Or- The Ideological Ruminations of a “Jinglebrained Ninnyhammer”

by R.G. Ryan

An Economics professor at Texas Tech University was arguing with his students over the benefits of capitalism versus socialism. The professor was a proponent of capitalism while the majority of the class was largely socialistic in their ideology. So he said, “For the remainder of the year we will be Socialists and conduct our grading based on an average of the class grades so that everyone is equal.”

The students were thrilled.

The first test came: About half the class studied and got A’s while the rest of the class slacked off and got D’s and F’s. Luckily, on the strength of the A’s from the students who studied, everyone in the class got a B. So far, so good.

Second test came: Only a quarter of the class studied and got A’s while the rest of the class slacked off and got D’s and F’s (many of the “slackers” this time around were students who had studied hard on the first test only to see their high grades marked down). Based on the class average, everyone was given a C-minus. The first murmurs of discontent were heard.

Final exam came: Upset about studying hard for two tests only to get low grades based on class average, no one studied. The students capable of getting A’s didn’t study because they were angry over the other tests, while those students who slacked off in the beginning lacked the knowledge to score well on the final. As a result,everyone failed the course.

Amid outraged cries of, “But that’s not fair! Why should we suffer for the laziness of others?” the professor simply smiled and said, “Welcome back to capitalism.”

I share this story because at the heart of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement exists a bubbling cauldron of anger largely fueled by class envy. Oh sure, there are those who are mad as hell over government bailouts of the big corporations and resulting lack of accountability, the collapse of the housing market and overall economic malaise, and perhaps rightly so. But with, “We are the 99%!” as the movement’s battle cry, the implications are clear: Those in the 1% should be sharing what they have with the rest of us; any profit making is suspect; and the “bourgeoisie” arrived at their station on the backs of a downtrodden, oppressed proletariat. Or, in the immortal words of David Byrne, “same as it ever was; same as it ever was; same as it ever was…”

Sadly, there are those in political leadership who are stoking these fires of class warfare for political gain rather than working to arrive at a credible, viable solution. As a result, the movement ─ which started out as having no stated political agenda ─ has now been co-opted by a surrealistic hodgepodge of left-wing radicals, anarcho-syndicalists, aging sixties counter-culture radicals, neo-socialists, Marxists, and others who are basically broke, busted and disgusted! I get it. I’m there, too! The difference being that I expect nothing from the one percent. I expect nothing from my government save the freedom to succeed or fail on the basis of my own investment and effort.

All the anger directed toward that now legendary one percent—those über wealthy few—seems to miss the inarguable fact that in order for societies to thrive, one thing is needed above all else: wealth! It drives all cultures, whether a monarchy, democracy or socialist republic. Someone has to generate money, and providence seems to place individuals into every new generation who have a knack for doing just that.

In a movement and a current administration that leans ever more toward socialistic ideology than capitalistic, one wonders where the “distribution of wealth” is going to come from if no one is, well, wealthy. The reason every socialist experiment has failed throughout history (and the argument that it has never had a “fare chance to succeed” is a sad canard) is that socialism requires an endless supply of money. The problem is that while everyone wants to share in the profit, not everyone is willing to work to insure that monetary supply,that continuation of wealth. Like the students in my opening story, what motivates me to hand over the “profit” I produce if there is no incentive for me to keep producing?

Let’s use a hypothetical: Say you have a privately owned business employing 160 people and generating fifty million per year in revenue. One family has owned the business for over forty years having built it to its current level from scratch. The family members not only own the business, but also work, putting in more hours than any employee. Is it fair for this family to profit more than the workers? Of course! Why? Because the company was built as a result of their collective sacrifice and investment long before any of those workers were present. Additionally, when the company was slapped with a million dollar lawsuit, the family absorbed the loss, not the employees. And yet, I sense a dangerous shift in our nation’s collective soul moving us ever closer to “entitlement” mentality wherein the expectation is that businesses such as the one in this hypothetical example are expected to equally share whatever profit is gained, while at the same time continuing to absorb all the risk.

