddam was working with international terrorist groups. There appears to be some contact between al Qaida and Saddam’s regime, but no evidence of any type of alliance. It may be that the US was concerned about the potential for an alliance, given that both Saddam and al Qaida hate us.

Iraqi oil production is about 2.5 million bpd, about where it was before the war. However, the oil is being sold by a friendly government, so we don’t have to worry it will be used as a weapon.

To summarize, we have removed the yoke of dictatorship from the people of Iraq and implemented a democratic, if somewhat ineffective, national government. After years of warfare with extremists, the Surge seems to be leading to a better life for Iraqis. We have also removed an enemy from Iraq, and secured a supply of oil. All good things, clearly. On the other hand, no weapons of mass destruction were found, and the ties between Saddam and terrorists were not threatening. And we paid a heavy price in blood and national treasure.

Was it worth it? Each of us will have to make that assessment.

(Originally published on Dan Ronco’s website and reprinted with his permission).

Dan Ronco’s expertise in engineering and computer science infuses his fast-paced techno-thriller Unholy Domain with detail and authenticity. His second novel, it warns of the looming clash between religion and advanced science. Visit Dan Ronco.

What would happen if many in the US Military simply resigned?

Benefit to them: If US military volunteers would just resign, their risk of war zone deployment or any further service would be over! The military’s “back door draft” (Inactive Ready Reserve) policy subjects them to be called up, again, for active duty service even after their current enlistment periods are over. They could just refuse to serve and go through the judicial process instead of being subject to more active duty time. In such a circumstance, the ACLU would work to jettison their court-martial cases into civil courts where many judges would understand their confessed foolishness for enlisting in the first place. Once that precedent is set, if it is not already set from the Vietnam era, all future cases could refer to existing precedent.

The result: Probable suspension of any jail periods due for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice including dereliction of duty. Our military members could then return to their families and get on with their lives. The American people, via Congress, would probably not withhold their military benefits whether in agreement with their resignations or not. It is a likely scenario, if our service members would just get over their egos and concepts of Duty, Honor, Country.

Why would they resign to face due process and potential prison terms? Envision a mission left unfinished because the American electorate quit the mission. Imagine being required to accept the deaths of your comrades and your own limbs lost in battle, for no gain, after being ordered to withdraw from the battlefield before real victory is achieved. Why would they not resign, in such a circumstance?

The best way to enact a new military draft is to get our current volunteers to resign. The best way to get our volunteers to resign is to ignore and subvert their majority political wishes during wartime.

Voters only have the three choices below:

1) Don’t vote to ignore our troops’ majority political wishes, during wartime.

2) Vote against What Our Troops Want so they fail in their current mission and resign.

3) Align your votes with What Our Troops Want to provide real voting support of them.

There are no other options. Voting as the majority of our volunteer troops vote is not subjugation to our military, as the Nazis required. It is proper alignment and support of them with your votes. It puts the most important right you own (your right to vote), which they protect for you, into action and enforces your verbal support of them. Objective understanding of their political wishes is required as well as making the following decision. Is what you want or is what our troops want, during wartime, more important? What those majority troop political wishes are, and when they change, is what matters … so your votes don’t subvert what our troops want.

The next US military draft will likely include females so offer up your daughters to Uncle Sam. Vote for option two above, or don’t vote at all, and usher in a new military draft. This is simple, my dear Watson.

When we judge our military members no longer deserve our voting support, we will publish a new website on the theme of Subvert Our Troops.

Votes affect morale (on both sides) – Connect the Dots!

Average Joe Boomer helps you boost troop morale, by influencing voters, with his Wear the Gear products and website at www.VoteWithTroops.com.

When an assassin’s bullet ended the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968, the Civil Rights Movement was at a crossroad. Many people in the movement did not have supreme confidence, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, in King’s successor and confidant, Rev. Ralph Abernathy and consequently many of his protests ended in embarrassment.

Abernathy had been instrumental in the Montgomery bus boycott and the formation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference but often clashed with the more charismatic Jackson over the organization’s direction after the assassination of King.

Nevertheless, Abernathy held the SCLC’s top position until 1977 when he ran unsuccessfully for the Georgia congressional seat. Unfortunately, Abernathy did not have the leadership abilities of King, and the fierier Jackson replaced him in the hearts of many African Americans.

Jackson, along with other leaders such as Al Sharpton, would go on to lead the cause for Black issues well into the new millennium.

However, with new issues confronting the African American community, who will step up to the plate when the old school leaders pass on the torch to the younger generation?

