Foreign Aid

Foreign aid takes many forms. There is financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and forgiveness of debt.There is also humanitarian aid which can be monetary or the supply of actual goods. Lastly, aid may be of a military nature, with arms, technology, intelligence, and ultimately, personnel. Each may be warranted, depending upon the circumstances.
I believe that financial aid should be made available to those nations in dire need. I don't, however, believe in writing a blank check. If money is needed, monies should be allocated and earmarked toward some sustainable purpose. Building infrastructures, agricultural development, and targeted investments in industry are ideal. The preferred method of disbursement would be interest free loans. I have very strong feelings about interest, which I will detail in a future post. In short, many of the nations who have received loans with interest from America and other nations have later had that debt forgiven anyway. Forgiveness of debt would only result from an exhaustive review of the recipient nation's ability to repay along with other diplomatic considerations. Grants would very seldom be used and only in extreme cases, like to aid a nation ravaged by war.
More often, I think humanitarian aid should be made available whener possible to nations in need. Money may also be used to provide humanitarian aid, but only when actual goods are unattainable. Better than money, however, is the actual goods that are needed. They can only be used for their intended purpose. With actual goods, there is less opportunity for misuse and corruption. I strongly support strategies to encourage self-reliance.
Finally, is the use of force. Peacekeeping forces are often needed in many parts of the world. Our various treaties and alliances even mandate the offering of troops and arms, and we should honor our existing commitments. However, the deployment of weapons of war, and the brave men and women who wield them, should only be in the most extreme circumstances. I oppose the current American policies of empiricism and preemption. Disagreement or dislike of a foreign government or ruler is absolutely insufficient justification for placing troops in harm's way. America should begin to respect the soverignty of nations with whom we disagree. I respect the ability of the world's governing bodies to determine whether peacekeeping troops are needed. A very careful examination of the present and future consequences of providing military aid is always necessary.
I support intervention to end confirmed instances of genocide, such as in Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and Sudan. Genocide should not be defined by numbers alone, but intent. Mass murder should not be ignored, of course, but diplomacy is a more appropriate tool. Mass murders which took place in Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, and Hussein's Iraq, which numbered in the millions, do not satis fy this requirement, in my opinion. I could very well be wrong since I'm not an historian.

Abortion

For many in America, abortion is the only issue that matters on election day. It is the great litmus test for the most extreme ideologues. For me, it is not a big deal. Sure, it is a serious issue, and I don't mean to make light of it. The truth of the matter is that there are very good and legitimate arguements on both side of the issue. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to straddle the fence on this issue. Abortion should either be legal or it should not. One cannot support both positions. I have chosen a side, and I will try to explain my view.
As a Christian, I believe that abortion is wrong. I believe life begins at conception. Abortion is, in fact, the taking of a life. My opinion of whether abortion is morally right or wrong is very strong and unwavering. Moreover, I have had a very personal and painful experience with the issue. My own child became a victim years ago, despite my repeated protests and pleas. The incident had a profound impact on me. For well over a year, I had a very difficult time dealing with the loss. I consider that time in my life to be the worst. I continue to mourn. Ultimately, however, a woman should continue to have the legal option of having a safe abortion.
My reasons for being "pro-choice" are rooted in my basic view of government, as I'm sure is also the case for other people. While I believe abortion is immoral and wrong, I don't think it should be illegal. The responsibility of government is not to determine, decree, or influence what is right or wrong. America was founded on the most basic principle of religious freedom. Morality is a matter that is best decided by individuals in accordance with their trusted clergy and God.
The function of law is to maintain order. Laws are written and enforced to protect everyone. Should not the unborn be protected as well? In principle, they should, but there are so many other factors involved. There are the usual arguments about the long term impact on the mother's life, the short term burden of pregnancy, and the rare, yet occasional instances of contraception failure. These are legitimate and important justifications, however, there are others that I feel are more significant.
An unwanted child faces a life of emotional neglect and resentment. The unwanted children of poor or rich mothers share the same emotional pain. Some will argue that adoption is the solution, but the reality is that society lacks the capacity to provide loving homes for the large number of orphans that would result from the recrimination of abortion. The fate of the unwanted then unadopted children is bleak to be sure.
There are no winners either way, but the current law which has evolved over the years seams to strike the right balance. Unwanted fetuses are spared the loveless life that awaits them. The life is taken at a stage of development that is humane and painless. Yes, it is a life, but not a fully developed one. That distinction should be made and possibly codified.
The more practical issues of abortion extend beyond its mere legality. The devil is always in the details. Should states be able to require parental notification or permission of minors seeking a lawful abortion? Minors are not afforded the same rights to privacy as adults within the law. However, I feel that a girl's pregnancy and its ramifications, which last well into her adulthood, deserve special considerations. A pregnant minor should have unrestricted access to the same alternatives to pregnancy as an adult.
The question of funding appears difficult but is actually quite simple. Should the tax revenues of someone deeply opposed to abortion be used to support its practice? Government does a lot of things with revenues that taxpayers oppose. I have often said that government exists to do the things that the private sector can't or won't do but should. Government can not possibly spend revenues to please every tax payer, nor should it. Moreover, abortion is not the only publicly sanctioned killing. Many more people are killed by tanks, bombs, and guns, which have been purchased by tax dollars from conscientious objectors. Ending federal funding for abortions for the underpriviledged women who seek them is analogous to disbanning our military.
Should partial birth abortions be banned? The priority for this an other similar issues should always be the health of the mother. If a partial birth abortion is the only medical remedy for ensuring the health of a mother, it should remain an option. Otherwise, it's practice should be discontinued. Although, I would have liked to have had more of a legal say in my past experience, the mother bears the ultimate responsibility and burden. There is really little room for debate about spousal permission. I do vehemently support spousal notification. A potential father deserves the right to know about the possibility of parenthood. It should be his legal right to have the opportunity to argue the benefits of parenthood and possibly mitigate some unwarranted apprehensions, if he so chooses.
Almsot no one is "pro abortion". The desire to reduce the number of abortions is almost universal. I believe strongly that recriminalization of abortion unfairly punishes women and children ans is more destructive than the humane practice of abortion. Rather, the goal should be to reduce the number of safe abortions, while maintaining it as a legal option. A strategy of education, contraception availability, development of "morning after" drugs, and adoption should work well toward that goal.