Our President obviously wants to do something about the severe problems facing our country and claims that the pathway out of our economic woes lies in the direction of higher taxes on the “wealthy.” That’s an interesting theory. Winston Churchill said, “Raising taxes to increase prosperity is like trying to pick up a bucket while you’re standing in it!” I’m pretty sure he’s correct. Our President, with his back to the wall and facing a rough re-election campaign, has promoted another theory that says the way to stimulate our economy is by introducing more government programs, more government subsidies, more government jobs, more government ─ period. I have a problem with this as well, because having “more” provided to you by the state plays into the law of diminishing returns. At some point, as it always does, the money will run out, because those few producing the wealth will grow weary of doing so and either stop entirely, or move their production to a more favorable economic climate. If the President really wanted to “stimulate” the economy, he should throw his inestimable weight behind the small business owners of this country and give them the help they need to put the growing ranks of unemployed back to work.

The individuals comprising the disparate crowd known collectively as the “Occupy…” movement are exercising their constitutional right. People have been demonstrating against one thing or another throughout most of history. Some demonstrations have even been successful. If you feel strongly inclined to do so, join them. Let your voice be heard. Personally, I think you’d be better served by “occupying” a voting booth come election time. But that’s just me.

If this movement isn’t enough and you feel inclined toward Socialism, then go be a socialist. Get together with all your friends who want to be socialists, provide 0% interest loans for each other. Pool your resources. Pay for each other’s houses. Buy group medical insurance policies. There is nothing stopping you from being a socialist. Really, though, pure socialism is only a theory and cannot be truly tested. The only way to find out if it works is to put it into practice, which requires a revolution by the “working class.” However, the working class will not revolt in a capitalistic society because they’re all satisfied with the status quo. Besides, redistribution of wealth already occurs. It’s called, “taxation.” And I am among the 53% who actually pays taxes.

Here’s the bottom line: The wealth of the world is now, and has always been unbalanced because people are selfish, not because of a particular political ideology. You want to break the back of poverty in this country, champion generosity.

R.G. Ryan is the author of “The Voices In My Head: The Danny Gans Biography” and the “Snapshots at St. Arbuck’s” series. He lives in Nevada with his first wife and their miniature schnauzer of some renown. Can sing a little. Visit his website at: http://rgryan.com/

Harvey Milk 1978

It’s been another of those weeks.

One of those weeks where through no doing of my own, I’ve been subjected to debate after scandal, after f*cking annoying headline, on a topic upon which I’ve closed the book long ago. So, after much deliberation I’m going to post my take on things, so that hopefully everyone is so impressed by my wisdom and insight that they call it definitive and shut the f*ck up about it.

To all you far-right gay-hating conservatives; repeat after me:

“Gay people are good ─ they don’t steal your women.”

If that isn’t enough for you to get over it, how about this:

Gays and lesbians don’t breed; there is scientific proof that this is so, therefore, if there really is some “gay” gene that you’re so scared they’re going to spread, you needn’t worry ─ they’ll eventually die off. In fact, perhaps the whole inclination to being gay comes from some subconscious understanding that if our cushy way of life ever ended, gays would be trampled in the struggle to survive. Therefore, they’re choosing not to procreate in order to keep mankind strong. I think that’s quite admirable don’t you?

Therefore, I postulate that homosexuality is an enlightened condition! “A heightened sense of things”, if I might paraphrase from 300. These people are martyrs, sacrificing their lineages, so that humanity can continue to evolve into a strong and capable race, surviving the adversity that is sure to come. And as martyrs, why wouldn’t you want them in your churches? (Yes I’m talking to YOU, Westboro Baptist Church) With such ‘enlightenment’ and understanding, you should be welcoming gay people, because their sacrifice is akin to Jesus willingly being crucified, so that we might have eternal life.

So stop bashing gays, you should be thankful that gay people exist! In fact, most of the gay guys I know are always surrounded by women! If they weren’t gay they’d be having their pick! Think about it they’re better dressed than we are, they’re nicer than we are, and they’re more sensitive to women’s needs. Best of all, you can send one into your bedroom to cuddle with your wife when you not in the mood to “just snuggle” and not worry about him grabbing a piece for himself! We should be thankful this caliber of male is not breeding! Otherwise, all those artsy straight guys born as a result, would be kicking our butts in the evolutionary ladder.

So please, quit picketing actor’s funerals, or wasting press time from the real issues in the world ─ go down to your local pub, get a pint of whatever poison you so desire, and raise your glass and say it with me:

“Cheers to the Queers ─ May the Women all be Ours!”