Many within the Black community, such as renowned journalist Jason Whitlock, have recently criticized Jackson and Sharpton for attacking White bigots such as Don Imus and not spending adequate time addressing issues that have developed because of the behavior and apathy of African Americans. Whitlock even went so far as to compare the current group of leaders to terrorists such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Whoever accepts the torch from our predecessors will not only have to deal with bigotry from White America but also internal problems in Black America such as drug abuse, violence, high rates of sexually transmitted disease and extremely high incarceration rates.

In a previous era, the younger generation looked to the preachers and teachers for guidance. However, in the 21st century many young African Americans are turning to entertainers and athletes for that guidance and direction.

Rappers have become the role models in the new millennium, becoming huge influences in the world of fashion, jewelry and vehicles. Unfortunately, many hip-hip artists seem more content to use their celebrity for negativity as opposed to promoting positive images for the younger generation.

If a rap artist can influence a teenager to buy a certain car or purchase a $1000 grill they can certainly persuade that same teenager to avoid the pitfalls of the thug life they so often glorify.

When an educated professional from corporate America counsels a young child, the child often views that adult as out-of-touch with the grim realities of poverty, drugs, and violence that they face on a daily basis.

However, those same children often relate better to athletes and entertainers who sometimes come from similar backgrounds and were able to succeed against the same seemingly insurmountable odds.

With that influence, many in the world of hip-hop could have the same impact that Dr. King and Malcolm X had on the youth of the 1950s and 1960s.

Imagine the late Tupac Shakur urging the youth of the 1990s to avoid the dangers of the street life by turning away from a life of crime and using their experience to encourage the younger generation to avoid the same pitfalls.

Imagine Kanye West urging the youth of today to pursue a college education and using that knowledge to have an impact on the less fortunate in American and in countries like Sierra Leonne.

Imagine 50 Cent using his experience as a drug kingpin who endured a vicious attack by his adversaries encouraging the next generation that they can climb any mountain and overcome any obstacle no matter how dire the situation may seem.

Despite the need for young Black leaders to address internal problems, there is still a need for young soldiers to address the ills of racism and discrimination that African Americans endure on a daily basis.

New Black Panther Party leader Quanell X is poised to take the torch from leaders like Jackson and Sharpton.

Quanell X began his career as a Nation of Islam activist after spending a brief time in jail for possession and dealing crack cocaine in 1989. Once a “young street thug,” Quanell improved his image to set a better example for the young people he leads. He is known for always wearing business suits and being clean cut.

The activist made a name for himself around the country for protesting the systematic discrimination that permeates through all levels of government and politics, often acting as a voice for oppressed people who have no voice.

Historically, Whites as well as Blacks have not always praised the voices of Black activists. However, the need for young leaders to put their livelihood on the line for the betterment of their people will always be necessary as long as inequalities exist in American society. The Black community is in desperate need of a unifying and uplifting voice to encourage the next generation to reach for the sky. Will that next leader be you?

Todd Smith is the web master for Regal Mag The preeminent Online Magazine for African American Men.

There’s no denying it– the U.S. economic downturn is evident everywhere from lagging home sales to rising gas and food costs. And as companies downsize and shift jobs overseas to save money, unemployment fears rise. Let’s face it, we’re all looking to stretch our dollars these days but we should also be looking to support American-made products.

Why? Frankly, buying items made here does vastly more good for our country’s employment level than buying goods made in other countries. Now more than ever it matters, as the people who made that product need that job. Keeping them employed helps to stop the downturn from getting worse. In effect, the negative cycle is broken if we buy products made here in the USA.

There are lots of other reasons to care about products being made in the USA.

1) The Next Generation - As the U.S. manufacturing ability fades, future generations of U.S. citizens will be unable to find relevant jobs.

2) Support Democracy - Factories and money are currently shifting to countries not friendly to the USA or democracy.

3) Respect for Workers and Environment - Lack of minimum wage, worker safety, or environmental pollution controls in many countries undermines the concept of “fair and free trade”. No nation can ultimately compete on price with a country willing to massively exploit and pollute its own people.

4) Safety – Foreign safety standards are non-existent or dangerously low. There are poisonous levels of lead in tens of millions of toys shipped to the USA.

5) Trade Deficit - The huge U.S trade deficit leads to massive, unsustainable borrowing from other countries.

6) Reliance on Other Countries - The growing lack of America’s ability to manufacture many products is strategically unsound.

