The Ramblings of a Blue State Republican

As we are flung uncontrollably forth into the 21^st century by Father Time we must constantly reevaluate the world in which we live. We are in a constant state of phasing out that, which is deemed to be old. Advanced age has become synonymous with obsolescence. The British Monarchy is one of the oldest governmental establishments in the world, if not the oldest anywhere. Monarchy itself is a system of government, which is almost entirely extinct. In a world where monarchy is rare and old means obsolete how then is one of the oldest monarchies in the world still going strong? In order to answer this question one must achieve a deeper understanding of the meaning of the monarchy. By seeing their current place in society and what they have done with it, it can be clearly seen how they are still thriving.

To begin to understand the monarchy there must be a firm grasp of the difference in the concepts of head of government and head of state. Americans are typically not aware of this difference because for Americans both of those responsibilities and powers are vested in the same person: the President of the United States. Great Britain is not at all the same. They have an individual head of government and an entirely separate head of state. The British head of government is the Prime Minister and their head of State is the reigning monarch. The difference between head of state and head of government is quite simple once it is looked at. The head of government is the executive of the establishment. Their responsibility is to execute the will of the nation and government, that is to say their powers include but are not limited to suggesting, passing, or vetoing legislation, and issuing executive orders. They are the operative hand of the government.

Adjacent to the head of government, in terms of power, is the head of state whose job it is to be the moral face of the nation and a pillar of strength to lean on. If it is the head of government’s job to execute the will of the nation and government it is the head of state’s job to help form and realize what that will is, and if not form it themselves then at least make it well known what it is. This is why it is the British monarch’s responsibility to open parliament with a speech every year. Since telecasting things has become possible only since the reign of Queen Elizabeth II many of her opening parliament speeches can be found on YouTube. Its content is that of the voice of the people. This is the crux of the monarch’s job: to be the sole embodiment of the people, the people and the monarch must be one for the system to work and as the strength of the nation the people must trust the monarch.

Just as the mind of the monarch must bend to the will of the people so too must the people see the monarch as the moral center of the nation and adjust themselves accordingly. Lately with all the divorce and scandal that has been going on in the monarchy they have perhaps been less than the perfect example of humanity but after all, they are still only human, which is a good thing for the people to be reminded of. For the monarchy to work we are all suppose to want to be them, or at lease be a part of their exclusive club. Wanting to be a part of their privilege is our motivation to adjust ourselves according to their standard of propriety.

I can only hope that as we press on and soon as a new generation takes the helm of state that the moral face of a vast people maintains its integrity. When Queen Elizabeth II succumbs to the tolling of the bells of time, just as we all must, a new monarch will step forward. It remains to be seen whether Charles will make a good king, and whether Camilla will be a positive influence on his reign but whatever comes from his reign if the monarchy can survive it I believe that his son William and his wife-to-be, Kate will make an excellent example for the country to follow. In the days of old monarchies across Europe married into one another in order to secure alliances. Some see William marrying Kate Middleton as the official end of that practice as she has absolutely no noble blood what so ever. She will be the first 100% commoner to marry into the British monarchy. Contrary to this belief that there is no alliance to be gained here I believe that this marriage is exactly the new alliance that the Monarchy needs to make: an alliance with the common masses. Now more than ever the monarchy and the people will be one.

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II Formally Opens Parliament, 2010

For some time now China has been the key issue with controlling the two most dangerous radical and potentially nuclear states in the world: Iran and North Korea. Both are crazy fundamentalists, both hate the United States, and both could potentially acquire nuclear weapons and use them against the United States’ or its allies. The problem surrounding both nations, having to do with China, is that China is one of 5 permanent members of the UN Security council and the consent of each of those 5 nations is required for the UN to pass any restrictive sanctions on any Nations. Not only that but China is North Korea’s biggest next-door-neighbor and should feel some diplomatic responsibility, as a powerful nation, to keep North Korea in order when it misbehaves, which it often does. The issue at hand is that China is key in controlling Iran and North Korea but chooses to stand aside on the matters of both those nations.

The reason this subject comes up now is that recently a South Korean naval vessel on patrol was totally destroyed and sunk somewhere in the waters near the North/South Korean border. The most likely suspect for the obliteration and sinking of the vessel, as well as the death of the 46 South Korean sailors on board her is North Korea. Since that nation is geographically the nearest enemy to South Korea and the fact that the South Korean ship was skirting North Korean waters seems to suggest that North Korea was the culprit in the sinking. Most of the UN is in support of punishing North Korea but China, the key player in the issue, stands back and chooses only to abstain.