Political landscape

The survey that I mentioned in my previous post had some problems. I believe it is fixed now. It is still available at the same location and should work fine now. The survey is an Excel spreadsheet, which consists of 12 questions about current public policy issues. On a scale from 1 to 5, respondents are to indicate the level to which they agree with each question, with 5 signifying strong agreement. The scores are tallied and plotted on a modified Nolan square in order to determine how the respondent's answers relate to others. A Nolan square is often used by Libertarians to promote their cause. The square measures opinion of government on two scales: economic authority and moral authority. Scores are classified into one of 25 different political categories, with labels that I have devised. I have also measured the voting records and public statements of the most notable public opinion leaders and have included them on a separate sheet for comparison. For each complete survey, I have recommended a list of public figures who are similarly classified. There is also a pictorial representation of the various political categories showing the names of some notable personalities as landmarks.
I will now describe a few of the categories. First , there are the Communists who believe that the government should exercise supreme authority over all matters from morality to the economy. Conversely, Anarchists are the strongest advocates of freedom, to the point of rejecting the notion of government entirely. These categories occupy two of the extreme corners of the chart. The remaining two corners belong to the Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives, as you probably know, align with Communists with respect to restricting individual liberties. They agree with Anarchists in their disdain for government's role in managing economic matters. Liberals, on the other hand, take the opposite, yet equally extreme view.
There are 21 other categories which assert moderation and nuance, at least to some degree. From Communist to Conservative, the other adherents of government having strong moral authority are: Nazis, Moralists, and Neo-conservatives. Still in favor of strong moral authority, but less vehemently, from socialist to capitalist are: Marxists, Dixiecrats, Red Cat Republicans, Republicans, and Constitutionalists. Staking out the neutral ground on moral authority, in turn are: Socialists, Moderate Democrats, Centrists, Moderate Republicans, and Capitalists. Those slightly more in favor of civil liberties are: Greens, Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, Log Cabin Republicans, and Libertarians. Finally, from Liberal to Anarchist, are the fiercest defenders of civil liberties: Social Democrats, Tolerationists, and Individualists.
Most categories are fairly well represented by our elected officials. There are a few categories, however, which lack representation in government. These categories are in close proximity to, and include, the Anarchists and Communists. These categories are considered "on the fringes". There are very good reasons to explain why there is such little representation. Due to the so-called Cold War, the "red threat", and America's well documented history of resistance to tyranny, there aren't likely to be a large number of American Communists and few would ever get elected. Anarchists, who do not believe in the necessity of government, aren't likely to participate in that which they despise. The other related categories considered outside the mainstream are: Log Cabin Republicans, Individualists, Libertarians, Marxists, Nazis, and Dixiecrats.
Dixiecrats were once a very proud group of conservative southern Democrats. This group has almost disappeared, leaving Sen. Robert Byrd as its standard bearer, and even his position has evolved somewhat from where it once was. Former Dixiecrats, over the past few decades, have now become Republicans and Neo-conservatives. This group is a largely homogeneous voting bloc which should not be ignored by either party. When they change loyalties, they change en masse.
How did the Democratic Party lose this important electorate? I blame televangelists. Please don't misunderstand me. I consider myself to de a devout Christian, and I'm not referring to the clergy in general. Most preachers are good God-fearing people who choose well to stay out of the politics of man. My focus is on the "ministers-for-hire". I'm talking about the ministers, like Rev. Jerry Falwell, who quote scripture on our television sets one minute and demand money the next. I'm talking about the preachers, like fellow Virginian Rev. Pat Robertson, who will, in the midst of a prayer to the Almighty, call for the murder of a head of state. I'm talking about pastors like Dr. D. James Kennedy, who spend 90% of their televised sermons spewing right-wing rhetoric rather than ministering to the needs of the congregation.