Last 5 posts by Tony Hoffart

• Am I a Liberal Cream-puff, a Pinko-Socialist, a War-Monger, an Obama-Lover, or even a Libertarian? - April 29th, 2009
• How Can Closing Guantánamo Be Controversial? - February 1st, 2009
• Kevin Martin: Future-Killing Assh*le - January 1st, 2009
• The Mentality of the Young - September 1st, 2008
• Hoffart Speaks Out (While They Still Let Him) - June 1st, 2008

I like to examine both sides of an argument before I write an opinion, and while I fully admit I’m no expert, I do make the effort to make comparisons to history whenever possible before wading into the debate.

Lately however, I’ve found it rather difficult to get two sides of any political conversation. My more liberal sources are equitable enough, and internationally conservatives are quite willing to have intelligent conversation. But within the USA, every Republican with whom I could once have a respectable conversation has become a screaming four-year-old. Or, they immediately pull out their Bible and say:

“Raise your right hand. Do you swear to hate every word, deed, associate, and cause of Barack Obama, as long as you both shall live so help you God? Do you pledge to uphold the tenants of the Obama haters and spend your every waking moment counteracting the continual advance towards the Obama-Nation of the United States?”

If my answer is not a resounding “I do!” then I’m blocked out by a wall of juvenile petulance and insults until I simply exit the conversation.

And I can’t count the number of times a conservative has called me “socialist” in the past 100 days. So in an attempt to get past this asinine meeting ritual of determining my political affiliation, I will do my best to explain what I’m about here.

I identify with Libertarianism in that I consider personal freedom to be my ‘true-north’. When I come across a political conundrum, I consider freedom to be the first concern ─ freedom for all people in terms of the well-worn, but not outdated truism ─ of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To achieve this, people need the resources to survive, but beyond that they need the room to strive for greatness without undue exploitation. And the best way to achieve this is through decentralized governance.

We as a society have an obligation to make sure that the least of us can survive, and should they so wish, have the opportunity to advance their station in life. In my social obligations book that means providing a bit of food and shelter for the homeless, for example, but beyond that the government’s obligation ends and individuals and private organizations need to take over from there.

By decentralized governance I mean this: Power divided among many ─ government, church, corporations, citizens, all separate and individual, acting as checks and balances to ensure that one does not get undue influence over the other, while acting in their own self-interest. Decentralized governance also means governance over smaller geographic areas and smaller niches within aspects of culture, capitalism, and church. Smaller niches mean more choice, and more choice means more freedom.

To apply this to more current issues, public schools should not have any policies or curriculum influenced by religion. If parents want religion integrated into their children’s education, they need to attend to this at home, or find a way to pay for private schooling, which should be able to teach whatever it likes, as long as basic educational standards are met. Conversely however, if an individual, state, or municipality wants to fund religiously influenced programs on their own, then they should be able to with no government constraints.

In addition, information via the media needs to be available as early it possibly can, and the masses should be not be restricted in saying what they want to say, loving whom they want to love (child molesters not included here, obviously) and even hating whom they want to hate, as long as they do not impede another’s facility to have the same freedoms.

Further, the “bail-out plans” being instituted by nearly every government across the globe are what the people are demanding. If you were not one of those people making such a demand, you are in the minority. The fact is that governments were responding to pressure from the majority of citizens internationally to pass these budgets. In the United States, George W. Bush was responding to that pressure when he urged Congress to be swift in bringing this money to bear, as was Barack Obama, when he took over.

Beyond the desire of the citizenry for these bailouts, I honestly have no idea how effective they will be. I don’t question the citizens’ right to demand this measure, but instead, I observe how the separate institutions will use this money, with a keen eye on the long-term. And the way it is now, I think we all can see that bailouts are effectively giving governments a free reign to spend a lot of money however they want. And as long as their spending is justified as “economic stimulus,” it will probably not be questioned. I’d watch out for that exploitation. Though exploitation is a core element of life, when a human being is being exploited to the point of being unable to pursue greatness and the aforementioned ─ whether capitalist, socialist, religious, or criminal in nature ─ those conditions need to be remedied.

I also believe that the US standing in the international community depends largely on how effectively it can use its military. Keeping in mind the decentralization of government, I do not believe that giving more power and influence to the UN military is wise. Having said that, I see that the United States military is overextended in its obligations, and unless it lightens said obligations, it will not be able to maintain its station within the global theatre. If the US does not have its military ready to aid its allies and deploy against its enemies, if needed, then countries will not listen to US diplomats. If that occurs, other nations with their own agendas will fill the power vacuum. Whether or not this is good or bad is debatable. However, in the United States self-interest, losing international influence is not a good thing. In that case, wouldn’t it be wise for the US to avoid any new military entanglements? Why antagonize Russia, North Korea, or Iran, which all have the military strength to pull the USA into a long battle it can ill-afford?