I feel personally betrayed by our trusted ally China. I think it is their job as North Korea’s closest powerful neighbor to stand up for South Korea and defend that nation while punishing North Korea for behaving poorly as they have been warned not to. I will go one step further and say that if China wants to keep their position on the UN Security Council’s top five members then it is their personal responsibility to deal with North Korea. The point of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council is that they are the world’s most powerful nations and that it is their job to be the “global police-force.” If that is true then China has been negligent in its duties and should be stripped of its privileges in the UN unless they choose, in a timely manner, to step up to the plate and handle their business which nations like the U.S. should not have to deal with since we have enough going on already. The very least they can do is have a say in the matter. For North Korea just the threat of China being mad at them should be enough for Kim Jong-Il to sit down and shut up but when China says nothing that only encourages bad behavior.

Little annoys tax payers more than what their hard earned dollars and cents are being spent on. No matter what it is there is someone whose money it is who doesn’t like it. Having said that, it is my contention that there is some universally bad government spending that both sides of the isle can agree on. That is what we could use more of, especially recently, agreement across that big ugly political isle that separates liberals from conservatives.

The Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, gave a speech on the 65^th anniversary of the end of conflict in Europe in World War II and the topic that took up the greater part of his speech was government spending. He publicly recognized the sort of taboo subject that since September 11^th, 2001 government spending, especially militarily, has absolutely skyrocketed. He took the opportunity of the occasion of the 65^th anniversary of the end of World War II and the location at which he gave his speech, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Library and Museum, to make the rather appropriate connection between modern government spending and budgeting practices and the “military industrial complex” which President and General Eisenhower warned the nation against in his farewell address as President of the United States in 1960. It constantly seems as though government spending is behind the times and needs to catch up. Mr. Gates also made is a point to point out that 20 years after the end of the Cold War and 65 years after the end of World War II there are still 40 American Generals, Admirals, and their civilian counterparts stationed in Europe. It requires an enormous amount of government resources just to pay that many high ranked officials never mind what the government has to spend on what ever it is they are doing over there. This is a gross waste of the chunk that the government takes out of my already pitiful minimum wage salary, which I receive from my summer job, as I am still a student.

I liked what Mr. Gates had to say but lets see him or anyone else in the Pentagon put their money where their mouths are. This is also just a sliver of a glimpse through a crack in the wall of government spending. There are so many more departments and issues to look at where there is just mass confusion and insensibility surrounding what elected and appointed officials do with OUR money. Now that the government’s budget and debt exponentially bigger than ever there has never been a better time to overhaul government spending practices and bring in more oversight by common people. It’s Joe the plumber who should be overlooking Capitol Hill’s books and ledgers not some government appointed accountant. One can argue perfectly well that Joe the plumber is not qualified to perform that kind of task, after all he’s a plumber not an accountant, fair enough, but I’m not talking about one common man. I am talking about the collective intelligence of 300,000,000 Americans. Today, right now, this very MINUTE, more than over before we each need to take responsibility for what’s ours and hold accountable all our friends down in Washington whose job it is to watch our backs.

This summer NATO forces in Afghanistan are planning an escalated assault on the city of Kandahar and the local Taliban leader there has said in an interview with the associated press that they will be ready for whatever is to come.  Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, seems to be a problem that has no intention of settling down or going away any time soon.

Afghanistan’s reputation as the “graveyard of empires” never ceases to disappoint. The primarily American conflict that now exists in the nation of Afghanistan has persisted for somewhat a longer time than that of the United State’s other major conflict, Iraq, which began at a similar time but still later than did Afghanistan. The difference between the two conflicts is that though Iraq started later than Afghanistan that conflict has now boiled down to a cool simmer whereas Afghanistan is still a raging tempest.

The conflict in Afghanistan is one that interests me greatly because it is so dynamic. Let me just say for the record that although I understand the reason for being in Afghanistan now and why we went in the first place I have problems with the conflict there. I’m not about to go on an anti-war rant like some peace-mongering liberal on a street corner with a sign, badly colored in “sharpie,” and holding a rainbow flag because I trust in the fact that what ever one’s political views may be, an American politician of any creed would not send thousands of men and women somewhere to be needlessly killed just to make a statement. That is to say, I believe that there are justified reasons for sending American military to fight and die in Afghanistan but at the same time I have reservations about the way things are going on the other side of the world.