7) Wage Exploitation - The minimum wage is low or non- existent in many countries.

The Environment – U.S. manufacturing processes are much cleaner for the environment than many other countries. Many brands sold here are produced in countries using dangerous, heavily polluting processes.

9) No Return – Once gone, jobs shipped abroad almost never return.

10) Worker Conditions - Foreign labor standards allow unsafe worker conditions in many countries.

Unfortunately, sometimes it’s downright difficult to find American made products. But there’s something we can all do about that, as well.

We can change things. We can make a real difference. We can use our collective voices and our buying power to affect change.

If you hear a major U.S. producer is considering moving production to Mexico, tell them about your concerns. Senior executives get a lot less mail than you might realize, so if they suddenly start getting twenty letters a day on a topic, it’s a nightmare. Heaven forbid we start writing to newspapers, or standing up at shareholder meetings!

Stores, even big ones, really do care about customer suggestions and complaints — as long as they understand customers have alternatives and are willing to pursue those alternatives.

If a local merchant offers Made in the USA products, but an imported version is available at the local mega-mart at a cheaper price, we have to put our wallets where our mouths are and be willing to spend more. It does no good to say you don’t like that an item is made in China and could be toxic, but you buy it anyway because it’s $10 cheaper.

Ultimately, it is about protecting America’s future. Where in history has a country outsourced its ability to produce and continued to thrive?

Having worked abroad in Asia in the high-tech industry for over seven years, Todd Lipscomb knows firsthand the challenges America is facing. He founded http://www.MadeInUSAForever.com, as an easy, fun way to buy products made in the USA.

America’s love for a display of might and power, of triumph over the adversary, and of a ‘winning strategy’, is not only evident in her foreign policy and conduct of war, but also in her presidential campaigns. Here, aggression, while disapproved of by many at one level, is also admired by others, and seems almost to be a necessity of political life – one that applies to political rivals at home as well as to adversaries abroad. Within presidential campaigns and American political life in general, aggression appears to be a not-so-hidden American value, as one seeks to remain ‘on-top’ by removing someone else to ‘the bottom’.

No matter how much the American public decries the use of negative advertising within campaigns, the public receives what many within this body deem necessary as a sign of leadership, namely, the display of power, confidence, and strength, even when expressed through messages that diminish or undermine the stature and credibility of another. Though there is more and more dissatisfaction with this trend, disapproval is not yet sufficient to make it disappear. This is in contrast to what is also possible, namely, the presenting of one’s own point of view, straight-up, without involving a defamation of the character or intentions of another.

America is afraid to let go of the philosophy of ‘might makes right’ in the home court as well as on the battlefield. We are afraid of the accusation of weakness associated with gentleness, civility, compassion, and forgiveness. Indeed, despite the protestation of Christian values by many, where are those who would want a political leader who would be forgiving toward all? This is something that one might strive for in private, but in public an entirely different ethic prevails.

Despite this current that runs through American political life at present, there is, even now, another way to conduct a political campaign and, indeed, to conduct political life in general. This other way is through inspiration and moral leadership, through the display of integrity and truthfulness, through being firm in one’s own central values, not through being able to deflate the character or stature of another.

Inspiration and integrity are profound representatives of a stream of American life that has deep roots – the deepest, since they go back, historically, to America’s founding. These virtues do not require presenting one’s own ’superior’ position by making another seem inferior. They require standing only on the truth of one’s beliefs, experience, plans, hopes, and capacities as a leader, thinker, and citizen who seeks to serve the greater good.

Nevertheless, despite America’s desire for goodness and virtue in her leadership, it appears that she does not always accept these with open arms. There is still the need to sacrifice inspiration to toughness, to sacrifice plain-speaking to intellectual agility which can expose the weaknesses of another, and to sacrifice gentleness in order to create a feeling of security based on power.

America appears to desire inspiration and moral integrity, but not at the expense of a good fight. In the age of Martin Luther King, Jr., in the age of those who are tired of war and who seek peace, in the age of those who seek a new way for government to represent its citizens, this fear of modesty and integrity, of an unwillingness to engage in combat as if one’s life were at stake, must be examined more closely. For if we truly, as a nation, want peace, we must become peaceful among ourselves. And if we truly want moral leadership, we must become more moral.

Julie Redstone is a teacher, writer, and founder of Light Omega, a center for spiritual teaching and healing in Western Massachusetts. The purpose of Light Omega is to create an understanding of the sacred transition into light that the Earth is presently going through and the changes this will bring to individual and planetary consciousness.