Finally if freedom is my north star, than the United States Constitution is my map to that star. It was penned by men I consider very wise, and creates the most ideal conditions for freedom that exist so far. Deferring to the US Constitution as it stands rarely steered any government wrong. But trouble has always occurred when it was undermined. Therefore, I try to consider that first and foremost before I voice an opinion.

Does all of the above make me a liberal cream-puff, a pinko-socialist, a war-monger, an Obama-lover or even a Libertarian? I’ll leave that for you to decide. After all, you’re free to choose.

Last 5 posts by Tony Hoffart

• Cheers to the Queers! - August 20th, 2009
• How Can Closing Guantánamo Be Controversial? - February 1st, 2009
• Kevin Martin: Future-Killing Assh*le - January 1st, 2009
• The Mentality of the Young - September 1st, 2008
• Hoffart Speaks Out (While They Still Let Him) - June 1st, 2008

As the deadline for this month’s column for Harlots’ Sauce Radio was fast approaching, I looked through my pantry for any number of prospective Political Hash posts, but found my cupboards bare, because these past few weeks the political scene has been uncharacteristically lacking in subjects about which I’ve felt inclined to write.

The impetus for my political writings has always been to either spark awareness about events that are displeasing me, or to come to terms with events and situations I don’t understand fully. I’ve no loyalty to any particular individual beyond the good they do, so I wasn’t as worked up by the inauguration of Barack Obama as many other people. I’m more interested in the dirty deeds of politics than its pomp and circumstance, and as they say in show business, “you’re only as good your last show.” This sums up my viewpoint on politicians in general. So, with Bush acting unusually statesman-like in his final weeks, and most of the lawmakers on a break, I was getting antsy that I might not have a topic for this month’s issue.

But, yesterday I found the proper rage to begin this article, so for that, I’m thankful.

Obama has signed three executive orders regarding treatment of U.S. detainees. The first is to close Guantánamo Bay within the year to shut down CIA detention centers around the world, the second is for U.S. Army interrogators to adhere to the Army Field Manual which prohibits torture (mostly because it’s ineffective), and the third is to create a task force headed by Gates to bring proper legal justice to the “current and future detainees”, according to United States law.

This political move by the new administration establishes the precedent that President Obama really does intend to adhere to his campaign promise of change, and wishes to restore a degree of ethics to American Foreign Policy, which, as a policy rooted in combating tyranny (ideally) has been quite hypocritical, to say the least, these past few years. This was an command I doubted Obama would actually issue, but instead, he made it a priority in his first week on the job. For that, I’ve developed a greater respect for him. Politically he can coast on this for a while, as his advocates will feel vindicated and skeptics will be appeased for a time. In the end, it was smart politics to gain an initial popularity boost before tackling some of the more mundane presidential duties.

However, it outrages me that there are actually Americans who don’t like that President Obama has done this.

I’ve heard that it’s bad policy “to issue an order without a plan”, I’ve heard “we treat them better then they treat us”, I’ve heard “they’ll just recruit American prisoners to their cause in regular prisons,” and my favourite excuse, “What if they’re found innocent?”

Critics of these orders say that they will compromise U.S. national security, that they accomplishes nothing, and that they are merely political ploys. With the third statement I agree, this is a political move, pure and simple, but a necessary one.

To illustrate my beliefs regarding the torture issue and Guantánamo Bay, I shall return to something I learned around this time last year about Ron Paul. Paul has been in politics for a good number of years, and he’s known to have a great deal of integrity, but, back in the 1970′s, he was publishing newsletters under his name with some clearly racist commentary in them. When the newsletters circulated, it was a PR disaster for Paul; he was dubbed a racist and was forced to drop his campaign for president. He didn’t try to defend or excuse the papers, likely because he wanted to maintain his integrity, but he could have salvaged his campaign and moved on further if he’d responded with, “I fired that editor and tried to have those words removed, but they were published without my permission.”

Even if there were several months of articles, he needed a spin of outrage and apology, distance himself from the writing, and declare in no uncertain terms that he did not share those opinions. To the dismay of Libertarians everywhere, he did not do this, and so failed in his bid for president.