Now to be more specific with my personal issues: I mentioned earlier that a senior Taliban official had spoken with the associated press on the subject of NATO’s coming assault on Kandahar this summer. “A senior Taliban official had spoken with the Associated Press.” Excuse me? What that essentially comes down to is that there were Americans in a room with a dangerous enemy of the United States of American (and many, many other countries) and they had a civilized conversation, which was then reported back to the world via the normal routes of press and media. What is wrong with this picture is a simple question I have to post to the reader: WHY IS THIS MAN NOT DEAD? Why is the press holding interviews with dangerous mass murderers who this nation and many more have made it their own personal missions to search out and destroy? This makes my head spin. Somehow I don’t think Walter Cronkite ever held and interview with Ho Chi Min while he was a war correspondent in Vietnam, or Bob Hope with Adolf Hitler in World War II for that matter. What I would also like to know is why does the press and the Taliban all know about some big assault that NATO is planning months from now? Did we forget how to fight a war? Are we not suppose to keep secrets in order to better combat the enemy by making his lack of knowledge our advantage? The whole situation is mind-boggling. If this war ends badly for the allies I have no doubt in my mind that it will not because the Taliban won and defeated us but because we lost and defeated ourselves. What a shame.

For the first time since the nation of Iran and its nuclear ambitions became problematic for world politics the complete set of 5 permanent U.N. Security Council members plus one other sane nuclear nation, Germany, have come together and agreed to begin discussions about tightening the noose on Iranian nuclear potential. The one major player that everyone was waiting for was one of the 5 permanent Security Council members, China. Since the formation of the U.N. China has historically been reluctant place sanctions or regulations on anyone unless in direct opposition or threat to themselves personally. Considering that they usually keep their hands off situations like this, this move by China is monumental. They were the one roadblock in the U.N. between world powers who want to control the situation in Iran and the nation of Iran whose goal is to defy as many world powers as possible, either as a matter of pride or because they themselves want to become a major world power.

Let’s face it; nothing about Iran is new news. We are all well aware of what their standing is on world issues and what their intentions are. They say that any nuclear ambitions they have are purely peaceful, energy producing goals for a cleaner more efficient Iran of tomorrow. The real truth is the only thing they want to become more efficient in is not energy production, but the dismantling of the state of Israel. The phrase “give ‘em and inch and they’ll take a mile” was practically made for Iran. If we let them have nuclear material for the purpose of producing energy, we won’t know the difference if they make it into a nuclear weapon’s arsenal the second we turn our back. From that point, if we don’t do anything, they will use it against Israel. If they succeed in doing that then they may go on to use it against some larger state they have something against. From there, there can only be one target on Iran’s mind at that point. The United States of America. World War Three is born. I don’t even want to speculate what comes after that but that path to the beginning of that war seems fairly clear at the moment. That is to say, if we don’t do anything.

Okay, fine, I am more than happy to concede that U.N. Sanctions are by no means equivalent to an arrest warrant in the United States. Here, if you are served and arrest warrant you can be fairly certain that you will be arrested and you will answer for what ever it is you did to be put in that situation in the first place. On the world stage however, if the U.N. serves you with a sanction it is really anyone’s guess whether anything will happen with that or not. Sometimes you might as well flip a coin. Having said that, a sanction from the U.N. is not totally meaningless and sometimes good does come from them. Even if no action is taken directly against Iran as a result of the sanctions at least the world’s 6 major powers are out to tell everyone they mean business. With how slow things move in international politics, that’s a pretty good start.

Last week Osama Bin Laden issued a 74-second audio clip to Al-Jazeera Television Network, which stated that if the senior Al-Qaeda official Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is executed following his coming trial orders would be issued to Al-Qaeda operatives world wide to kill any Americans being held by them. Currently there are no Americans known to be held by Al-Qaeda however there is one American soldier being held by the Taliban (bed-fellows to Al-Qaeda) and this threat is also understood to include all future American captives of the terrorist organization and its affiliates. The implications of this new threat are profound. Whereas before this, being an American in the middle east, where there is a high risk of being captured by a terrorist organization, one had a chance of at least being rescued or being bargained or negotiated for, however if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is executed because of his involvement in planning the 9/11 attacks the chance of survival for Americans in hostile territory will plummet exponentially. This is a morally complex issue for the powers-that-be on the American side of this. On the one hand is the almost fore-gone conclusion of the execution of one of the most sinister criminal masterminds of the last century and on the other hand is the direct threat to the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. What to do?