These men have stumbled across a secret that Republicans have used to their political advantage. The secret is that there is an inherent vulnerability in one's spirituality. Although there are those, including myself, who are blessed to have had very real experiences with God, ultimately, all religion is predicated upon blind faith. Much of what our clergy says is accepted as divine truth. Herein lies the potential for great mischief and abuse. I would like to believe that our houses of worship would not be exploited in such a way, but sadly they have been.
The church has been used by Republicans to obtain and secure power, but their power is fleeting. People are beginning to realize how they have been duped. Moreover, the right-wing power grab has led inevitably to corruption. The instances of religious exploitation are only surpassed by the growing numbers of abuses of power by Republicans. It exists at the state level with Connecticut Governor John Rowland. It extends to pork barrel pilfering by U.S. Rep. Don Young for the Great Alaskan bridge to nowhere. There is Rep. Duke Cunningham and his criminal career of bribery. There is Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon whose scams and cons became an institution within the Republican Party. Let us not forget Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff Scooter Libby, whose adventures in corruption and clever deceit will inspire generations of Republicans. The balance of power will revert to the Democrats. Americans will not tolerate such abuses once they are fully revealed.
My next post will begin a discussion of my opinions on the wide variety of issues that are facing Americans today. The most basic, controversial, and polarizing of them is Abortion, so I will tackle that one first. I hope you will find it insightful, sensible, and above all, fair.

First post

I have finally decided to get off my butt and start posting to my blog. It is something I have wanted to do for a very long time but haven't because of other interests and obligations. I have reorganized my priorities and have finally chosen to devote more time toward this pursuit. One of the motivating factors have been my complete disgust with Republican corruption and the ever growing erosion of civil liberties. From the very beginning, I have viewed the Bush administration with skepticism and grave concern. The difference now is that many of my fears are materializing.
Two years ago, I decided, with great deliberation, to drop my self ascribed independent label and join the ranks of the Democratic party. Matter of politics have become too important and critical to ignore. The days of straddling the fence, standing on the sidelines, and supporting the candidates of principle are over. It is now time to choose a side and join the fight for freedom and responsibility.
I have not only joined the Democratic party; I have chosen to become an activist in the party. I take great pride in helping the candidacies of John Kerry and Tim Kaine for President and Governor, respectively. In these two elections there have been victories and defeats, but I am proud to have fought the good fight. I look forward to this year's Congressional election and hope to unseat my district's Republican representative, Jo Ann Davis.
My first few posts will be devoted to introducing you to who I am and the issues that concern me. I will detail what it means to be a liberal in the south and how I feel the new southern strategy should be devised for the Democratic party. Make no mistake, the south is an important electorate that must not be ignored nor forsaken by the Democrats. I have done a considerable amount of research on the views of our leaders and have some interesting ideas about where we all stand in the political spectrum. My view of the political lay of the land follows the Nolan model and I will be sharing this with you in the near future. For a sneak preview, you may copy and paste the following link :
http://www.angelfire.com/va/spartopia/poli.xls
Due to angelfire policy, you may not use the link directly to access the survey, however, you may copy and paste it. I would be very interested to see the results of all those who read my blog and choose to take the survey. Please e-mail me your results and or post them as a reply to this blog.