The Bush Administration’s handling of this torture issue mirrors that Ron Paul scandal. When issues of torture and prisoner mistreatment came up, they should have denied them. They should have publicly and officially chastised those who were involved, and proclaimed from the rooftops that they were wrong. But instead, inconceivably, they, too, dug themselves in, by actually trying to make these despicable and immoral acts legal. Instead of “deny, deny, deny,” which any common criminal knows how to do, the Bush Administration got in bed with this disgusting issue, and started their own bukkake porn series.

Allegations of torture are likely not as widespread as the enemies of the Bush Administration, (and enemies of America) would claim, but frankly, it doesn’t matter, it’s scandal and scandal must be eliminated in order to restore credibility. Even if the credibility is only superficial, it rarely matters. Guantánamo has become a symbol of American decadence and Republican corruption which should have been eliminated at least two years ago; not by a new Democrat president, but by the Republican Party itself. Instead, the Republicans defended torture, claiming it was “necessary,” despite mounting evidence of its ineffectiveness, and passed laws condoning its existence, which further damaged the United States Constitution, and the Republican Party reputation.

Further, this has clearly done more harm to U.S. national security than good. It would be pure incompetence at any ‘Suicide Bomber Training Camp’ to fail to mention to inductees the “American torture prisons” that would await them, instead of their virgins, should they fail in their sacred mission. Imagine instead, the scenario where the new U.S. president unleashes to the press corps the “turnaround” of American military detention centers, centers which have been renovated into the most courteous and certified outfits in the world. If every enemy combatant knew without a doubt that if captured, they would be treated respectfully, and would have a real chance of being returned to their families if they cooperated, how would that change the Islamic militant mentality? It’s basic psychology. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone, anyone? Think about it.

So all you Republicans who might be criticizing this ‘dangerously benevolent’ move by the new administration, in my opinion, the only thing you should be criticizing is each other, and the fact that your party didn’t think of it first.

________________________________________________________

Last 5 posts by Tony Hoffart

• Cheers to the Queers! - August 20th, 2009
• Am I a Liberal Cream-puff, a Pinko-Socialist, a War-Monger, an Obama-Lover, or even a Libertarian? - April 29th, 2009
• Kevin Martin: Future-Killing Assh*le - January 1st, 2009
• The Mentality of the Young - September 1st, 2008
• Hoffart Speaks Out (While They Still Let Him) - June 1st, 2008

Someone Needs To Photoshop this Face on a Gay Porn Star Kevin Martin the Chair of the FCC is pushing that a chunk of the wireless spectrum auction this month to have stipulations of a porn filter.

Sounds kinda nice doesn’t it? You could have an internet connection that wouldn’t have any porn on it, good for the kids, saves bandwidth for more legitimate uses, it’s win-win right?

HELL, NO!

This is restricting the internet, and it starts here with a perfectly reasonable idea — create a filter that blocks smut. But, once you’ve allowed that filter in place, then what else is it going to block? You’ll never know, will you? Because it’s f*@%! blocked! And there are a few countries that already do this, China being one of them. I’ve talked online with a fair number of Chinese, but I can’t refer them to my blog on VOX.com, for example, because their big ass firewall stops them from seeing anything posted there. Imagine what we’d be missing if we weren’t able to read blogs that appear from so many parts of the world, all giving us information that does not appear in our local or even national newspapers?

The internet succeeds because it’s open to everything, and that’s as it should be. If one takes issue with something on the internet then one doesn’t have to look at it, and if one sees something illegal or immoral on the internet, one can do exactly what one would do in real life, report it to the authorities.

If you Americans hate the thought of Kevin Martin being your ‘daddy’ as much as I do, phone your state representative and make sure they know that this is crap and they should not support it. and if you know any link petitions or Facebook groups that are being organised against this, join up. Do not let the internet become as chopped as a basic cable TV guide.

Last 5 posts by Tony Hoffart

• Cheers to the Queers! - August 20th, 2009
• Am I a Liberal Cream-puff, a Pinko-Socialist, a War-Monger, an Obama-Lover, or even a Libertarian? - April 29th, 2009
• How Can Closing Guantánamo Be Controversial? - February 1st, 2009
• The Mentality of the Young - September 1st, 2008
• Hoffart Speaks Out (While They Still Let Him) - June 1st, 2008

Youth drives people, experience maintains them, but though some say that, “youth is wasted on the young,” I say that if we young-uns had the experience to “know better,” then we wouldn’t have the drive to try anything in the first place.