Counterterrorism officials in the U.S. have stated that this threat, though frightening, is nothing new, remembering the decapitated body of the journalist Daniel Pearl who, militarily, had nothing to do with the war and should not have been a target of Al-Qaeda, but they paraded him around, tortured, and executed him anyway. It is my personal opinion, for that is why one reads a blog as they are NOT official news sources, that the only real way to fight an enemy is to do so on equal terms. At this moment we do not fight on equal terms. This is the first war in history where two enemies come to do battle and they, without knowing it, are fighting a different war than their opponent. One cannot fight an enemy who chooses his own terms and plays by his own rules, which is to say that he has none. No one is going to convince Al-Qaeda to meet us on the battlefield of the Middle-East on the terms that civilized nations fight on so instead in the name of victory our only recourse is to fight on their terms. They kill innocent, non-military citizens of the United States and even on the field of battle break every acceptable rule of war, in exchange we should be turning an Iraqi or an Afghan city per week into a parking-lot until the cowards come out of hiding in the hills of Afghanistan and give up. Alternatively we could just turn the “hills” of Afghanistan in which Al-Qaeda is known to be hiding into “plains” of Afghanistan. That is the very least we can do for our friends in the Middle-East.

The fact that the middle east is unstable largely (but not mostly) because of the problems surrounding Israel is not news but it is useful to know that the hard times over there continue to develop. Israel is pushing ahead with its plans for a housing block of some 1600 domiciles in east Jerusalem, an area notorious for being enemy occupied territory right in Israel’s own backyard. The Jewish state of Israel building housing in Islamic “territory” has upset the radical Islamic community, namely Palestine and Iran. There is no doubt that those radical Muslims think they are just looking out for the best interests of their brethren who they feel are oppressed by a Jewish state but that notion is ridiculous. Israel may be a Jewish state but the land of Israel is for all faiths. No real Christian or Jew would ever agree that the Islamic faith should not exist, that is people are universally evil, and that they don’t have a right to live so why are large sects of the Islamic community saying that about Christians and Jews?

This new housing block that is being argued over is not the first Jewish settlement to go up in that area. 100 settlements in east Jerusalem and the west bank are occupied by some 500,000 Jews, living there since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the area. This is not some L.A. gang war and it is time for both sides to put aside their differences and agree that the land and the holy places are for all to share and that it does no one any good for Israel or Jerusalem to be divided up into gang territory. The Gotti family are not the real criminals, the men who draw lines in the sand and in the streets of Israel and Jerusalem are the true villains.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke on the issue of middle-eastern stability (starting with Israel) to AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) recently. She pledged her personal commitment and the commitment of the United States to defending Israel and to striving for long lasting middle-eastern peace but also warned against making rash decisions (such as building housing in Muslim territory during peace talks) and also made it clear that some painful concessions would need to be made on all sides in order for a peace to work. Without concessions from all parties involved a middle-eastern peace would look like peace after World War One with clearly defined victors and loosers and with the loosers giving up everything and the victors reaping all the benefits. Let us all remember that it is this political climate that gave power to men like Adolph Hitler.

Many have been looking to the prophesies of men like Nostradamus and Edgar Casey for confirmation that the apocalypse is coming as it would seem the first sign, the United States Navy allowing women to serve on submarines, is surely here. All jokes aside, as I do believe that this is a positive stride forward for American armed services, the story is here and it is happening now. The Navy and the Pentagon have come together and decided that this is the course of action that they want to move forward with and they have put the idea before congress to make the final decision. The idea is fully supported by Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates.

In 1993 the Navy decided to allow women to serve on the its surface warships, like destroyers and aircraft carriers, and this new step is just the continuation and completion of the integration of the modern U.S. Navy which began in he 1950’s with the desegregation of races in all armed services, but not of sexes. Though this stride that the Navy is currently trying to make is a landmark, other services, like the army, still do not allow women officers to serve in combat positions. About a year from now when the first female naval officers have finished their submarine training, if congress has no objections, and have begun serving on submarines, an American woman will be able to push a button, launch a torpedo, and kill the enemies of the free world, but she will not be able to command a company of soldiers to infiltrate a Taliban hideout and kill the enemies of the free world. All good things in time, I say.

The navy intends to first try this program on its largest submarines, which they say will be easier to refit for “co-ed service.” They will also, at first, only allow female officers, not enlisted personnel, to serve beneath the waves. The total, complete, and 100% integration of the sexes in the submarine service will take some time says the navy. This will, no doubt, raise some concern with the feminists that the government is not honest in their intent to include women in this branch of the armed forces and that the government is just trying to appease feminine activists. Hogwash. It has taken the navy a long time to be ready for this and as a nation we can afford to take our time and wade slowly into it, not do a swan dive from the top diving board into an empty cement pool. Patience. I do whole-heartedly agree that it is O.K. for women to serve on submarines but it is a change that I believe should be made slowly and cautiously, especially at a time when our armed forces are so busy and spread so thin across the globe. All that is left is for the American public to sit back and watch this new era is naval warfare un-fold.