When I talk to older people about my beliefs that civil liberties should not be compromised, that net neutrality is vital, and that content piracy is a complex issue that shouldn’t be resolved by outlawing it outright, my words come from my desire to use the things I know to succeed in life.

But, my age group is fighting an uphill battle against a larger demographic of people, the Baby Boomers, who have dominated the world thus far. Baby Boomers already have the choice property, the best jobs, and the government authority. They still decide the course of the world in which I live. And that means that the odds are stacked against me to succeed.

So, I use whatever tools I have at my disposal. I don’t own property, I don’t have power; I do have some money, but money by and of itself will not bring someone to succeed. Instead, what has real value to me and what is the tool for success to me and to everyone my age is information. Our strength is our knowledge of technological information and how to control it.

It’s this knowledge that scares the powers that be.  They see technology and youth’s comprehension of it as a force that must be tightly controlled, or it will get out of hand and consume them. In our modern age, the average teenager can find out just as much about another country in an afternoon as it would have taken an intelligence agency a week to compile 30 years ago. And 30 years ago, the people that run governments were in my shoes, pushing hard to succeed and get ahead in life.

So, is it any wonder that those who run governments want to limit and control information and technology? These are the weapons that will usurp their throne. This is why they’re wielding great blunt instruments, in the form of laws, like the recent FISA amendment, to smash this surge of information, by intensely scrutinizing it for the ‘presence of evil.’

But we, the young, know this won’t work. We know that “terrorists” ─ I hate that word, it’s the most loaded catch word in the history of propaganda ─ are not so dimwitted as to place a collect call, or send an email to their pals at Bombs-R-Us in the country of ‘Ihateamerica-istan’ to order their nuclear warheads. The government knows this too, but they’ve got us from both sides, from the side of  those who trust them to do right by the people, and from the side of those who don’t trust them, but feel powerless to stop them.

Ironically, those of us who understand how the infrastructure of modern information  works know that simply by existing as is, it makes extremist activities on a massive scale intensely difficult. Because we users of that technology are watching, and we cry out loudly when we see something worthy of our attention. Nothing goes unnoticed on the internet and everything gets recorded, or archived in some way. Posting “terrorist activity” (that word again) on the internet would be like an escaped felon mailing his current address to the FBI so his friends know where to send him a Christmas card.  So why is it that governments feel the need to outlaw the sharing of much of this information, or somehow mystically monitor ALL of it?

Those older than I believe that this information is a threat. They tell me that America is at war and that just across the pond there is a nation full of religious extremists busily strapping dynamite to their chests and getting on planes, and that we need to tap the phone line of everyone in the country in order to find out when those bomb guys are checking their luggage. And I’ve asked these older than I why they believe that the government should be trusted to only use this private information to “only find the bad guys”? There are already impeachment proceedings going on because the current United States Administration used the Justice Department to prosecute people for political reasons.

Yeah, they’re only going to use telecom info to find the terrorists… riiiight.

While I’m busily using the new tools at my disposal to carve my niche out in life, the establishment sees my chipping as an erosion of the status quo they’ve worked so hard to build. So, they want to take my tools away, or at least blunt their edges, maybe even have them made out of foam, so I don’t hurt myself. But the information and technology at my disposal let’s me know that’s not their real reason, so I won’t give those up without a fight.

George Bush declares that Iran is the enemy of the US, and it is. But, it’s an enemy because the United States has made it so.

Since the 60′s the US has been meddling in Iranian affairs over oil without remorse. They’ve been trying to provoke Iran to attack them but this treatment is akin to a father bashing his five-year-old with the butt of his rifle in the hopes that the kid will stand up and take a swing.

In 1988, a United States destroyer, the USS Vinchennes, shot down an Iranian civilian passenger plane flying in Iranian airspace. The commanding officers of the Vinchennes were given awards for their act, and George Bush Senior announced that the United States would never apologize for killing those civilians. This was just one attempt to make Iran attack the U.S. To this day, the US has embargoes against Iran to prevent Boeing from selling the Iranian government parts to repair its ailing fleet of passenger planes. The international community has heavily criticized the United States for this because these planes are now a danger to everyone who flies on them. In an attempt to provoke the Iranians, innocent civilians lives are at stake whenever they fly.

The U.S.’s latest tactic has been to get Israel to make passes at Iran. But when Iran declared they would defend themselves if attacked, Senator Clinton announced, in lock-step with George Bush and John McCain, that she would not hesitate to dispatch nuclear weapons against Iran.