Essentially there is no shockingly new news on the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but it is certainly interesting that Israel has reaffirmed what the world already knew: they will not recognize a Palestinian state under the current circumstances. This topic is so old by now most Americans must be bored half to death but I wanted to take this opportunity that was given to me by the Israeli declaration of February 21, 2010 to open a dialogue on this conflict in a little more detail for those out there who may not understand what’s been happening on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean for the last 60 years.

After World War II the victorious allies, recognizing the Jewish strife in Europe because of the Nazis, support the creation of a “Zionist State” which was something that had been discussed in the Jewish community for a long time. The Zionist movement consisted of a large number of Jews all over the world who wanted to create an independent and primarily Jewish nation in their oldest homeland of Canaan as a safe haven for their people. The ancient land of Canaan, which the Jewish religion says was given to Abraham and his people (the Jews) by God, is the land that today consists of Israel. Because of the efforts of the allies after World War II the Zionists got their wish and the state of Israel was created. This is where the Palestinian conflict begins.

Much of the land that was officially granted to the Jews as a homeland was occupied for the last 2000 years by many different Muslim, Christian, and Jewish sects all of whom had different ideas about what would be done with the land they lived on. Christianity sprouted almost directly from Judaism and the two religions are very similar so on the topic of Israel they never had many differences but the Muslims whose religion came 600 years after Christianity and is less directly connected to either of the other two religions had much to say in opposition to the creation of a Zionist state.

Today most of the Muslims in the nation of Israel live in a large section of the nation called Palestine. The residents of this area believe that their land should not only be independent from Israel but also that Israel as a Jewish state is unholy, its non-Muslim residents are inferior humans, and the nation should not exist at all. Palestinians have taken a military stance on this issue. There has been much bloodshed from both sides.

The real danger in this issue is that both sides of the argument are backed by comparative super powers in a situation that is not unlike the political climate in Europe as World War I erupted. The reason World War I got so big was because there were so many super powers allied with two small nations who got themselves into a dispute. When everyone came to their ally’s aid the world was suddenly in a global conflict. Similarly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on one side is America and the Free World backing Israel. On the other side stands Iran, an Islamic police state, ready to defend Palestine because they too believe that Israel should not exist. It is a game of international chicken and the question is: who will flinch first?

On Monday, February 1^st, President Obama sent his final draft of what he would like to see the national budget look like for the 2011 fiscal year. On the night of Wednesday January the President attempted to make it clear to us that the new budget which he would soon be presenting would show his efforts to cut back on government spending and all the difficult choices he had to make in order to do that. This seems not to be the case.

Though Mr. Obama and his administration were all very quick to blame the previous administration, due to the two wars that were launched therein and also the many tax cuts, it has become apparent that this new administration makes no attempt to reverse the problem. In fact, so far, fiscally, the only thing that has changed from the prior administration is that spending has increased. All the while, as the spending continues and grows, we hear of taxes being lowered. How can this be? A good question indeed but don’t bother asking because you won’t find an answer, at least not one that you understand. Even if you do find an answer and make some attempt to understand it, who knows if it is indeed the truth or not, as is the problem with many things related to the government whether there is a republican or a democrat in the Oval Office. The same goes for whoever’s political party in control congress. Sometimes the people just don’t know and sometimes we just can’t figure it out.

Is anyone who isn’t a government employee of some type actually going to read the details of the published budget? I don’t know that that information will at any time in the near future be made available to the public but even if one could read it, who would not only be able to absorb it in its entirety, but also understand a majority of it? No one I know, that’s for sure. We can all sing praises to the political events we support, and fervently protest the ones we don’t, but the best we can do to make any change for ourselves is keep voting for people we believe in and hope for the best. The fact of the matter is that for all the American people would like to think that they fully understand what is going on in the government there is only so much we can understand with politics not being everyone’s full time career. Sure, the FY’11 Budget both looks and sounds pretty daunting based on what has been trickling out of the capitol recently but who really knows?

It is an unfortunately inconvenient truth that all the services the government supplies that we enjoy have to be paid for somehow but it seems the argument is over which ones get paid for more, and also which get paid for first. No matter what arrangement the government comes out with from this issue of the budget we must all remember that we are all in this together and the only way to come out alright is to help each other, maintain an open dialogue on issues, and not to fight and bicker.