This sort of talk is not making the citizens of the United States any safer. Every time the US government presumes to get in the business of another nation, it upsets the people of that country. It reminds me of a story I heard once from a colleague, about a group of drug-addled pipeliners who’d come across a wolverine that had been caught by his hind leg in a bear trap.  The pipeliners were poking at the wolverine with a stick and laughing every time it lunged at them and got caught up on the trap’s chain. What happens when he’s made enough to break free?

Get Iran mad enough and of course they’d fight back.

Now everyone believes that Iran is trying to build nukes to bomb the US. YOu might thinnk: why wouldn’t they, after all the abuse they’ve received thus far? Well, I’ll tell you why they wouldn’t.  Iran is currently sitting on one of the world’s largest supplies of Oil in the world and part of that oil is nationalized. Therefore, the Iranian government gets a percentage of all the Oil that comes out of the ground. This is why the US wants to overthrow the Iranian government – because then the oil companies could run unfettered in Iran and produce as much or as little oil there as they
wanted.

However, Iran sells a large percentage of their Oil to India and China. If Iran were attacked, India and China would step into the fray to protect their own energy interests. Russia would join by default backing them. It would be World War III, and whoever attacked Iran would LOSE.

In short, no one can afford to go to war with Iran. And considering that Iranians have put up with so much already, I don’t think they’d make the mistake of striking out so late in the game, if their enemies quietly stepped back. These are people who don’t hate the United States for what they have, or for their lifestyle; these are people who hate the United States for what its leaders and their invasive foreign policies have done to them. If the United States re-examined these policies, then its citizens would get the safety and security they crave. And I ask those citizens to carefully examine the facts and recognize that the actions of the Bush administration these past 8 years has made you anything but.

Senator Joe Lieberman, in his capacity as chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee, has assigned gloomy homework to 16 federal agencies, asking them for full descriptions of their preparations in case of a nuclear device detonating on U.S. soil. It’s the nightmare  cenario, terrorists importing a nuclear weapon and setting it off in an American city. Therefore, the agencies will soon be receiving a letter from Lieberman and ranking Republican Senator. Susan Collins, asking them to answer a series of questions.

What annoys me is that all this is, is the fear mongering. It’s the current administration’s only defense against liberal arguments.   whenever the American people start to get a little disillusioned with the idea of torturing terrorists, or fighting pointless wars, a little news article like this one comes out which reminds the people that there are bands of whooping religious extremists loaded to the teeth with nuclear weapons backed up on the four-lane-highway leading to Times Square.

So I ask the people who might be worried about these alleged nuclear weapons – how many nuclear explosions have gone off in countries that don’t have 8-10 security agencies working around the clock, thinking up ridiculous preventative scenarios for events that won’t occur? How many big mushroom clouds have there been? In fact, how many nations do you know that deliberately detonated a nuclear bomb on another nation’s soil?

And when stories about national security and nuclear threats hit the networks, isn’t it curious how they never bring in a nuclear scientist to talk about such security? How hard is it to track a nuke? What actually is done other than tapping our phones and torturing suspected terrorists?

I work in the oil industry, and one of the things we in the business do to scan and understand rock formations 2 to 3 km below the surface, is that we shoot nuclear isotopes down there into the rock formations.  Those isotopes send readings back to our instruments allowing geologists to literally map that formation based on where the isotopes travel. That means they send particles through miles of rock that we can sense.

So if we have instruments that can read particle readings through miles of rock, does it maybe makes sense that we might have instruments that can say, pick them up through miles of air? More than likely there are ways to shield these signatures, but how hard is that to accomplish? How heavy would such a container be, and how would you ship it over? The logistics of such an endeavor make it not feasible.

Now with that said, here’s what we can fear. The real danger isn’t nukes tucked away in closets, it’s dissident citizens brewing up explosives with normal household chemicals These are the activities that can’t be easily tracked or monitored, except by the people of a country themselves. The how of it is by being aware of the world around you. Suspicion isn’t the answer, because it turns everyone against us, but if everyone is neighborly and open, then the people who aren’t will stick out like a sore thumb.

And thus my message – don’t look to your government to protect you, because they’re ineffective at it and will only subvert your freedoms.  Instead, open your eyes, not to what they would tell you, but what you see around yourself. Talk to people, converse and be friendly and aware. In doing that, you will avoid danger.